This article, which accompanies Heloisa Passos’ film Birdie for Field of Vision, is the first of a two-part series. The second part accompanies the film Karollyne.
AS IS TRUE of so many cities in the Western world, there are thousands of homeless people living on the streets of Rio de Janeiro, the second-largest city in Brazil. They include families, children, solitary men and women, the old and the young. Many have been homeless for years with little prospect of an exit, especially now that the country faces worsening economic distress, met with often-cruel austerity measures. Homeless people are abundant in most neighborhoods, including the upscale ones most frequented by tourists.
Homelessness in Rio is, in many ways, virtually identical to how it manifests in other large cities: It entails unimaginable material and emotional deprivation, hopelessness, societal invisibility, and utter isolation. But one aspect of Rio’s homeless population stands out: A huge number of them have dogs that were previously living as desperate, unwanted strays on the street.
Many have lived on the street with their dogs for years. They care for them as well as, and in many cases better than, the average middle-class family with a pet. The profound bond that forms between them is like nothing else one will find, and is thus deeply revealing.
Watch Birdie, a movie about Rio’s homeless and their dogs, by Heloisa Passos.
Some of the homeless people are couples who nurture their dogs like their children. Still others are protected by their dogs as they sleep in dangerous areas, while some put their dogs to work with them as they panhandle or put on shows for donations. But in all cases, the brutality of homelessness combines with the particular ways dogs relate to humans to create a remarkable emotional and psychological connection that is often literally life-saving for both.
Rio, of course, is not the only city where people who live on the streets care for homeless dogs. Leslie Irvine is a sociology professor at the University of Colorado who has devoted much of her academic career to studying that unique relationship, including why so many homeless people credit their dogs with “having changed or saved their lives.” Her book on the subject, My Dog Always Eats First: Homeless People and Their Animals (just released in paperback), documents how “homeless people report levels of attachment to their animals that may surpass those found among the domiciled public.”
There’s a U.S.-based nonprofit group “focused completely on feeding and providing emergency veterinary care to pets of the homeless,” and it estimates that at least between 5 percent to 10 percent of the U.S. homeless population live with pets; in some areas, it is as high as 25 percent. There are occasional U.S. media reports highlighting how many homeless people insist that “their animal companion is their best friend and oxygen without whom life wouldn’t be worth living.”
But there’s much more to learn from it. To examine how the homeless form bonds with their dogs is to understand, as Irvine put it, “the unique relationships with their animals and unique stories of the self within those relationships.”
Watch a trailer for Karollyne, a movie by Heloisa Passos.
This subject also enables us to better comprehend the universal human need for love, companionship and social integration; the destructively false nature of stereotypes we implicitly embrace about human beings who live on the street; and the special ability of dogs to penetrate, touch and fulfill the exact emotional and psychological realms which humans often protect most vigilantly.
Being open to these insights requires the setting aside of many entrenched preconceptions. Professor Irvine recounts the cynicism and even anger she felt after interacting for the first time with a homeless man and his dog. Worried about the dog’s exposure to severe heat in the Colorado desert and assuming she lacked food and water, Irvine first tried to “save” the canine by offering the homeless man money to buy her. When he angrily refused her money, she actually called Animal Control hoping they would “rescue” the animal, only to be told that they were unable to act since she wasn’t being harmed.
Only later, after she began studying the relationship, did she realize that dogs are often more important to homeless people than they are to domiciled people and thus they care for them better. So intense is this devotion that many homeless people refuse offers of shelter if the facility bars them from bringing their dog. They’d rather sleep on the street with their dog than in a bed without him.
For dogs, living on the street with a devoted human companion can entail little or no deprivation at all. Houses are a human construct, not a canine one. “Dogs of course need food, medical care and shelter from the elements,” Irvine told me, “but they don’t need a house. What they need most is human companionship, and they often get that more from the homeless than from those who own houses.”
Birdie insists that dogs who live on the street with a beloved human are “happier” than those who are cooped up in a house. “More at ease, more agile, bolder,” he says. “Plays more and takes more risks.”
When, many years ago, I began noticing how many homeless people in Rio have dogs, cynicism drove my reaction as well. I tacitly assumed it was a ploy for sympathy and thus more effective panhandling aimed at dog-lovers. That ugly assumption quickly dissipates upon speaking to them, or seeing them when they don’t realize anyone is looking as they hand-feed their dogs, administer medicine, jovially play with them, kiss them or be kissed, or sleep in a mutual embrace.
Humans most cherish that which is most important to them, and for someone living on the street without anyone or anything else, their primary devotion is to their dog. And that devotion is returned from the dog who also has nothing.
Physically losing your dog, becoming permanently separated, is the nightmare of every dog-lover. As a result, I’d typically offer to buy a leash. The reaction was almost universal: “I don’t need that. She follows me wherever I go. We’re almost never apart. And when we have to be, she waits here for me until I return.” The person/dog connection in the homeless context is one of complete togetherness, which in turn produces a physical and mental bond as reliable as any leash.
