August 8th's The New Yorker magazine has an article titled “Dog Story,” by Adam Gopnik, that examines the complex bond we have with our canine companions. “Dog Story” begins with the author’s persistent daughter (April) lobbying her reluctant parents into purchasing a Havanese puppy. Although Gopnik is an avowed dog-phobic (the result of a dog bite he suffered as a youth), “Butterscotch” quickly becomes a part of the Gopniks’ family. Butterscotch spurs the author’s interest to investigate the allure of the canine species further.
What Mr. Gopnik discovers is that in important ways our views about our closest companions disagree. Worse, not only is there often no consensus, there is often dispute. Even when it comes to the origin of the species itself, (what he calls “dog history”), there is disagreement. When and why did dogs break apart from their wild, wolf brethren and become domesticated? Did dogs begin their domestication as our allies, helping early man hunt, or did they originate as dependents of us from the beginning, scavenging in packs for our throwaways in much the same way as dogs do now in developing countries?
To explain, Gopnik describes how Butterscotch sits by the door before their daughter (April) comes home from school. One explanation of this behavior may be that Butterscotch likes April’s companionship, and looks forward to it. But another competing theory may reduce this behavior by arguing that Butterscotch sits by the door all afternoon because she associates that behavior with food stimulus (treats that April often gives her). Under this theory, dogs are the ultimate scam artists: we provide them with food stimulus, and they provide us with the illusion of love. Both competing theories describe the same empirical phenomena, but which one is true? For us dog lovers the second theory is very difficult to accept - could our entire set of beliefs about our canine companions be illusory mirages that disappear upon further examination?
Perhaps we should assume there is some virtue in attempting to navigate towards an Aristotelian middle-course. Indeed, as Gopnik notes we can find a little bit of breathing room in the middle if we remember that while we could also reduce inter-human accounts in the above manner (for example turn love for a partner into disguised sexual appetite and love of our children into a desire to continue our genetic pools) for the most part, in our everyday lives and transactions with each other we don’t.
Besides, we can reach consensus in certain key respects: we can all certainly agree that our study of dogs is in its infancy. The tensions in the accounts above certainly provide evidence of that. In addition, we can all appreciate that the human-canine bond is rare, and perhaps unique in nature. While there countless intra-species relationships, the human-canine bond is unique in that it’s so familiar to most of us, yet, as the above discussion points out, remains shrouded in mystery. Difficult as it may be, we continue to try to peer into our companions’ souls.
Gopnik’s article is thought provoking and interesting. It is well-written and well-researched; I highly recommend it. It is in the August 8th issue of The New Yorker. The issue is about $6; alternatively you can sign up for a free trial of the magazine and get free access to the article online at newyorker.com.