Western attitudes to dogs differ from eastern attitudes.
This is most obvious in the acceptance of dogs being used as a food source in
some eastern cultures whereas it is absolutely taboo in the west, but that
particular attitude is a topic for another day.
Another attitude difference that seems especially important
to the stray dog issue is that westerners believe that a dog’s place is as an
owned animal and nowhere else, whether that be as a pet or a working dog. This
means that any unowned dog is out of place and therefore “stray”. It becomes a
“problem” and needs to be “dealt with”. And the assumption is that everybody else
feels the same way. This is fine in the western context but things are
different in the east where unowned dogs have been an accepted part of village
life for centuries and they are not looked at as being “stray” at all – they are
just there, doing what they always have done.
“West” and “East” are being used here quite loosely and the
difference in attitude to dogs is perhaps also related to temperate versus
equatorial regions.
With increasing contact with the West there has been a
gradual shift over the years in how people in east Asia view dogs. It is by no
means complete but it is particularly noticeable in middle class urban
communities where this western attitude has been embraced. I don’t believe that
this is a conscious change, more the effect of exposure to sometimes quite
forcefully expressed western opinion combined with a general increase in dog
ownership.
To me this represents a loss of culture. Having lost touch
with more rural village life, Asian city dwellers are adopting many imported
attitudes and their view of dogs is one of them that does not fit their own
country’s history.
Again, let me be clear, I am not suggesting that ex-pets are
anything other than a problem and I never condone their abandonment. I am
talking about dogs that have lived without human owners for many, many
generations, arguably ever since dogs first came into being. These are the
animals that people from the West refuse to acknowledge as having a legitimate
role in the world.
Having lived in Thailand for 15 years I have to accept that
I am part of this process of westernization but having gained insight into the
life of dogs in the south-east Asian context I am uncomfortable at the arrogance
with which we foreigners impose our views despite clear evidence to the contrary.
In the case of dogs we force what we see to fit our own model and promote our own
cultural beliefs as indisputably right.
I believe that part of the reason for this particular change
in attitude is that even the Asians who have not yet been westernized are not
especially attached to village dogs. Individuals may be very closely attached
to certain unowned dogs but not to the idea of free-ranging dogs in general
terms. Also, there is no particular interest in defining whether a dog is owned
or not. The concept of free-ranging dogs is simply not important in people’s
lives and there is no reason why it should be, but this does make it
susceptible to change in the face of more forcefully held beliefs.
However, it is important to me because I see the village dog
story as fundamental to the role and history of dogs in our world, and I will
continue to argue that in the right context many unowned dogs are in no sense
“stray”.
My aim is for people to acknowledge that unowned dogs do
have a rightful place in the world and then learn to appreciate them as the beautifully
adapted animals that they are. This is clearly going against the tide somewhat and,
in effect, would mean a partial easternization of western attitude.
No comments:
Post a Comment