Numbers of companion animals have increased greatly since the Second World War, with approximately 51 million pets living in the UK in 2018 and 45% of households containing at least one pet (PFMA, 2019). However, it is not only numbers of pets that have changed, but also our relationships with them (Fox & Gee, 2016, 2017). Nast (2006) argues that the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries have seen rapid changes in attitudes towards companion animals, with a reconsideration of pets from a ‘species apart’ to ‘profoundly appropriate objects of human affection and love’. This ‘humanisation’ of companion animals means that they now play a much more central role in human identities and lives, however this comes with changing expectations of appropriate care and behaviour.

Joan Tronto argues that ‘an ethic of care is an approach to personal, social, moral, and political life that starts from the reality that all human beings need and receive care and give care to others. The care relationships among humans are part of what mark us as human beings. We are always interdependent beings’. I would argue that such ethics extends beyond humans to our relationships with other species. But what does it mean to care for an animal? And who decides what appropriate care is?

A recent study conducted by myself and Nancy Gee identified several trends in modern pet-keeping including humanisation, commercialisation, medicalisation and responsible companionship. Companion animals are increasingly seen as kin or members of the family (Charles & Davies, 2008) and integrated into everyday rituals and homemaking practices such as sleeping in human beds or celebration of animal birthdays (Mosteller, 2008; Power, 2008). Such changes can be seen in the context of wider societal changes such as growing concern for animal welfare and rights, increased disposable income and leisure time. As one participant in our study noted:

My feeling is that people have higher demands of the relationship with their animals now, just the transition from the use of the term ‘pet’ to the use of the term ‘companion animal’ I think speaks volumes. I suspect this is a product of the way life is now, people working very hard, marrying later, divorcing quicker, living more mobile lives and to some extent they are having to fill gaps in their social and emotional life with a pet. People expect a certain type of behaviour, and then if the animal doesn’t conform to that, they are disappointed.

Today pet-keeping is surrounded by a discourse of ‘responsible companionship’ which places increasing expectations on both human and animal partners. Tuan (1984) argues that pet-keeping is based upon a combination of domination and affection, through which humans lavish great love and attention on their companion animals, whilst simultaneously controlling and shaping them as suitable inhabitants of human society. A recent report (Pets at Home, 2014) suggests that U.K. pet owners spent a total of £5.4 billion on pet-related products and services in 2012, including £2.17 billion on pet food, £0.78 billion on accessories and £1.6 billion on veterinary services.

The growth in dog training is one example of this, as successive governmental legislation has sought to regulate the presence of animals in public space. Whereas once dogs in the UK were allowed to roam freely, today they are subject to strict controls outside of the home that allow them to be seized as “strays” if they are found unaccompanied by their caregivers (Srinivasan, 2013). Concern over possible public health risks from dog faeces and sensational media attention on “dangerous dogs” (Weaver, 2013) has led to a culture of “responsible pet ownership,” where owners are expected to keep their under control at all times.

Particularly for dog owners, more so than cats, a lot of owners are feeling a social pressure to be seen as responsible dog owners. Dog ownership has had a lot of bad press over the last decade or so with rogue dogs biting people, whether that be adults or children. So people are feeling a lot of pressure to ensure that firstly their dog is seen as well behaved and can be a responsible part of a humanized world and secondly that they are responsible owners, in that they are taking good care of the dog and making sure it is in a healthy condition.

Such regulation combined with a heightened sense of risk and anxiety had served to severely limit the freedom of companion animals. Instone and Sweeney (2014, p. 776) argue that dogs have become increasingly viewed as part of domestic space and their presence in public only seen as acceptable if they are part of a suitably controlled ‘hu/dog’ dyad. Such regulation is not always seen as positive in terms of dog welfare.

They weren’t as dependent on us because they did go out and do their own thing. And then they did learn, they were much better socialised and they didn’t, there didn’t have to be all this frustration because they could go and make their own choice … I’m not saying we should go back to them roaming the streets, but from the dog’s point of view they had a much better time I think. We keep them on leads all the time. You know, leads are really, well, if you’re a dog, how do they understand that sort of restriction. You go somewhere, you can see all these nice things to do, but you can’t do them!

In contrast to their canine counterparts, cats face few restrictions under British law and it has been generally accepted that cats occupy a greater freedom in the human–animal relationship and a more liminal position on the boundaries of wild and tame, due to their independent nature (Holmberg, 2015).The cat flap, the use of which became popular during the second half of the twentieth century provides a fluid boundary between the ‘human’ and ‘natural’ worlds, which is breached on a daily basis as cats negotiate their indoor and outdoor territories (Fudge, 2008). However, such behaviours are increasingly challenged as discourses of risk and responsibility lead to increasing concern over feline safety, including the very real risk of accidental death such as road traffic accidents, which are believed to account for one in four feline deaths in the U.K. (International Cat Care, 2016), raising questions over the ‘best interests’ of the animal.

It’s the difference between caring for cats and caring about them, people for cats, they fulfil their own emotional need, you know, nurturing, companionship, if they care about them they actually are concerned to make sure the cat gets something out of it too. I think that, that we have to be very careful that we haven’t gone too far because somewhere along that multi million pound business we’ve lost sight of the cat. (Animal behaviourist)

Whilst the percentage of indoor cats in the U.K. is still relatively low, estimated at around 10% (International Cat Care, 2016) this shows a marked change in attitudes, following trends in the U.S.A. where a much greater proportion of cats are not allowed out of the home unsupervised. There are also increasing concerns over cats’ impact on the natural environment, which is seen as a particular issue in Australia, where many areas have introduced a ‘cat curfew’ during hours of darkness to limit the impact of cat predation on native wildlife (Fenton, 2015).

Questions of care are also key in the medical treatment of animals. It is now expected that responsible pet owners will neuter their animals, provide them with preventative health care such as vaccinations, flea and worm treatments, expensive medical procedures and appropriate diets, accessories, grooming, day care or all other manner of products to ‘enhance’ their lives (Nast, 2006b). There is much difference of opinion regarding the extent to which humans have the right or obligation to intervene in animal health, with decisions often coming down to not just moral grounds or social acceptance, but also to issues of cost as more complicated and expensive treatments become available.

Medical treatment of animals has gone too far in my opinion. Animals have no sense of future, they live in the here and now. Yet they are subjected to treatments that cause major discomfort over extended periods of time “to save their lives.” Animals have no concept—and hence no fear—of death, only of suffering. Many animals are being tortured under the pretence of saving them, because their humans cannot let them go in a dignified animal-worthy manner.

Advances in animal nutrition and health care have brought vast benefits in terms of longevity and quality of life, but they have also brought new debates regarding appropriate ‘love’ and ‘care’. Whereas once companion animals usually served a practical purpose such as hunting, todays pets play a more central role in family life, with people investing great time, energy and resources into ensuring the relationship is successful. Increased investment in pet-keeping (both emotional and financial) means that caretakers may demand much more of their animals and where expectations do not conform to reality owners may experience disappointment, behavioural problems or relationships that break down. The question remains how best to care for animal companions whilst respecting their own unique ‘animalness’ and ensuring that both parties can live successfully in a rapidly changing human world.

Dr Rebekah Fox is a cultural geographer with a long-standing interest in human-animal relations. Her research centres on the importance of animals in everyday social and cultural life, including practices of love and care, intimate spaces of the home and family, responsibility, medical treatment of animals, pedigree pet-breeding and showing, migration, animals in public space and more recently on changing cultures of pet-keeping during the late twentieth / early twenty-first century.