In lieu of an unnecessary tethering rope, they’d typically ask instead for medicine the dog needed or for dog food. At least in my experience, not a single homeless person ever attempted to convert an offer to buy something for the dog into something for themselves: that had to be separately pitched. It quickly becomes apparent that the welfare of their dog is their highest priority and most pressing concern. In other words, those with the greatest personal needs are simultaneously driven by immense levels of self-sacrifice for another living creature.
It’s common to see homeless people take dishes of food someone gives them and, despite being hungry themselves, instantly divide it in half and give it to their dogs (hence the name of Irvine’s book: My Dog Always Eats First). It’s equally common to see homeless people in squalid clothing sitting next to their well-groomed canines. Many of their dogs stay up while the human sleeps to guard against thieves or other threats, something of great value in many parts of Rio. The homeless person and the homeless dog find each other and bond in shared deprivation and self-sacrifice, fulfilling needs that would otherwise go completely neglected. The care-taking is not a one-way street; it’s mutual.
When homeless people talk about their relationship with their dogs, they are very clear about its value. Many — probably most — identify the worst part of homelessness as being not the material struggle but, rather, enduring total social invisibility and isolation. Most people, out of a combination of guilt and fear, simply pretend the homeless are not there, passing them on the street without even registering their existence. This process is dehumanizing in the purest way: They are not even visible to other humans, let alone worthy of communion. They have no societal function or role; it’s total detachment.
Their dogs provide a bridge to human contact, which individuals need as much as food or water (that’s why prolonged solitary confinement is torture and inevitably breeds mental illness). People who love dogs are often drawn first to the homeless dogs, and then to the indigent humans who care for them. The fact that their fellow dog-lover is homeless quickly becomes irrelevant.
Humans from radically different socioeconomic backgrounds often perceive one another as almost extra-terrestrial, having nothing in common. But the opposite is true for animals. Dogs who live on the street have far more in common with dogs who live with middle-class or rich families than they have differences. It’s not absolute, but in general the factors that create rigid hierarchies among humans have no impact on dogs. “Animals accept other animals,” says Birdie, while “human beings don’t accept other human beings.”
It’s thus not only easy, but inevitable, that any dog-lover will — regardless of their background — find common experiences, perspectives and emotions with a homeless individual whose dog is also important to them. The experience of caring for and loving their dog becomes one of the few means homeless people have to find a connection to the broader society that otherwise shuns them. It’s sometimes the only connection.
For sociologists such as Irvine, dogs serve as a “social facilitator”: bringing people together who would otherwise never interact. “When people talk about their dogs,” she said, “all differences disappear and people are on equal footing. For a homeless person whose existence is almost always ignored, this has incomparable value.”
Birdie describes his experience this way: “If I lie there on the sidewalk, nobody talks to me. They even change their path to avoid me. … But if the dogs are playing, they’ll say: ‘oh, how cute.'” Even knowing that it is the dogs, and not him, that trigger the interaction doesn’t dilute the importance of being seen. This relationship with his dogs enables a critical human need: to be acknowledged by other humans.
One of the most striking aspects to the testimonials one hears is how often the dogs are credited with literally saving people’s lives. The dog is often the catalyst that liberates them from self-destructive drug or alcohol addictions, or suppresses the suicide impulse, or alleviates depression, or creates a determination to stabilize and improve their lives. Professor Irvine told me, “This is the redemptive value of the relationship, which one hears over and over as you talk to the homeless.”
How can a relationship with a dog achieve such monumental successes where psychology, medicine, and standalone human desire so often fail? One explanation is that the responsibility to care for another living creature provides purpose, focus and thus self-esteem — all vital human needs. Another is the validation and self-worth that comes from the love a dog provides. Irvine put it this way: “We construct dogs as ideal beings — they love unconditionally, they don’t lie, they don’t judge people — so if a being this noble loves us, then there must be something OK with us.”
The non-judgmental quality of the dog is central. To live on the street is to endure constant, implicit condemnation. The homeless know exactly what society thinks of them. They see it embedded in every effort of avoidance, every expression of police suspicion, every gesture of condescension and discomfort even from those who stop to give them money. They’re sometimes told that they’re not worthy even of having pets.
Dogs think none of those things, harbor none of those judgments. Dogs strip away the extraneous and artificial metrics: They simply love and adore and protect those who treat them well. As Birdie puts it in the film: “If the other is more beautiful or uglier, richer or poorer, people always talk about each other. Dogs don’t.” For people living on the street, being showered with love, affection and appreciation can fundamentally alter the world, and many get that only from their dogs.
