One Nation Under Dog

There must be something in the water, or maybe the water bowl. Two recent Inquirer "alums" have written dog books. One we already know is successful: John Grogan's Marley & Me. The second is out this week from Michael Schaffer, One Nation Under Dog.

I happened to sit next to Michael Schaffer about a year ago when we both were invited to attend a series of lectures at the vet school. He was at the end of the book, at the time, and was working on his chapter about pet bereavement seminars, hence his involvement with Penn, where they are very popular. He didn't reveal much, other than to say he was exploring the "new" world of pet ownership to determine what it says about us as a society.

Interesting premise. I wrote him recently to ask for an advance copy of the book in case there was some new information that might find its way into my thesis and he was happy to oblige. I am just as happy to report that his book is really good: incredibly well researched, entertaining and eye-opening. A lot of the stuff I already knew about, being deeply entrenched in dog ownership. But it often takes an objective eye to make sense of it all.

As readers of this blog already know, the Pet Industry is a $43 billion behemoth that seems to be holding its own in the recession. Schaffer travels around the country investigating some of the more over the top examples of our pet obsession. Ironically, he could have found similar examples right in his own backyard but the point was to make the obsession "national," which it surely is.

And so what does it all mean? That we are a nation of consumers, deeply wedded to the concept that the ways in which we choose to part with our earnings are individualized, personal decisions that we feel entitled to make. So if we choose to buy organic pet food for Fido while there are starving children in the world, that's our choice.

And that once you make the decision to treat your pets as members of the family, its hard to take it back. To which I might add, that there were probably always people who felt that way, but for some reason, didn't broadcast their views. Of course, now that its alright to admit you're pet-crazy, everyone has come out of the closet, including an entire industry of people to service their needs.

It seems to me that the issue is tied to our need to divulge everything--witness Twitter--and that pets are just part of the things we feel compelled to share. There is also a dark side to all this--the psychological toll that being a "responsible" owner can take on those forced to make very difficult decisions about treating or not treating a sick pet, for instance, and the very real guilt and anxiety many experience while wondering if they have done the right thing.

I think everything Schaffer says is right. I also think we may be creating more than we can handle by treating pets as people.