The Role of Dogs in Different Cultures

While dog was the first animal domesticated and has been co-living with humans in some capacity for tens of thousands of years, dogs have very different “roles” in different societies.

In middle/upper class white (and to a lesser extent black/asian/hispanic) households, the dog is largely a companion figure, let into the house, and doted upon. I have noticed in general that black Americans and immigrants to America from non-European countries seem more likely to be afraid around other people’s pet dogs (not that there aren’t tons of black and immigrant families who have dogs as pets and treat them just like your average white family, it just seems in general this is less likely to happen).

I have spent quite a bit of time in India in a large city and there dogs are seen mostly as urban pests, particularly for the poor and middle class: they live outdoors and eat from trash cans and bark all the time. They don’t belong to one particular family, for the most part. I have also spent a small amount of time in rural India, on a tea plantation. There the family had a dog which never came inside the house and wasn’t petted but hung around constantly outside the house, went on walks with the family outside, and was sort of “their dog.” He acted like he was part of the farm household. As far as I know, however, the family never actually deliberately brought this dog to the farm, he just showed up there. However, he was not considered a pest or an annoyance.

I have many friends from urban parts of different developing countries and most of them expressed some fear of dogs when they first moved here and seemed very avoidant of pet dogs in the homes of others.

My friend is Australian and his family owns and lives on a farm. They have always had a dog, brought there deliberately, to protect their plants and chase away wild dogs, intruders, etc. Their dogs are petted but generally not let inside the house and not pampered to the same extent your average middle-class American pampers his dog.

Finally, I have noticed on some shows/books that take place in England in the early 20th and late 19th century, there are dogs that are companions and pets that are let inside the house, and then there are hounds for hunting that are all together different (eg Downton Abbey).

My theory is that when humans live more agricultural lives, dogs are useful as working dogs: guarding, hunting, herding, sometimes warmth. When societies urbanize, those uses of dogs fall by the wayside but as a whole dogs are poor hunters and generally need humans to survive, so they become something of a parasite on societies. Finally, as societies urbanize more and people become more wealthy, have fewer kids and possibly become more isolated from family/friends, they feel they need companionship in animal form and dogs become a part of the family.

I’m sorry if this was tl;dr. Anyone else have any other theories about the relationship between dogs and man, or other data points to contribute to this discussion?

You may wish to read this book about the origins and uses of dogs.

I haven’t read anything even close to its excellence on the topic.

I was just reading a Wiki article or two on this subject;; interesting stuff. Including one on the India Pariah dog, which you are likely talking about. These and other “free ranging dogs” are apparently somewhat genetically & psychologically different than your typical “pet” type dog.

Dogs as working companions long predates the age of agriculture. Dogs were domesticated when we were hunter/gatherers. They successfully made the transition to agriculture with us.

What is your evidence that dogs are a “parasite” as humans make the transition from agrarian to urban life?

Dogs evolved along us to live and interact with us on a very personal level. They are attuned to human emotion and communication like no other non-human animal. We would never tolerate a “parasite” when it’s under our control. No doubt that dogs evolved from wolves to be the almost perfect human companion, but we were participants in that evolutionary process, and it’s arguable that wouldn’t be who we are without dogs.

I agree “agriculture” was the wrong word . . . I was thinking basically “not urbanized.” I also agree that dogs have evolved as human companions, however, at least in India they are considered at best a nuisance in many places:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/07/world/asia/india-stray-dogs-are-a-menace.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

This is not a natural process of what happens when humans urbanize. Urbanization in India goes back thousands of years.

Random, semi-related thought I had the other day: Isn’t it funny how dogs and cats are our two most common and beloved pets, but if you go back to prehistoric times, their ancestors were likely our ancestors’ two most common and fearsome predators?

I recall reading about some (African?) kingdom where a dog was the ruler. Depending on how the Dog “King” reacted-a visitor was either honored and feted, or executed.

Tarzan movies are not documentaries.

Oh canis lupus familiaris no doubt about it came from canis lupus lupus.

But, last time I checked, Felinus domesticus’ ancestor was a wee beastie about the size of an average tabby. Not really a predator the average hominid had to worry about.

Well, I googled “stray dog nuisance” and the first three links included a complaint from Guyana. Interestingly enough, though, the rest of the relevant results on the first and second pages were from India. I assumed that stray dogs were an issue in all poor countries with urban areas, but I guess that is not the case.

Thank you for the recommendation! I have placed this on my wish list and when I have a bit more disposable cash I will buy it. I cannot wait to read this book . . . this topic is very fascinating to me.

Yes, working dogs have a completely different relationship with humans than pet dogs do. In fact, many problems are caused when people try to keep working dogs as pets - they have too much energy and intelligence to make a good pet for most people (who just want a couch potato to hang out with).

And different cultures do indeed have different standards, including that for the relationships between dogs and humans.

And people who are only familiar with one type of dog relationship are often puzzled, confused, or even frightened when they see a different type. It’s a clash of the familiar (AKA “right way”) and unfamiliar (AKA “wrong way”).

And the sky is blue, water is wet, and bears live in the woods.

Did you read your link?

The problem in India is (1) their sanitation sucks, so they have huge amounts of garbage around, which supports vermin, which supports a large feral dog population, and (2) they fairly recently made it illegal to kill the feral dogs, but they have not replaced that with any system of containment or culling, in fact they culturally can’t cull them because of Hindu beliefs.

We have similar problems in rural areas in the US, except that when feral dogs become a problem here, they get shot, usually long before they move up to attacks on people.

In urban and suburban communities, we hire someone to kill the dogs for us, rather than doing it ourselves.

If we didn’t, we’d have the very same problems (although probably not as large, due to better sanitation arrangements).