Ultimately, we don’t fully understand the human/dog relationship because we don’t and can’t fully understand dogs. They perceive the world differently, think about it differently, react to it differently. And they certainly respond to humans far differently than other humans do.
We know even less about the relationship in the context of homelessness. As Irvine writes: “Scholars have come to understand a great deal about the dynamics of human-animal relationships, but thus far the research has focused mostly on how they occur in middle-class contexts. We know little about how these relationships occur at the margins of society, among those who live not in houses but on the streets.”
But what we do know is that dogs have evolved by living as close companions to humans for thousands of years. The essence of dogness is inextricably linked to their relationship with humans. As Irvine explained to me, “Abundant research proves how dogs need our gaze, how they will look at what you’re pointing at because they want to know what you’re looking at. It shows they share intersubjectivity: the sense of ‘I want to know what she’s thinking.'”
Because they’re predisposed to have this close social relationship with humans, everything about them — their facial expressions, their body language, their tactile sensations, their means of expressing emotions — can trigger emotional and psychological responses that, for many people, are otherwise inaccessible. In industrial-age Western societies, the traditional hunting and herding functions of dogs has diminished, but the human/dog relationship has become increasingly more popular and more prioritized (both Brazil and the U.S. are at the forefront of that trend). That’s because dogs uniquely provide something deeply valuable to humans.
It’s tempting for any human being to harden oneself: to construct a rigid, self-protective shell around our most vulnerable emotional and psychological needs in a futile effort to make them disappear, thereby eliminating the pain that comes from their sitting unfulfilled. That effort never succeeds — those needs are intrinsic to being human and can’t be willed away — but what that self-hardening process can produce is fear, bitterness, lovelessness, and infinite frustration. The temptation to self-protectively close oneself off this way is particularly compelling for someone who lives on the street and has little prospect for fulfillment of those emotional and psychological needs.
Dogs break through all that. They reach and enliven the psychic and emotional parts of humans that are often the most neglected. For those who live in a state of extreme deprivation, that is an immense gift, one that produces both happiness and gratitude. Those emotions in turn produce their own set of gifts for the stray dogs who attach themselves to homeless humans, creating a reciprocal, self-fueling cycle of mutual care and affection that constantly fortifies the bond.
We can obviously learn a great deal about homelessness, and about dogs, from watching glimpses of the lives of people like Birdie and Karollyne. But we can also learn critical insights about ourselves.
You can view Birdie here and read an interview with the director here.
Thank you Glen for this. I read almost everything you write on the Intercept and it is so refreshing to read your words and watch your video on a subject that is more uplifting than politics. You’re an amazing journalist who remains a constant inspiration for me.
Awesome, wonderful piece, Glenn! Thanks
Fyi this is running at ars:
http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/10/dogs-were-first-domesticated-in-central-asia-not-china-or-europe/
God I wish I had a dog — it’s funny, I really do enjoy cats (too)… but maybe age changes things. That sort of unconditional love and loyalty must be of great comfort to someone living on the street — when the world seems glum, it must feel great to have something happy and excited to see you, lick you, and show you it cares. It’d be tragic if someone or something were to come along and make these sorts of bonds illegal (in Rio and other places).
I’ve witnessed a homeless man in the US get arrested who had a dog — just a dime bag of weed (I shan’t make judgments), kept him a day or two — who wound up losing his closest/only friend; he was devastated. We should be encouraging these bonds instead of threatening them; I strongly suspect they help people stay integrated into their community (including the homeless community) and be less isolated when they have nowhere to call home.
Glenn, I do wonder what the deal is with food, though. I know Rio has a… rather populous rat situation… In other places, this probably poses a larger problem, given a lot of homeless people struggle to feed even themselves (I’m thinking of the US especially here).
Dogs are wonderful beings–the downside is they don’t live long enough–so there is always the grief of losing them when they have become indispensable. I lost my dog of over 14 years 2 years ago and it is hard to be without him–lots of things I miss so much. Grateful for the time we had together. It was hard to lose him as by that time he had become part of me–he was a chow chow, and I have read that they are one of the oldest breeds of all. Really a special guy and very smart, loving, and beautiful.
Glenn, you’ve brought back everything I missed about storytelling. The Intercept is now the only publication I dedicate time to reading, and The Intercept makes me wants to write again.
Thank you Glenn for an enlightening and insightful article. I can’t imagine life without the animals who share theirs with me.
As a disabled individual who lives a life mostly in isolation, I have come to understand the deep, meaningful bond between human and animal. I can’t say that I’d still be around if it wasn’t for my cats. They are like my children. And when I was struggling financially, I always put the needs of my cats above my own. “My Dog Always Eats First” is a book I’m going to have to pick up as the title really resonates.
My experience is not the same as what was described in the article, and definitely not as extreme an example, but alas.
Thank you for sharing this! Going to watch Birdie now.
