Contra Canem
Against the Dog
Dogs have often been justly condemned for epitomizing many of the most
vile aspects of human psychology. A cringing, slavish obedience to
hierarchical authority has made dogs useful for human purposes, and has
even been exalted by the terms of loyalty and faithfulness. Need it
still be pointed out, however, that one may be faithful and loyal to an
evil master, as well as to a good one? These terms convey no meaning
beyond a mindless subjugation of the self to an authority, and being
present in an entity devoid of sense or reason, are more likely to be
exploited for dark purposes than anything else. What sort of powers
seek minions and loyal subjects? What types flee systems of domination
and subjugation? Dogs are pack animals, marked by all the psychic
characteristics necessary to form hierarchical social systems based on
domination, rank, and subjugation. The facility with which this canine
psychology is assimilated to human purposes presents a disturbing
prospect for anyone concerned with human freedoms, autonomy and dignity.
Aside from their despicable tendencies towards mindless obedience, dogs
are also worthy of total condemnation for another lamentable
characteristic- their ostentatious displays of outward aggression that
serve only to mask a contemptible, abject cowardice and craven,
timorous fear. Many times I have observed how a neighborhood dog, which
ferociously barks, howls, and bares its sloppy fangs at anyone who
walks past its fenced yard, will, once it has jumped out of its
enclosure for a nocturnal ramble, behave with the most timorous and
demure circumspection towards anyone whom it encounters. Also, I had
always been much troubled by dogs in my country walks, until a friend
taught me the following trick, which will often drive them off. Upon
encountering a ferocious barking dog, it often suffices merely to stoop
over and pretend to look
for a stone, in order to send the cowardly beast scurrying away. I have
often been delighted to observe an aggravated, snarling, salivating dog
to flee in abject terror, as soon as I began to mimic the action
of looking for a rock, even in a grassy area devoid of potential
missiles. This combination of outward, ostentatious, and frivolous
shows of aggression, masking over an innate cowardice and fear, is
surely worthy of total condemnation and distain.
Dogs also display a despicable xenophobia and neophobia, a fear of
strangers or anything new, which can easily verge into outright racism.
Their reaction to anything new or different is one of fear and
hostility. Their idiotic, groveling, abortive intellects often impel
them into protracted fits of howling, induced by the most ludicrous of
causes, - a shadow, a breeze or a passing car. It is this
characteristic of dogs in particular that allies them to the very worst
in human behavior. Dogs also had a prominent role to play in the
oppression of African Americans, both in hunting down and
occasionally tearing to pieces escaped slaves, as well as in attacking
and threatening protesters of segregation. Also, the snarling German
Shepherd was a necessary adjunct to the most horrific of the Nazi einsatzgruppen. It is no difficult matter to see how canine psychology fits perfectly into purposes of authoritarian, oppressive regimes.
Aside from these gaping psychological deficits, dogs also prevent a
vast array of behavioral abominations almost too numerous to be
mentioned, and too appalling to contemplate, or describe in decent
language. There is no reason, however, to limit ourselves to polite or
domestic terminology when describing the utterly vile, stank,
abhorrent, and abominable personal habits of these loathsome beasts.
The ingestion of their own foul vomit and shit forms one of the
highlights of their quotidian existence. The snorting and sniffing of
the rank, shit-encrusted rectums of their fellows is a principle
delight, and is often followed by a moist, slobbery lapping of their
human owner's eager, adoring faces. The putrefying carcass of an
enfungated seal on a beach is a cherished site for eager rolling,
pawing and lapping, and the bloated, maggot ridden carcass of a
roadkilled opossum serves as a personal perfume avidly to be sought
out. Unlike most other animals, dogs are indiscriminate in their
shitting, even seeming to perform this operation in especially
prominent localities, as if flaunting the festering fecal foulness of
which they are capable. These rectum-lapping, leg-humping, corpse
wallowing, slobbery, wailing sacks of useless protoplasm present, in
all aspects of their psychology, behavior and appearance, a spectacle
of such total, abject abhorrence and despicability, that their
continued existence forms somewhat of a mystery.
I began to contemplate and to search out a solution to this mystery,
when, upon raising the above objections to my dog-owning friends, I was
frequently met by the same response - "Yes, but isn't he so cute?" I
also observed that many popular types of dogs seemed to have been bred
especially to magnify this characteristic of cuteness. Now, nowhere in
my reading have I encountered any serious discussion on the nature of
cuteness, which forms such a popular part of the popular aesthetic.
