Donna Haraway writes in her essay The Companion Species Manifesto – from her own experience with domestic dogs – that “they are not here just to think with” but also someone to live with, and she defines them as companion species and “partners in crime of human evolution” (Haraway, 2003, p. 5). Humans live with dogs, and in Sweden one of seven households are estimated to have a dog in the home environment (Novus, 2017). This study, with an interdisciplinary approach, takes the meaning of Haraway ́s concept of “significant others” – namely a partner in an intimate relation and in this case also different kin - in consideration and will try to understand the concept in relation to media studies.The focus is on studying humans and domestic dogs as partners of crime in the experience of programs on the website DogTV (DogTV, 2021). DogTV have programs directed to dogs and with the help of a team of scientists on animal behavior they present sounds to dogs for stimulation, relaxation and exposure of doorbells and car rides. The site also has audiovisual programs directed to dog people.
Different scholars have been concerned with animals and media with the aim of trying to break the anthropocentric approach in media studies. (Almiron, Cole & Freeman, 2016) The emerging research field of critical animal and media studies are mainly concerned with the oppression of domestic animals in for example the food industry: how domestic species are represented in media: how the subject can be theorized: and the responsibility and advocacy for animals in relation to different media (Merskin, 2016: Nibert, 2016: Dunayer, 2016: Freeman: 2016). Previous studies have also been concerned with representations of mostly wild animals in audiovisual media, and how language defines meaning also from an anthropomorphic perspective (Ganetz, 2012: Malmoud 2012: Chris 2006). Studies of dogs and media have been oriented around the representation of the “good dog” as in the films of Lassie: the representation of the violent critter as in the movie Cujo based on a novel by writer Stephen King: representations in reality tv shows of dangerous dogs: and the interaction between dogs and humans in a British tv program which also shows one of the human characters journey to become “more dog”, namely more joyful and less repressed by human social conventions (Cudworth & Jensen, 2016).
The division between human-animal is something that has been taken for granted for centuries are something deeply rooted in western thought based on religious and Aristotelian philosophy. This thought is based on how humans are unique to animals, in their consciousness and intrinsic value. Humans is understood to have a more symbolic language, uses tools and in a religious sense is seen as God ́s creation. I recent years these questions have started to be problematized, because of animal behavioral science shows that animals have capacities and performances that previously only has been attributed to humans. In a basic sense the question about if animals have feelings have led to the exploitation of animals in for example the food industry and have also fostered a view of animals as a creature with less value, in the same sense that slaves were looked upon in the American society. Creatures with lower value because they were seen av more primitive, less intelligent, and not capable of sensing feelings as “the white man” (Strindlund, 2014).
In the figure of the cyborg Donna Haraway problematize the boundaries that are set between man-women, human-animal, and humans- machine. She conceptualizes the human-animal boundaries by using the figure of companion species, but when it comes to living together, to evolve together and to have “embodied cross-species sociality” both figures can be useful to understand the relationship between animal-human from a critical perspective and to start thinking of new ontologies in current life worlds. “These figures are hardly polar opposites. Cyborgs and companion species each brings together the human and non-human, the organic and the technological, carbon and silicon, freedom and structure, history and myth, the rich and the poor, the state and the subject, diversity and depletion, modernity and postmodernity, and nature and culture in unexpected ways” (Haraway 2003:4)
Haraway writes “bestiality has a new status in marriage exchange” (Haraway 2008), and our domestic dogs now have the same care as humans in animal hospitals and the relationship between human-dogs are sometimes seen as more authentic emotionally than with humans. Dog owners are calling themselves for example “pup mom” or “dog mom”, with connotations that the bondbetween dog and human are almost seen as thatequivalent to the bond between a mother and a child. InHaraway’s view humans and animals are historicallylinked in dynamic relationships rather than just in term ofhow humans domesticate animals, and in this sense onecan start to think about animals less in terms of blood butmore in terms of kinship or affinity in what she calls“significant otherness” (Haraway 2003:7) For example,on the web page Barkpost a list of how to tell if your dogis your significant other is presented: you go to bed at thesame time, share common interests, you trust each other,you greet each other with affection and walk side by side (Fantegrossi, 2015). It is almost like a relationship with a dog is more affectionate than the relationship with another human.