I recently lost my son and out of nowhere a brown dog showed up at my front gate. I didn’t really want a dog but her tail was wagging a hundred miles and hour and she insisted I needed her help. Hot Rod is now my best friend and we go everywhere together. YES, she saved my life! I was destined to lifetime of misery or perhaps even suicide had she not showed up on my door step. I don’t trust anyone who does not like dogs or mistreats animals. Thanks Glenn for who you are and what you do.
Beautiful piece, Glenn. Thank you
What a wonderful piece of writing.
I think that the people labeled “less-than” by the Productive or Rich or Beautiful Ones, the ones who are turned away or barely tolerated, find other ways of communicating or other kinds of kinship. It is marvelous that dogs can open up a world of joy and beauty to those people.
I am one of the lucky ones because I know what it is to love and be loved by a dog. I am not a religious person, but there is something that I know from dogs, something about being in the world, that gives a kind of clarity and peace.
The article is heartbreaking.
The nonprofit referred to in the article is Pets of the Homeless. If you want to help in the US please visit the website.
Sensitively, perceptively written and among your best work, Glenn.
I always enjoy hearing your dogs barking in the background during your interviews with Amy Goodman on DN! Loved the docco and the article. Thanks!
I believe domestic dogs actually reflect the soul of people around them. But the fact that some wolves domesticated themselves through learning, that hunters and gatherers could be trusted and provided them with protection and assisted them in hunting is proof enough that dogs are socially more intelligent and docile than playful, sweet and bold Felis cata.
Stray cats can play the same role for homeless people, too!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p034xvgh?ocid
Thank you for this beautiful, insightful and important article
Extraordinary to tears. This is not an article about dogs…for me this is an article about humanity. The excellent analysis into the emotional deprivations of the homeless can easily be applied to the elderly. The documentary is special too, but I find the article monumental.
Great article!
As a Muslim, I’m dumbfounded that the main streams of Islam consider dogs to be filthy and prohibited, except as guard and hunting dogs.
One often reads that if a dog, even if it’s clean, touches one’s clothes, one must change before offering the five daily prayers.
Articles, like this, make me question the authenticity and timeless application of these traditions.
It makes no sense to consider dogs to be prohibited, except for guarding and hunting, when their benefits as companions are so well known. It also doesn’t seem fair to the dogs when we know that they also long for human companionship.
If there are any Muslims reading this, I say we need to re-examine and re-interpret these traditions.
This phenomena works in degrees. Homefullness doesn’t cause heartlessness, but excessive ownership brings out the “dog” in many bone pickers. I was taught my poorer students valued their families above all since they had few things to come between them, aside from Immigration Services.
Which is why I would never share with them my humiliation, being deprived of my mother’s legacy by my godmother who married my father and conned him into handing it over to her for a future ten fold return. I knew it was BS from the gitmo and told them both so.
So, I ended up with bupkis, but I still guessed the ending correctly, Watson!! Yup, a grifting tax dodger from the Old School. Mom tried to apologize for her bad judgment in making that sad choice before she died, but she felt so sorry for the poorest of the rich girls…GM’s family had nothing to offer her but their legacy of taking from others endlessly. I never once made her pay for it, either, I felt sorry for her, too, Ivan Ilych.
But I am still ashamed it hurts me…still. Will it ever stop? Maybe the day I drop. Marie Antoinette stole my mother’s hair barrettes! Be happy the dog still cares.
OMG, I just called my SSmom, a bitch, did I not? Slipping…sorry, Mom.
I tried never to make her feel like a mongrel for collaterally damaging any home she ever tax sheltered in. She looked like a well bred poodle, but had no home training unless egg stealing counts, Faberge. Some diamond dogs you just can’t put down.
Mom told me she was a real stinker, o sorry, and wasn’t Mom the one to bring home any piece of beetled dung she found rolling in the street. If you tossed a Tiffany, SSMom might retrieve it from your waste bin, but that’s as far as that dog would hunt. She preyed on orphans. Annie, that, Sandy!
Great article sir. You see this in Paris too; many Parisian on the streets will be seen with cats. I think it’s a fantastic idea.
Deuce had an interesting comment below, and while he’s always joking to demonstrate some point, I’ve wondered (on a related) how ‘humane’ societies view animal ownership by the homeless. I suspect that much like the USDA approving of factory farming but disapproving of open air clean butchering, that gov. run humane shelters and officials would disapprove of this … even though it’s possible to argue that it is better. They would rather kennel the dog (which could possibly end up being destroyed for lack of home placement) than let the dog or cat live happily with its chosen human companion.
Big brother doesn’t always know best.
To win the trust of a stray dog is a Bingo, but to earn the rest of an alley cat on one’s lap is breaking the bank, Monte Carlo!
