Donna Haraway’s work ‘Companion Species Manifesto’ is a book that focuses on the implosion of culture and the nature of the relationship between people and dogs who are connected in significant otherness. Following the dog’s historical complexity, as Haraway puts it, does matter. The human and dog relationship, as she defines it, is both adaptable and historical. She adds that dogs are not just surrogates for theory, nor are they there just to think.
In the book, Haraway argues that the bond between humans and dogs can bring to the light something profound on the significance of acknowledging the intricacy of all beings, each natured in an environment containing different values, history, cultures, and materiality (Haraway, 2003). Cross-species companionship entails considering both dogs and human subjects and taking notice of each other, creating a reliable and significant rapport. The relationship between humans and dogs, more so those bred for specific duties and tasks, is something she finds more appreciatable.
Drawing upon doggie magazines and meta-histories, Haraway drives a point home partly by revealing to us the association between her and her dogs-Roland and Peeper, in agile training. Harraway acknowledges that such a tight relationship can ideally exist where both dog and trainer have a deeply respectful and trustful bond but respect the existing hierarchy coupled with clearly enforced rules. Using different dog stories, Haraway shows how these differences can be mended and cultivated concerning each dog’s history, which may be associated with colonial inequalities and violence. In Haraway’s work, a few strengths stand out. 0ne, she is deeply aware that dogs are complex with varieties of histories and biopower (Nast, 2011). In addition, she also brings a trivial self to scrutiny using her essays that deal with dogs. At some point, the author ascends that she desired to bear an offspring of another species other than humans (p96).
A few class-inflected and radicalized questions pop up upon imploring Haraway’s essay (Haraway, 2003). It is certainly ambiguous what she implies by saying that middle-class white women dominate agility sports. Can it be possible for one to have a good relationship with a dog and still use it to trace enemies in a war or even slaves? Can such a close species companionship exist between humans and animals in places where the animals are the overworked parties alongside humans? To which sectors of the society and cultures does she intend her message?
On top of this, other major questions can be identified. First, who is responsible to articulate these kinds of relationships that do not cross ways with use of dogs as domestic pets? There is need for more respect to the animals kept as pets and the individuals who perform the task of creating the good relationships with the pets. The individuals perform hard tasks to rare and raise dogs as domestic pets as a result of high job demands. The pet keepers must possess or other adjust to particular personalities such as self-control, skills to manage and control the emotions found in the canine classes, with cognitive skills to cope up with the good working and professional dogs. Similarly, more suspense also goes to the doggie-loving masses who support the developing pet industries and witness the propagating doggie bakeries, beddings and insurance plans.
Do they not treat their dogs as little children by buying in these industries? These are players held up in postindustrial products circles of consumption and interests included in highly technical and modern family organizations where children are not a must. The dogs give all varieties of alternative roles and love (Nast, 2011). Given that Haraway’s view on otherness does not propagate in accordance with product chains, it seems that there is a wide need for development of institutions to tuition humans on how to be partners of greater processes in the historical divines as quoted; “Dog people need to learn how to inherit difficult histories in order to shape more vital multi-species futures,” on pg. 63.
On the other hand, why does Haraway find dogs as appropriate vehicles for teaching humans about virtues necessary for a cordial societal existence like trust, cooperation and respect? Is it because she has an opportunity to own dogs and engages in them in various activities such as agile training? Does she argue that dogs best provide the much-needed human companion because they are simply common amongst the domesticated human species? Because unlike other pets like birds, cats, and rabbits, they are robotically fascinating and courageous creatures? Thirdly, does she imply that we all have the vital energy and capabilities to equally coherent dogs in their engaging endeavors to bring home their success? It is common thoughts that keep pushing every man to ask about the sense of leaving behind the humans and their abilities and multitasking strengths at the expense of dogs for companionship purposes (Haraway, 2003).
From the above arguments, it is crystal clear that dogs provide a necessary and beneficial companionship for humans. They act as pets to many pet lovers in the country and across the world. They also engage in fun and leisure activities such as herding. In addition to this, they provide security, guide services, and act as police tools for enhancing the role of law. Dogs also bring joy to the lonely, help us deal with a crisis, make us more social, help us deal with stress, promote our virtual attractiveness as human beings, and give us the energy to move on even in the face of tribulations. Dogs are indeed an asset to human mental and physical health.
References
Nast, H. (2011). Book Review: The companion species manifesto: dogs, people, and significant otherness. Hal.archives-ouvertes.fr. Retrieved 14 March 2022, from https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00571981/document.
Haraway, D. (2003). The Companion Species Manifesto. University of Chicago Press. Retrieved 14 March 2022, from https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/distributed/C/bo3645022.html.
write