In a thought-provoking study published in Sociology Compass (2017), Leslie Irvine and Laurent Cilia from the University of Colorado at Boulder explore the evolving role of pets in modern households, challenging traditional notions of family as a solely human institution. Titled “More-than-human families: Pets, people, and practices in multispecies households,” the article examines how dogs, cats, and other animals participate in the social construction of family through everyday practices, relationships, and cultural shifts. Drawing on research from sociology, anthropology, and animal studies, the authors propose that pets contribute to a “more-than-human” family model, blending human and animal elements in ways that enrich our understanding of kinship, domestic routines, childhood socialization, and even complex issues like domestic violence. This article provides a detailed overview of their findings, highlighting the significance of pets in reshaping family dynamics and broader sociological perspectives.
Introduction:
The Rise of Pets as Family MembersFor thousands of years, humans have coexisted with dogs and cats, but only in recent decades have these animals been widely recognized as integral family members. Historically, pets served utilitarian roles—hunting, herding, or controlling vermin—often living outdoors with minimal emotional attachment. However, since the mid-20th century, particularly post-World War II, a cultural shift has elevated the status of pets, particularly in Western societies. Surveys cited in the study reveal that over half of households in the United States, Canada, and the European Union, and nearly half in the United Kingdom, include at least one pet. This rise in pet ownership coincides with a shift from anthropocentrism (human-centered views) to zoocentrism (recognizing animals as subjects with emotional and cognitive capacities), as described by Franklin (1999). This transformation is further evidenced by the booming pet industry, with global consumer spending on pet food alone reaching $70 billion, predominantly in the U.S. and Europe.Despite this growing affection, cultural ambivalence toward animals persists. Pets are cherished as companions, yet they can also be treated as disposable possessions, subject to human control over their movement, diet, and even life and death. This ambivalence raises critical questions about what it means for pets to be considered family members and how their presence reshapes the concept of family. Irvine and Cilia argue that pets occupy a liminal space—neither fully human nor merely objects—positioned “at the intersection of kin and kind.” Their study explores how pets participate in “doing” family through everyday practices and relationships, challenging the traditional human-centric definition of family.
Historical Context:
From Utility to CompanionshipThe relationship between humans and pets has evolved significantly over time. Archaeological and genetic evidence suggests that dogs were domesticated as early as 30,000 years ago, while cats joined human households around 5,500 years ago. For much of this history, these animals were valued for their utility rather than emotional bonds. Dogs guarded livestock or hunted, while cats controlled rodent populations. The “pet revolution” of the early 1990s marked a turning point, with pets increasingly integrated into domestic life as companions. This shift was accompanied by the rise of a “pet industrial complex,” offering premium pet foods, toys, and services that reflect their elevated status. For example, owners now provide organic, human-grade food and enrichment activities, signaling a perception of pets as deserving of care akin to human family members.However, this elevated status comes with contradictions. While pets are often anthropomorphized and treated as “persons” with knowable perspectives and emotions, owners retain significant control over their lives, including decisions about spaying/neutering, training, and euthanasia. This power dynamic underscores the ambivalence in human-animal relationships, where pets are valued for their “animality” but also subjected to human efforts to “civilize” them.
Becoming Family:
The Process of IntegrationThe process by which pets become family members is complex and multifaceted. Irvine and Cilia draw on early research by Hickrod and Schmitt (1982), who used Goffman’s frame analysis to describe how pets are “keyed” as family members through shared histories and interactions. However, the authors critique this approach for its essentialist view of family as inherently human, relegating pets to a “pretend” status. Instead, they adopt a more nuanced perspective, aligning with contemporary family studies that view family as a social construct shaped by practices rather than fixed criteria like biological kinship or marriage.Pets become family through three key criteria, as outlined by Thomas (1983): they are given individual names, allowed into the home, and not considered food. These practices distinguish pets from other animals and elevate their status on the “sociozoologic scale,” where animals are ranked based on their perceived value to humans. Dogs and cats, as the most common pets, occupy high positions due to their roles as companions. However, other animals, such as cows or pigs, can also become “petted livestock” when treated with similar care and affection, demonstrating that “petness” is not species-specific but rather a product of human-animal relationships.
Pets in Family Practices:
Irvine and Cilia explore how pets participate in family practices across four key areas: kinship, household routines, childhood socialization, and domestic violence.
- Kinship:
- Pets are often integrated into family structures through naming practices, shared activities, and emotional bonds. For example, owners may refer to pets as “fur babies” or include them in family photos and holiday celebrations, reinforcing their status as kin. These practices blur the human-animal boundary, creating a sense of shared identity within the household.
