Indeed, they have tended to evade the issue by turning it on its head. They have not, however, managed to explain satisfactorily why so many non-affluent cultures nurture and cherish companion animals without any obvious ulterior motives in mind.
Admittedly, a certain confusion surrounds the meaning of the term “pet.” Social anthropologists and historians have undoubtedly devoted considerable attention to the use of animals as adornments, emblems of status, religious symbols, or even as educational “toys.” The word “pet” has been applied in each case. Although the practice of capturing, taming, and keeping wild animals for companionship is widespread among hunting and gathering and simple horticultural societies, it has only rarely been studied or even described in any detail, and explanations for its existence are often strangely contrived. The assumption that companion animals serve no useful purpose is prevalent in the field of anthropology. This apparent association between pet-keeping and material affluence has helped to create the false impression that pet-keeping is an unnecessary luxury-a frivolous invention of the idle rich-which is of little social or cultural significance. In the modern West, the recent growth of pet populations has coincided with rising standards of living.
Throughout history the world's wealthy and ruling classes have demonstrated a powerful affinity for pets.
0 kommentar(er)
