You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
A changing rationality about the human—canine bond has begun slowly to emerge as new forms of knowledge become popularized regarding the unique relationship between dogs and people. Sadly, many age-old misperceptions and myths about this bond are perpetuated as much by academics as by publishers of dog magazines, breeders, dog trainers, walkers, and humane society attendants. Many academics and psychotherapists continue to adhere to (what I term) “Freudian substitution theory.” As originally expounded by Freud's followers, the human—canine relationship is regarded as a substitute for other human relationships. Most often, the inference is that human relationships with dogs substitute for those with human mates and/or children; these bonds with pets are assumed to be inferior relationships to “real” relationships with people. As a result of the widespread belief in the Freudian substitution theory, many analysts have pathologized their patients' relationships with their animals, and, in some instances, pathologized their own. In contrast, Gerry Genosko's (1993) work on Freud's ideas on dogs and humans has in part positively influenced my own findings.
James Serpell (1986), a British researcher in biology and zoology, who dedicated much of his research to the study of human—animal relationships, pointed out that although there are many theories and preconceived ideas about why we have pets,