I’d not be swift to judge those who rescue animals for the ills we humans inspire. I appreciate the issue of having a good enough home to deserve to adopt one from them, because homelessness is the greatest cause for animal drops in their experience. It’s a vicious cycle, no? If we only cared as much for animals as ourselves? I bet a closer examination would prove informative.
Comments under the film were closed, so I will say here I thought this was a beautiful little documentary and very well done. I like the way Birdie gets to tell his story, and the hand of the film maker is so unobtrusive. Birdie seems like a lovely person, and though no doubt his life must sometimes be hard, I am sure he’s happier and leading a more fulfilling life than many wealthy people in this country.
“A young woman stepped forward from the throng and asked, ‘O great prophet, tell us how we might find love that is unconditional, unwavering and unending.’ The prophet did not answer right away. He looked off into the distance, gathering his thoughts. Silence descended upon the crowd. Then he turned his gaze upon the young woman and said, ‘Get a dog.'” – Chuck Lorre
I thought this was a really beautiful piece that stayed with me for the rest of the day.
Thank you.
And then Mr. Fish came into the forest with his gun and shot two dogs and their owner dead for cluttering his hunting grounds with their homelessness. Good thing it was illegal to bring a gun into the forest THEN, Bambi. Fish would have walked away, today, Apache-Sitgreaves. I hear you, Tonto.
I have been waiting a very long time for a good dog story. Thank you.
Bow wow.
*moral of Glenn’s story; if you love someone, set them free. If you hate someone, set them free. Basically, set everybody free and get a dog… peoples can be crazy.
I am convinced my dogs are capable of telepathy.
Suppose I am lying on the couch looking at my computer and it occurs to me that I should take them on a walk. They will come bounding in, tails wagging, looking excited. Or if they are lying on the floor in front of me, they will jump up, tails wagging, looking excited. Because they heard my thought.
This cannot be explained as they are “reading ‘intention movements'” although they do that also. It has happened too many times to be discounted.
Intention movements:
http://news.discovery.com/animals/zoo-animals/how-dogs-predict-intent-120105.htm
I disagree with the article linked above. My dogs are definitely telepathic.
Glen, thank you!! Your article was beautifully written and one that I will save to read again and again. It truly touched my heart. I share my home with three dogs and have come to understand over the years how important my pets have been in my life. They have taught me so much about love and loyalty. They have lightened my mood when I’ve been down and made me laugh when I wanted to cry. They have seen me at my worst but loved me just the same. They are a gift and I let them know everyday.
Too bad the videos don’t play on my old hardware, same as most online tubes these days..
Are you putting off buying back into this interpwnd net until they get their grubby admobster hands offa our personal property?
Me, too. I don’t know what to do when Toby dies. Toby or not to be? Is there any enduring reality aside from this illuminated manumission? Can I free myself in GCHQ’s face anywhere else? This seems the safest raspberry stand for me. I’m afraid all laptops are now hooking for G.
Damn it Glenn, you almost made me cry. You truly are one of the finest wordsmiths of our day. Every time I read your articles on politics or what have you, I always think you have the ability to convey in words everything I would want to say myself, but could never do so poignantly or eloquently. Thank you
I can’t imagine life without a dog. I feel sorry for people who have never experienced the love and devotion of a dog . No spouse or child, only a dog, is able to comfort you thru the days of grief that you may feel after the loss of a parent, friend or job. Thank you for reminding me of all the special dogs I have had in my life.
Glenn, Your work never ceases to amaze me. I met you in Dallas & if you ever need free reports from the Aspen Ideas Festival or Aspen Security Forum, I’ll assist since I live in Aspen near the campus. Full disclosure: Not really a fan of the Institute’s endless war and crony capitalism subtext. Again, thank you for this wonderful article. God bless.
Wonderful article. The elderly and homeless make some of the best dog owners. I hope these films and books lead to better shelter policies, and access to basic veterinary care. Vaccines, de-worming, flea treatment etc should be freely available for these dogs.
The Rio Olympics or shelter for the homeless, a capitalistic view of value.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-12/rio-olympics-hit-with-30-per-cent-budget-cuts/6837896
http://marketrealist.com/2015/03/brazilian-government-debt-galloped-years/
I have known cats and dogs that are the equal, if not the better of the best people I have met.
Ecclesiastes 3:21
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Dog_%28film%29
I’ve been homeless many times, its a dog’s life for sure.
Thanks for this lovely article Glenn!
Hits home the messages in this talk on vulnerability:
http://www.ted.com/talks/brene_brown_on_vulnerability
I look forward to watching the movies.
Very touching story from Glenn .What a stark contrast to the world now emerging rapidly. Poor clutching their dogs for warmth. Super rich clutching their gold.
