"What is a Pet?"

The house that I resided in rural Tanzania was also inhabited by a 4-month-old kitten, a sort of pet that my roommate was looking to acquire for some time. So far one of the most interesting thing about the experience is to observe how the Tanzanian housekeeper who showed up thrice a week interact with (or, more accurately, behaves toward) the kitten. To put concisely, it is almost one of bipolarity, petting the animal and giving her attention one moment, but loudly (and rather harshly) shooing it away whenever the kitten gets jumpy and playful enough to interrupt her housework.

She is not alone in this bipolar attitude toward animals. In what was my workplace, there was a residential canine. During lunch hours, it does want a normal dog should do: go around begging for food scraps from humans. I occasionally see local staff members giving a chicken bone or pieces of meat to the dog. But for some reason, some days the exact same people giving the dog (a gentle) kick to make it go away. The dog whimpers and runs away, and the staff laughs a little and go back to their lunch. Not a bit of remorse is observed on their faces.

But then again, why should they feel remorse for the dog? The human, as the higher being with something that is desired but not going to be paid for, has every right to choose not to give and feel completely normal about that choice. In fact, it is the same sort of highhandedness that people experience from other people, in particular instances of dealing with bureaucrats that provide needed but free government services. If a human can be dealt with as such, why not a mere animal that does not have any right that humans are supposed to have in the first place?

The prevalent belief that I have seen in rural Tanzania is that domesticated animals that live among humans are able to do so because they are selected by humans to serve not as social equals, but as animate "tools" in practical functions. Cows produce milk, pigs provide meat, dogs guard properties, and cats kill mice. As was the case for most of human history everywhere, if they are not able to provide those intended functionalities and get along with their human masters, they simply did not deserve to live. And as is the case for most of human history, they did not function primarily as social companionship as "pets."

In fact, the fact that animals can become "pets" is a peculiar phenomenon not found in rural Tanzania but exclusive to the rich world. As populations urbanize, the original agrarian-centered functions of domesticated animals become obsolete and irrelevant, but people still wanted them around as companions in the absence of human ones. Gradually whole industries (pet foods, pet salons, veterinarians, Kennel Clubs, publications geared toward pet lovers, academic studies) develop out of this peculiar habit, and the habit becomes not only a social norm but also instigator for "animal rights" movements.

But it should not be forgotten that a "pet" culture can only come about when certain levels of wealth are achieved. Keeping "pets" for pure companionship is an expensive affair. Pets are unable to provide their own food, lodging, or place to defecate. Vaccinations and behavioral training cost extra money, as does any damages they incur around the house from their playfulness. The cost only increases as the concept of keeping pets becomes a method of conspicuous consumption in itself. Manicures, hair-dyeing, pet-specialty hotels, and therapies...the costs simply have no upper limit.  

The average local in rural Tanzania simply cannot fathom the idea of jumping on that pet bandwagon, not do they see why those expenses are needed. If one wants the pleasure of seeing graceful animals rather than use them as tools, one can go to National Parks nearby for visits, where animals many times more beautiful than the average cat or dog is widely available for view. If one is after social companionship, the members of one's extended family, neighbors in the village, and significant other is more than enough. Why spend time with creatures that one cannot even communicate properly?

So when seeing the rural Tanzanian shoo away the cat harshly or casually kick a dog aside, the reaction should not be one that criticizes "culturally accepted animal cruelty." Instead, it is a reflection of the economics-driven belief that animals are fundamentally subservient to humans and do not have any social roles or rights in a human-dominated society. That is not saying the same animals are dispensable, but they remain only valuable to humans in a practical sense only. The fact the rich in the First World do not share such a view toward animals does not invalidate it.