Vast industries are devoted to pandering to it, and significant
proportions of the world economy relate to it. Automakers were
astounded by the revelation that cuteness was a significant factor in a
woman's choice of car. All sorts of domestic appurtenances strive among
one another to achieve maximal cuteness, and thus, desirability. But
what is cuteness, and why is it such a powerful transcultural force in
global aesthetics? Why is it that standards of beauty vary by culture,
but not standards of cuteness? Why, above all else, has there been no
discussion of what cuteness really is? I think the discussion has
failed to occur because the implications are so disturbing, and so
obvious.
The characteristics of cute objects
are no difficult to enumerate. Large, widely spaced eyes, and a small
nose and mouth, coupled with a general ineptness or awkwardness of
movement. No great leap of intellection is required to discern that
these characteristics pertain principally to the young offspring of our
own species. Cuteness is essentially closeness to foetal or neotenic
facial characteristics. It seems obvious that the reason why humans
have this intense, trans-cultural appreciation of cuteness, is purely
genetic and evolutionary, rather than cultural. Humans, and perhaps
also other creatures, have evolved an appreciation for neotenic
features (cuteness) so that they love, take care of, and are protective
and covetous of their own young. Thus cuteness is not a true aesthetic
category like beauty or sublimity, but merely the genetic result of
evolutionary programming, like the lust men feel for big breasts, or
tallness and strength women. Those familiar with the revolting habits
of human infants, with their despicable neediness and lack of
self-reliance, their incessant whining, writhing and defecation, their
aggravating, ceaseless squalling and squirming will readily appreciate
how cuteness forms the first defense of these otherwise hateful
beings, against the immediate destruction they would otherwise so
readily merit.
In civilized culture, the
care of infants is recognized as essential to the continuation of the
society and the species, but in the barbaric, tribal, and
quasi-bestial conditions in which the vast majority of human evolution
occurred, infants must have occupied a far more precarious position. A
first-time mother might be disinclined to foster a new infant, were it
no so adorably cute. A powerful male, fresh back in camp after
slaughtering the mighty mastodon, might be tempted, both for genetic,
and sleep-facilitating purposes, to crush the frail skulls of his
rival's offspring, were they no imperviously armored by cuteness. The
human love of cuteness is certainly not among those innate behaviors
theorists must speculate endlessly to explicate. It is easy to see that
this love of infantile features is merely a pre-programmed, hardwired,
genetic behavior, ingrained by evolution. In essence, cuteness is the
strategy evolved by massively aggravating, whiny, stinking, needy,
puking creatures to evade the death they would otherwise so rapidly
meet at the hands of exhausted, sleep-deprived, eternally harassed
adults.
But while the evolutionary purpose of
the cuteness aesthetic is almost risibly easy to discern, its
application to other aspects of human behavior is hardly a joke. For
the simple reasons of biological ontogeny, many other animals, and in
particular many other animal's young, appear cute to us. When we see a
passerby fawning over a puppy or kitten, or dandling some infantile
hampster or mouse, anyone possessing Darwinian insight can perceive a
sort of awkward misfiring or misapplication of basic human evolutionary
programming. It is my contention that several organisms, dogs in
particular, have exploited the human cuteness aesthetic for essentially
parasitic purposes. They have used their own accidental resemblance to
human infants to propagate themselves throughout human societies. Thus,
like lice, tapeworms, scabies or botflies, dogs are one of the many
species that have evolved to parasitize humans. But unlike the
invertebrate parasites of humans, dogs have attached to human
psychology, rather than to human morphology. Perhaps many domestic
animals could be seen as having a parasitic relation to humans. Cows,
sheep or chickens could never have achieved such numbers without human
cultivation, but their dismal fates indicate that their relation to
humans is not purely parasitical. Dogs, by contrast, at least in most
non-Chinese zones, seem to have a more purely parasitical relation to
their human hosts. At first the relationship was probably purely
parasitic, as orphaned wolf young were adopted by susceptible humans,
solely on account of their cuteness. Later these pets grew to preform
more vital functions of protection and hunting aid, making their
relation to humans a mutualistic one. But in more modern times, the
parasitic aspect of human-canine relationships has re-asserted itself,
as dogs came to be retained solely as pets. The cutest forms were most
propagated, and multiplied and adored, by their human hosts.
Thus bearing this evolutionary understanding of canines in mind, it
becomes clear that the only reason this insufferably foul, degenerate
species has thrived, is because of a parasitic exploitation of the
human aesthetic of cuteness. Once this fact is made clear, the way is
prepared for the violent, bloody extermination of all dogs, which must
inevitably follow from a true understanding of their evolutionary
origin, and a just apprehension of their manifold aesthetic and
behavioral deficits.