- Household Routines:
- Pets shape daily routines through feeding, walking, grooming, and play. These activities foster interdependence, as humans adjust their schedules to meet pets’ needs, while pets adapt to household rhythms. For instance, a dog’s need for regular walks may structure a family’s daily activities, creating shared responsibilities and rituals that strengthen family cohesion.
- Childhood Socialization:
- Pets play a significant role in teaching children empathy, responsibility, and emotional regulation. Studies cited in the article, such as Muldoon et al. (2015), show that children often form closer bonds with pets than with siblings, as pets provide unconditional affection and serve as confidants. Caring for pets also teaches children about duty and caregiving, shaping their moral development.
- Domestic Violence:
- In households experiencing domestic violence, pets can become both victims and sources of support. Abusers may harm pets to exert control over human family members, yet pets also provide emotional solace to survivors. Irvine and Cilia note that the inclusion of pets in domestic violence research highlights their role as family members whose well-being is intertwined with that of humans.
The More-Than-Human Family:
The concept of the “more-than-human” family is central to Irvine and Cilia’s argument. Rather than viewing pets as a separate or inferior category of family members, they propose that families are inherently multispecies, comprising humans, animals, and even other non-human elements (e.g., microbes, as suggested by Haraway, 2003). This perspective challenges the human-animal binary, recognizing that humans are not isolated from other species but are part of a broader ecological and social network. The authors argue that pets do not simply mimic human family roles but actively contribute to the construction of family through their presence and interactions.This approach aligns with broader scholarly trends in animal studies and sociology, which emphasize the interconnectedness of human and non-human lives. For example, Haraway (2008) and Cudworth (2011) highlight how humans “live multispecies lives,” whether consciously or not. By recognizing pets as co-participants in family practices, Irvine and Cilia advocate for a more inclusive understanding of family that transcends anthropocentric boundaries.
Cultural Ambivalence and Liminal Status:
Despite their integration into families, pets occupy a liminal status due to cultural ambivalence toward animals. They are simultaneously cherished as companions and subject to human control, with their personhood revocable at the owner’s discretion. This ambivalence is evident in practices such as selective breeding, training, and the ability to relinquish pets to shelters or euthanize them. The sociozoologic scale further complicates their status, as animals are valued differently based on their utility or emotional significance. For instance, a dog may be a beloved companion in one context but a research subject or food source in another.This liminality raises questions about the extent to which pets can achieve full family membership. Irvine and Cilia suggest that pets are not fully human but are also not mere objects; they exist at the intersection of “kin and kind,” contributing to family dynamics in unique ways. Their presence challenges traditional sociological definitions of family, prompting a reevaluation of what it means to “do” family in a multispecies context.
Implications for Sociology and Beyond:
The study has significant implications for sociology, particularly in the study of family and human-animal relationships. By adopting a “more-than-human” perspective, sociologists can better understand the complexities of modern households, where pets play active roles in shaping social interactions and identities. This approach also extends to other areas of social life, such as community dynamics, where pets facilitate social connections (e.g., through dog parks or “yappy hours”). Additionally, recognizing pets as family members has practical implications for policy, such as including pets in domestic violence protection orders or disaster planning, as their well-being is often tied to that of human family members.The article also highlights the need for further research into how pets influence family dynamics across diverse cultural and socioeconomic contexts. While the study focuses primarily on Western societies, the global rise in pet ownership suggests that multispecies families are a growing phenomenon worldwide, each shaped by unique cultural attitudes toward animals.
Conclusion:
Irvine and Cilia’s exploration of more-than-human families offers a compelling redefinition of family as a dynamic, multispecies construct. Through their integration into kinship practices, household routines, childhood socialization, and even challenging contexts like domestic violence, pets actively participate in “doing” family. Their liminal status—neither fully human nor mere objects—underscores the complexity of human-animal relationships and the cultural ambivalence that shapes them. By embracing a more-than-human perspective, this study not only enriches our understanding of family but also invites sociologists to reconsider the role of non-human actors in social life. As pets continue to occupy central roles in households, their contributions to family dynamics highlight the interconnectedness of human and animal lives, paving the way for a more inclusive and nuanced sociology.
Reference :
Irvine, Leslie, and Laurent Cilia. “More‐than‐human families: Pets, people, and practices in multispecies households.” Sociology compass 11.2 (2017): e12455.
Blouin, David D. “Understanding relations between people and their pets.” Sociology Compass 6.11 (2012): 856-869.