According to Haraway one must though accept dogs with their otherness, and “that all ethical relating within or between species is knit from the silk-strong thread of ongoing alertness to otherness-in-relation” (Haraway 2003:50). The relationship between dogs and humans are a language game, and the relationships is based on language that is not restricted to vocal language. The focus not only on verbal language opens us to be alert to the otherness in the relationship and to study other forms of language of communication: for example, head gestures, nose movements, posture, and sounds. Many domestic dogs are often part of a family and home environment and in that sense also part of media experiences. Humans have dogs lying beside them when they watch their favorite tv series. Dogs barks to sounds on television, such as doorbells ringing and animal sounds, or interrupts the media experience of human when they come to make contact. The two species are part of a material-semiotic relationship, where one need not to be a human to contribute to the semiotic production. The home is supposed to be a place where one finds refuge, rest and satisfaction, seclusion of the world and an environment free of noise of the outside world (LaBelle, 2019).
“/.../ research in the meaning of home “repeatedly throws up the same basic terms; privacy, security, family, intimacy, comfort and control” (Morley 2000:24)
The home is, however, not only a physical place but also a place where the local meet the global and were media of various kinds gets distant events into the home via sounds and visual representation (Morley, 2000). TV audiences in a home or domestic context has been a concern for David Morley who in his work Family Television presented a study of how TV materials were interpreted within families and how TV is used in different families and forming gender roles (Morley, 1986). But what about if one introduces dogs as a member of the family as a material-semiotic actor that is engaged in entertainment on TV? Dogs in a home environment can be studied as pet that form “embodied cross-species sociality” with humans in relation to media experiences, in media that both meet the needs of the human and the dog. The consumption of television is often now understood as in flux, for example mobile technologies have changes our sense of locality and movement. Home can also be problematized in relation to homelessness, exile, and rootlessness. Humans have a way of consuming television that blurs the boundaries between home and the outside, where one can use TV in different settings and information flows on a global scale (Morley, 2000:9). Dogs on the other hand does not have the sense that things happen far way but are more concerned about the local environment. The concept of companion species can thus also be a way to think about the dimension of the global-local in a domestic media environment based on television.
Outline of a study The focus of this study is to understand how humans and domestic dogs experience DogTV in a home environment via sound as companion species. The current theories of media and the home environment are mainly anthropocentric, and the idea of this study is to problematize domestic dogs in relation to the theoretical understanding of the home environment and media experiences, and to outline an interdisciplinary method for conducting research on media experiences
DogTV claims to have growing audience (30million) worldwide and communicates thatthey have a desire to better understand whatdogs watch, but the channel also haveprograms for dog people. (DogTV, 2021)Given that many dogs are home alone when the humans are at work etc., there are studies within DCI (Dog-Computer-Interaction), a sub-field of ACI (Animal-Computer-Interaction), that are interested in finding solutions for entertaining dogs when the humans are not at home and the dog is at risk of being under-stimulated and under-exercised (Miklosi, 2014: Hirskyj- Douglas, Reed & Cassidy 2017). The interest in this study of companion species is instead the interaction between dogs and humans in in experiencing DogTV in “embodied cross- species sociality” and not to understand how dogs interact and responds to media content as in DCI. The aim of the study is to incorporate dogs in media experience and to understand 1) What are the sounds designed for dogs and 2) how do humans understand the interaction of their dog with DogTV?.