Thanks Glenn
Selective breeding makes the dog need the human. The dog cannot help it it is wired that way it is selective breeding. Obviously they are bred to perform different functions like protection and so on. All the dog needs is the guidance of the human. Some homeless people need a dog because they need to care and love somebody emotionally. Even some of the most aggressive mentally unstable humans just worship their dogs. Dogs are also used to comfort the terminally ill. And In Japan, to give the housebound elderly a companion. Drug addicts whose addiction makes them roofless to all those around them use a dog for sympathy to get money. The mentally ill or mentally unstable often find companionship in dogs. The dogs who live with the mentally ill sense when the human is having problems and perform in a way that attempts to calm down the human. there are many studies into the benefit of dogs to humans.
Marvellous creature the dog selective breeding or not marvellous creature. It is just a pity about the human condition.
For some reason I cannot watch any of the videos. I downloaded one of them and it was just a small clip of a woman walking across a courtyard and then ended. Perhaps I need some kind of Windows spyware to watch this video.
Ruthless, not roofless.
The homeless are …
Roof-less, but not “roofless to all those around.”
Awwww… I had a friend (a dog owner/lover) who once brought up to me, how great the dogs that belong to homeless people have it — they are in it together, that is for sure. It is a special bond. There’s a good Cesar Millan episode, where he helps train the dog of a homeless woman, who gets a chance to live in a shelter… he talks about how he was homeless once, and how he therefore has special feelings for this woman and her dog — very touching.
Thanks for this, Mr. Greenwald. It’s so true.
I absolutely prefer dogs to humans; they are a better creature in every way. The homeless definitely see an ugly side to humanity, but based on my life experience, humans are almost universally ugly to each other no matter their status or place in society. The homeless are instantly rejected. People who have a bit more end up being preyed upon, and those with the most never feel they have enough and will commit any number of atrocities to take the little bit another has left just for the sake of accumulating it. Just a hideous animal. That dogs can look at us with love speaks to their virtue.
Very well said indeed, Maia.
And to Glenn Greenwald: You amaze me. I have grown accustomed to the high quality of your work. How do you find the time to do it all?
Don’t be so sure dogs are total innocents. I saw a show where they showed us how dogs put on a sad face when they’ve acted a disgrace, but it’s only for show. They know we will break down and forgive them if they abide by our judgments. Clever or just mimics?
Dogs pwn us as much as we pwn them, but they aren’t resident evil. Just surviving off of our scraps. We need to look into the mirror more often than our reflective dogs. They make us feel good about ourselves when I’m not so sure we deserve it.
Love Louse Penny for her insightful thought on psychos. The near enemies. Is that your dog or are you just trying to murder me?
My understanding of the existing cognitive science research is that reacting to pointing (which duck-hunting dogs do better than humans) does not imply “intersubjectivity,” or what is commonly called a “theory of mind,” which is the attribution of a mind to others. There is a very famous debate on this with regard to chimpanzees (that also react to pointing, if I remember correctly) where Daniel Povinelli destroyed the existing scientific opinion that chimps have a theory of mind (because, among other things, they look into people’s eyes, like dogs) by using Occam’s razor and pointing out what would in this context translate to: there are many ways to explain dogs’ reaction to human pointing that are much simpler than attributing a theory of mind to dogs. There is no reason known to science, other than what Povinelli call’s “the argument by analogy” (to your own mind and experience), which is wholly unsupported experimentally, to attribute intersubjectivity to any animal other than humans. People can still enjoy their dogs, love them, benefit from them and vice versa, and so on — but if they think their dog knows, say, what a humans “means” by pointing, they are living an illusion. Your dog can react to you pointing without even knowing that you think at all. I welcome corrections to this — I am no cognitive scientist, I just read some books about it.
I think the recognition of the significance of pointing is completely irrelevant to the point you are trying to make. Surely humans have much more highly evolved brains (much higher computing capability and better algorithms) than dogs, but there are no essential differences: dogs are aware beings like people, but with a much more primitive sense of awareness of self.
Not sure exactly what intersubjectivity is, and not convinced you are using it correctly either, but I would caution against attributing too much of it between people and too little between people and dogs. In both cases it is a matter of evolution in the sense of selecting useful abilities.
I agree with your points in the second paragraph, but I would push back against the “no essential differences” between dogs and humans in how they deal with humans. My point is that humans attribute minds to those they interact with (like we are doing with each other in this conversation), but there is no reason to think that your dogs thinks you think, so to speak. Recognizing the full significance of pointing, like if the dog “wants to know what she means,” (from the article), doesn’t seem to be supported by any scientific research. The dog has been conditioned to react to pointing rather than actually realizing that the thing doing the pointing “means” something. So that is why pointing/gazing behavior doesn’t imply subjectivity and that is why I disagree with your contention that it is irrelevant to my argument.
Silly. There are no essential differences between attributing minds to those you interact with vs being conditioned to react .. Occam’s razor. We’re not that different physiologically and evolved together from highly social pack animals. A lot of work would need to be done to justify a claim that it’s simpler to assume such fundamental differences in how we perceive and react to each other.
