The Evolving Relationship Between Americans and Dogs: A Society Filling "Life's Gaps" with Dogs ─ America's "Dog Culture" is Reaching Its Limits

The Evolving Relationship Between Americans and Dogs: A Society Filling "Life's Gaps" with Dogs ─ America's "Dog Culture" is Reaching Its Limits

"Dogs are family." This phrase has become a cliché to describe the American lifestyle. In fact, "almost half" of U.S. households own a dog, and many pet owners consider their pets as family members. A survey found that 51% of people responded that "pets are as much family as human family members."

 
However, the more dogs become family, the more they are assigned roles "beyond family." A recent article warns that American dog culture has shifted into a higher gear, "expecting too much from dogs."


What is happening beyond the "pet revolution"

The article portrays not just a "dog boom," but a perspective that dogs have become mirrors of society, behind the ever-expanding dog market involving veterinarians, trainers, and pet-related influencers.

 
Traditionally, it has been explained that "the internet increases loneliness, leading people to rely on dogs," but the author delves deeper, arguing that especially since the COVID-19 pandemic, not just "loneliness" but "disillusionment and distrust towards society and others" may have accelerated the inclination towards dogs.


The "social fraying" that created an atmosphere of preferring dogs over people

During the pandemic, many people experienced wear and tear in human relationships due to increased time spent with cohabiting family, partners, or roommates. On the other hand, many felt that their relationship with their dogs "went well." The article reflects on the increase in rescue dog adoptions and the prominence of posts and hashtags on social media suggesting "dogs are better than people."

 
Furthermore, the article touches on research showing a tendency for dog owners to rate dogs more highly than "close humans," suggesting that "dogs have fewer negative interactions," reinforcing expectations towards them.


The article cites the "deterioration of connections" in American society as a backdrop. For instance, the percentage of Americans who believe "most people can be trusted" fell from 46% in 1972 to 34% in 2018. Signs of thinning social life accumulate, such as decreased frequency of meeting friends, avoiding conversations with strangers, and increased time spent at home.

 
It also mentions the possibility that the millennial generation, which forms the core of pet ownership, and the situation where traditional "markers of stability" like housing and child-rearing are hard to attain (or less desired), are connected to the inclination towards dogs.


Dogs are not a "cure-all": The view of extractive relationships

This is the core of the article.


Dogs provide various "benefits" such as a sense of security, approval, connection to the outdoors, stress reduction, and mental improvement. Indeed, topics suggesting that interaction with pets can positively impact health and cognitive function are introduced.

 
However, if the expectation that "dogs should fill the void" expands, it can be counterproductive to both the dog's and the person's happiness. The author describes this as an "extractive relationship," where humans draw "emotional labor" from dogs. Like depleting resources, if we continue to seek emotional fulfillment from dogs, it will eventually become unsustainable—a metaphor for the situation.


The moment "pampering" corners dogs

The "fur baby" lifestyle, where dogs are treated like children, often stems from good intentions. However, the article introduces concerns from veterinarians that "increased anthropomorphism can harm animals." This is because excessive testing, medication, and unnecessary medical interventions are more likely to occur.

 
There is also a concern that dogs spending long hours alone while their owners work can lead to psychological distress and health issues due to boredom and stress.

 
Furthermore, as the number of dogs increases, so do cases of people giving them up, leading to overcrowded shelters—a visible vicious cycle.


In short, dogs are "good at accepting" and masters at accompanying our lives. That's why humans unconsciously add on expectations like "dogs can endure" and "dogs can understand." Although dogs have become family, they are burdened with roles that even family members are not expected to fulfill—that's the reality of "expecting too much."


Reactions on social media: Empathy, backlash, and the "dog individuality" argument

 

The dissemination of this article on social media varies by medium and region, but the theme of "expecting too much from dogs" has been repeatedly debated on social media. This time, reactions are divided into three main groups.


1) "I get it... I was projecting onto my dog" group (empathy)

In the context of dog training and behavior, experiences where "owners project their anxiety and guilt onto their dogs, dragging them to places they actually dislike" are prominent.


For example, in cases where a "dog that likes outings and cafes" and a "dog sensitive to stimuli" coexist, actions tailored to the former have been shared as causing stress to the latter. The flow is that a dog's happiness is not "always being together" but "choices where the dog can be calm."


2) "Dogs are animals. Don't impose Disney-like ideals" group (realistic approach)

Another discussion points out that "treating dogs as 'human substitutes' makes it easier to view their natural behavior as problematic."


The more one seeks the "ideal dog image (always sociable, always obedient, always perceptive)," the more likely the owner is to be disappointed, and the dog continues to be corrected. Welcoming a dog means accepting its limitations and characteristics as an animal, is the assertion.


3) "Tired of dog-prioritized society" group (backlash and demand for distance)

Meanwhile, there is a strong voice of opposition to the culture of taking dogs everywhere and the atmosphere that "dogs are naturally central."
From the perspectives of allergies, hygiene, and public space manners, opinions such as "consideration before bringing them" and "it's not right to naturally bring dogs to other people's homes" emerge. Here, the focus tends to be on dissatisfaction with the "human side using dogs as a shield" rather than the dogs themselves.


These three types seem to be in conflict, but they actually point to the same place.
In other words, not confusing "dog happiness" with "human convenience." While talking about dog happiness, is the reality designed to satisfy human anxiety and desire for approval? Social media is most likely to ignite when this contradiction is exposed.


So, what should be done—"for the dogs" is for society

The article touches on the debate questioning the "ethics of pet ownership" (abolition of pets), but concludes by suggesting a redesign of society where dogs and humans can thrive together, rather than relying on simple prohibition.

 
The point is not to further burden dogs with "filling the gaps" they already fill. Loneliness, distrust, overwork, lack of care. As long as these societal deficiencies are continuously offset by the "kindness" of dogs, both dogs and humans will be worn out.


Dogs enrich our lives. However, they are not devices to solve our social problems.
Protecting dogs is not just about increasing their walking time. It's about restoring human connections, establishing work styles that allow for rest, and strengthening the foundation for living safely. Such "reforms for humans" ultimately reduce the burden on dogs. The article raises the issue not of the pros and cons of dog love, but the fragility of a society that has to rely on dog love.


Source

Related Articles