To try to understand these questions as a first step sounds are of interests, and in analyzing sounds one can use knowledge from the field of soundscape studies. A soundscape consists of objects heard and not objects seen. The concept was introduced by Raymond Schafer to better understand the sounds of an acoustic environment, improve humans hearing capabilities and to fight noise pollution in modern society. According to Schafer sounds can be understood in three dimensions: audience, environment and the sound event that consists of three main features of keynote, sound signal and soundmark (Schafer, 1993). The keynote is background sounds that one is not always is aware of which are created by nature like wind, water, birds, insects, and animals. In urban environments traffic has become a background sound and a keynote. Sound signals consists of foreground sounds that we are more conscious about as humans, such as bells, whistles, horns, and sirens. The soundmark is a sound that refer to a community sound which is unique or possesses qualities which make it specially regarded or noticed by the people in that community, such as Big Ben in London and the Islamic muezzin. To try to understand the experience of dog and human interaction one must take in consideration that dogs have greater sound sensitivity and can hear lower intensity sounds. Dogs have a sensitivity rate between 67-45.000 hz as compared to 64- 23.000 Hz for humans (Strain, 2016). So, one way of trying to understand the experience of DogTV with this in consideration is to analyze the sound features developed by Schafer in different programs on DogTV, such as keynotes, sound signals and soundmarks and try to understand the soundscapes for dogs that are communicated. Another question is what type of sounds the human experience that dogs listen to with interests seen in for example gestures and sounds. To understand the second question, the aim is to conduct interviews with dog people that have watched DogTV with their furry friends, concentrating on the themes like embodied cross-species sociality, the otherness of the dog, the dog as a materialist-semiotic actor in media experience.
References
Almiron N, Cole M & Freeman C.P. (2016) Critical Animal and Media Studies. Communication for Nonhuman Animal Advocacy. London: Routledge.
Chris C. (2006) Watching Wildlife. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Cudworth E. & T Jensen (2016) “Puppy Love? Animal Companions in the Media”. In N. Almiron N, M. Cole & C. P. Freeman (eds.) Critical Animal and Media Studies. London: Routledge.
DogTV (august 2021) About DogTV. Retrieved from: https://www.dogtv.com/about/.
Dunayer J. (2016) “Mixed Messages: Opinion Pieces by Representatives of US Nonhuman- Advocacy Organizations”. In N. Almiron N, M. Cole & C. P. Freeman (eds.) Critical Animal and Media Studies. London: Routledge. Fantegrossi D (2015) “9 Ways to Tell Your Dog Is Your Significant Other”. Barkpost. Retrieved from: https://barkpost.com/life/dog-is-your-significant-other/ Freeman C P (2016) “This little Piggy went to Press: The American News Media ́s Construction of Animals in Agriculture”. In N. Almiron N, M. Cole & C. P. Freeman (eds.) Critical Animal and Media Studies. London: Routledge.
Ganetz H. (2012) Naturlikt: människor, djur och växter i SVT:s naturmagasin. Mörklinta:Gidlund.
Haraway D (2008) ”Ett cyborgmanifest: Vetenskap, teknik och socialistisk feminism i slutet av 1900-talet”. In Apor, cyborger och kvinnor. Att återuppfinna naturen, övers. Stockholm/Stehag: Symposion,
Haraway D (2003). The Companion Species Manifesto. Dogs People, and the Significant Otherness. Chicago: Pickly Paradigm Press.
Hirskyj-Douglas I, Reed J C. & Cassidy B (2017) “A dog centered approach to the analysis of dogs’ interactions with media on TV screens”. In International Journal of Human- Computer Studies 2017 (98), p. 208-220.
LaBelle B. (2019). Acoustic Territories. Sound Culture and Everyday Life. New York: Bloomsbury.
Malamud R. (2012) An Introduction to Animals and Visual Culture. London: Palgrave Macmillan
Merskin D (2016) “Media Theories and the Crossroads of Critical Animal and Media Studies”. In N. Almiron N, M. Cole & C. P. Freeman (eds.) Critical Animal and Media Studies. London: Routledge.