While it may be true that conditioning can bypass attributing, it takes a certain type of personality and intelligence level to pass that off — namely one at least as high as that which one is trying to bypass — especially when things get creative and into the realm of improvisation. Most of us can recognize someone we know just by their gait. Most of us can recognize something’s wrong with those we know just by the way they’re acting. That’s human. Dogs can do that too, of course (studies show it). But in general, some people are more different than other people. Dogs may not recognize that, but smarter people do. Dogs probably go more by smell.
Great article.
Glenn, I bet some people thought you did not have it in you to write and produce something as piercing and undeniable as this–outside of US and international politics.
I would like to think those who see this and read your write up cannot look away or coldly ignore it anymore–because they can’t explain it away so easily. Especially those who understand the full value of dogs to humans.
Twenty years ago I was driving across the U.S. with a friend and saw a drifter trying to get a ride in rural Wyoming. We stopped for him, and he had a dog. We had extra Taco Bell, so we gave that to him, and even though he was pretty thin, the first thing he did was split it with that dog fifty fifty.
We gave an old homeless guy a lift a few weeks ago, because the tropical rain was chucking it down mad. My wife was feeling gracious towards the world for some unknown reason (it’s not normal). He got in the back and stank the car out with pee!
I laughed at her all day after we dropped him off. But still, it was kind of her. He didn’t have a dog.
ZuesHasABadMarriage
Great article, I needed this. Ironically in the family I grew up in of 5 other humans, our dog Fiddy was my favorite family member. Dogs have this gift of a disarming way of relating to you emotionally, everybody knows it. You can see it in the local park whenever passers by reach out to interact with a person walking their dog. Especially French Bulldogs–resistance is futile! :-)
Thank you for the article highlighting the drain on resources which dogs constitute for the homeless.
I’ve written a letter to the city of Rio, requesting them to gather up the dogs and place them in a shelter.
Freed from the burden of caring for an animal, the homeless should be able to turn their lives around in no time. If only all the problems of society were equally tractable!
You’re sick, even if you are a troll.
El Duce is the resident satirist.
Cats are awesome too.They know your character deficiencies and treat you accordingly.Dogs defer too much,and will reward ill treatment,but of course the love both give is incredible.
Thank you.
WTF? Are you always being sarcastic? Are you just trolling? Sometimes you seem to say something erudite, the next something stupid. Answer me this B man: If I tracked your posts by time, would you be a troll or an uber-troll?
I mean, are your trying to add to or to subtract from the conversation?
(No need to reply! It’s rhetorical.)
The purpose was to demonstrate that bureaucracies are not necessarily heartless institutions that impose arbitrary solutions to problems they only vaguely understand. I read the article, immediately determined the root problem, although the article only referred to it obliquely, and not only proposed an effective solution, but implemented it. I realize that such decisive action is not currently popular, so perhaps a better option would have been to appoint a task force to study the problem. In politics, it sometimes takes time to form a consensus, even when the actions required are obvious ones.
Bless. On the bright side of being homeless, they have no metadata to enable them to be snooped by the spooks, they cannot be indoctrinated by TV or terrorised by fear of ostracisation from society, and they are already fully survival-savvy. I had friends in London who were deliberately “grey”, totally off the government radar, cash for everything, never claimed or registered anywhere, no one knew about them. Perhaps them and the bums can all come rushing down from Skid Row to save the world from the American government.
My dog got poisoned for chasing chickens. She was the most beautiful dog ever, like an skinny orange jackal with deer eyes, but a complete bin dipping food thief, wandering tramp and a slut. She was Thai after all. Live fast, die young, stay pretty. Our other dog is fine because she is a snob and will only eat luxury stuff we give to her.
Meanwhile, back in the land of houses, Russia and America are squaring up in the Middle East and Ukraine, everyone else is being spied on, and the world’s economy is collapsing. Being a bum doesn’t seem so bad after all. Maybe the tramps can start some sort of MA in Surviving Homelessness for the rest of us. Down and Out is the new Black.
Can you be a bum in the U.K.? I know you can be a bum in the U.S. but not the U.K. and they do not have skid row in the U.K. what I do know is you can have skid underpants and the skids come from your bum in the U.K.
Indeed, skids come from your bum in the UK. But you can be a Tramp, a Leader, and yes a Bum when you are homeless vagrant, and there are a special range of cheap alcoholic beverages brewed purely for the homeless alcoholic market (I’m not kidding, I’ve met the people from B****rs and they admit their Wh*te L*ghtn*ng 9% cider is just Tramp Brew and that is just one of many).
And there are lots of Bums – nearly every cashpoint in London has a homeless Scottish heroin addict sitting underneath, against whose face you can warm your genitals in the winter whilst withdrawing cash for more boozing. These people often have a dog too. On a piece of string.
The real, proper, schizo-nutzo needy homeless get attacked by the junkies and forced off good begging patches. We don’t need Skid Row, the whole country serves as a doss hole and the laws on vagrancy are a lot laxer or at least less enforced than in the States. We live arsecheek-by-jowel and have no free space, which is why we have no guns; otherwise we would’ve shot each other all by now.
It’s really touching. It also reminded me of the movie Wendy and Lucy by Michelle William and the final scene of the movie really broke my heart.
Plot: Wendy (Michelle Williams), a near-penniless drifter, is traveling to Alaska in search of work, and her only companion is her dog, Lucy. Already perilously close to losing everything, Wendy hits a bigger bump in the road when her old car breaks down and she is arrested for shoplifting dog food. When she posts bail and returns to retrieve Lucy, she finds that the dog is gone, prompting a frantic search for her pet. (https://www.google.ca/?gws_rd=ssl#q=wendy+and+lucy)
@ Glenn
Great article and film.
And the above is one of the direct, if not purposes, but effects or consequences of “capitalism” and not being “economically viable”. And I’m not sure that “guilt and fear” or some combination of the two is why probably a minority of human beings render the homeless “invisible”. To be sure that is why some large minority do, at least those with some shred of self-awareness and conscience. But there is the large majority that have been condition by capitalism, particularly in America if not the “West” generally (but to one degree or another the entirety of the West as well), to fear, loathe, stereotype, project cruelty, and actively seek to harm the homeless. That is not to suggest there isn’t a subset of all “homeless” populations that aren’t a danger to themselves and others, but in no way statistically different than the instance of the “home bound” being mentally ill or disposed to criminal acts. I’d be willing to wager that if it wasn’t for the “criminalization” of being “poor” or “homeless” and the crimes they are cited and if one were to factor out those “offenses”, the amount of crime of whatever kind committed by the homeless and economically unviable is no different than those in the general population with a “home”.
This is what capitalism is really all about. You are either “economically viable” in service of another’s “capitalist” endeavors or you are otherized, criminalized, shunned, harmed, demeaned and rendered invisible.
The 1921 Nobel Prize winner Jacques Anatole Francoise Thibault wrote the following:
It really is the essence of capitalism not that “the law forbids” rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets or steal loaves of bread, but that “the law permits” anyone to end in a position where they have to choose to sleep under bridges, beg or steal food to survive. And there is nothing “enlightened” or “majestic” about it. It is at base a misunderstanding of “equality” and a function of the misdistribution of the “wealth” created by all human beings and a mis-valuation/misdistribution of the “value” of everyone’s “labor”.
I’ve said before the US Constitution (with certain Amendments thereto) is a great document embodying some very important humanist ideals and values. But in many ways it is fundamentally and irredeemably flawed, specifically its underlying “capitalist propertarianism” and elevation of “property rights” over “human rights.” And unless and until some parts of it are replaced or amended, America will remain the violent expansionist revanchist superstitious backwater of the West it appears to take such great pride in being–as a function of its foundational “law”.
I can only think of a couple of situations where I’d want to kill another human being–and one of the few is catching someone grievously harming a dog when that dog wasn’t physically attempting to kill the human. I’d hope I’d have the perspective and restraint to refrain from doing so, but I think I’d have a hard time turning off the impulse to defend the dog and pummel the living crap out of the dog abuser. I guess I’ll never fully comprehend how some modern humans can so easily believe they are more important in the grand scheme of “life” than all the other biological entities we are co-dependent upon on this earth for our very survival. When they go, we go. It really is as simple as that, and no amount of technology is going to save us from that fate if we don’t wise up. And for that reason I’ve been struggling mightily the last few years with the decision to become a vegetarian/vegan. But I’m getting close to making the move.
In any event great article and film GG.
Thanks for the article. I worked in the civic center in Santa Ana in Orange County. There were many homeless people living there. The Police station was across the street so the place was fairly safe and the cops didn’t hassle them too much.
There were lots of dogs and all of them well fed. The “dog eats first” was true, someone’s last buck would be spent on food for the dog. Shelters were bad, no dogs, separated from their buddies and stealing was rampant.
With a dog they have somebody who listens, understands and loves them unequivocally. Believe me they would rather die on the streets than be locked up in an institution.
A wonderfully poignant article that shows the depths of your observations in realms far from those you traditionally write about. I look forward to seeing Karollyne’s story.
p.s. Had to go give B a big hug. In the past (almost) year that we have had her she has enriched our lives in so many ways that we are already discussing when/how to get another. Nothing like the zealotry of a convert. :-)
If you saw Trump walking his cute dog, admit it, you would stop and say hi to Trump.
Damn fine article, the first to move me to tears in a long time. Thank you.