Animal Hoarding and Other Similar Pathologies

Charles Danten

Collectors keep dozens, sometimes a hundred or a thousand animals in their homes, in filthy conditions. American scientist Gary Patronek has estimated that there are about two thousand animal collectors in the United States - a figure he says is far from the truth. (1)

The vast majority of hoarders are women, on average fifty-five years old, single, divorced, or widowed. The stereotype of the old cat lady is wrong as half of the collectors Patronek counted were employed, some in professions as mundane as teaching and real estate. Among them, Patronek even counted four veterinarians. 

Cats are the favorite victims of collectors, followed by dogs, birds, reptiles, small mammals (ferrets, rats, hamsters), horses, cows, goats, and sheep. Many of them have a real menagerie in their house and on their property.

In every home, there is an accumulation of miscellaneous items such as newspapers, laundry, books, and garbage cans. Some collectors meticulously preserve dead animals. Many others have sexual relations with their animals. (2)

Researchers liken this habit to obsessive-compulsive disorder. "There are far more similarities than differences between obsessive-compulsive disorder and animal collecting," notes researcher Gary Patronek, "the interaction between a living thing and a person gives it a level of intensity that does not exist with a pile of newspapers. (...) Collectors use these animals to fulfill their emotional needs, while denying those of their pets (...) Psychologists suspect a link between animal collecting and attachment disorders." (3) 

If the object of the passion varies, according to the inclinations and the means of each one, its origin is on the other hand the same: an unspecified psychological insufficiency. Thus, the collected object is more or less accessory, provided that the collector finds his fulfillment. 

According to scientists Maria Vaca-Guzman and Arnold Arluke, "collectors do not lack arguments and excuses to justify their mania and make it more socially acceptable. This is how they clear their name and protect their self-esteem:" (4)(5)(6)

The Good Samaritan Argument

Some will use the Good Samaritan argument, claiming that these animals would have died anyway, and that by adopting them they are saving them from certain death. In their logic, death is considered an unthinkable option, any other possibility, no matter how horrible, is considered preferable. In other words, the Good Samaritan absolves himself of blame by giving his obsession a noble purpose. The "rescuers" who collect wild or domestic animals in non-killing shelters fall into this category. 

The Love Argument

Many claim to love their animals, deeply, as much or more than their own children. Naming their animals after their children or being loved by their pets is the ultimate proof of their love, and that all is well in the best of worlds. Collectors consider their pets to be an integral part of the family. They say things like: 

We take good care of our pets, the proof is they are happy and they love us back (...) this is heaven for them (...) they play ball... they love it... they don't have mange and they love to be here... did you see how this dog flicks his tail? This dog wants to play ball. It's elephant man syndrome. Appearances are deceiving. It is not by things like this (conditions of captivity) that one should judge suffering. (7) 

Other Arguments of Denial

Some deny the facts or minimize their consequences. Others try to divert attention by pointing the finger at those who take them to task and by calling them names (ad hominem attacks); they look for scapegoats by saying for example: it is society's fault if animals are mistreated; it’s the breeders who produce too many animals; owners don’t have them neutered or are not sufficiently responsible for the animals under their thumb; some will plead ignorance, lack of know-how, good intentions, a physical or psychological handicap of some kind that prevents them from taking good care of the object of their devotion; the lack of intellectual freedom caused by a difficult life that pushes them to act in this way, against their will. Others confess to being under the influence of a mysterious force that the media calls "extreme love." (8) 

The most affected, and the most resistant, employ the full arsenal of excuses and justifications. Strategies of denial commonly evoked, to different degrees, by all animal owners, including animal activists who seem to be as unaware as everyone else that sometimes it can be cruel to be good. (9)

***

This psychological profile carries over to those who are fixated on money, accolades, knowledge, and ideas; fraudsters, corporations, and investors who accumulate money for no other reason than to enrich themselves; nations who hoard information, nuclear warheads, and soldiers; institutions and intellectuals who accumulate books endlessly in private or public libraries; breeders who herd millions of animals into unsanitary, unspeakably cruel factory farms, and authorities who hoard children in factory schools to be indoctrinated into the logic of consumerism are also unaware collectors. 

« Hoarding," in the broadest sense, a generic term which can be applied to all neurotic forms of accumulation, is an escape, a means like any other to ease the tensions inherent to the human condition. Pollution and destruction of biodiversity, moral decay, gender dystopia, race-mixing, multiculturalism are the equivalent on a planetary scale of the filthy conditions typical of animal collectors' houses. 

According to this version of things, the current pet craze is a hidden form of collective hoarding.

References

1. Gary J. Patronek, "Hoarding of animals: An Under-estimated Public Health Problem in a Difficult to Study Population," Public Health Reports, 114 : 81-87, 1999.

2. Ibid. 

3. Randy Frost, "People who hoard animals," Psychiatric Times, 2006. 

4. Maria Vaca-Guzman and Arnold Arluke, "Normalizing passive cruelty: The excuses and justifications of animal hoarders,"  Anthro-zoös, 18(4), 2005.

5. Lynn Tryba, "Trash menagerie. The disturbing world of animal hoarding," Psychology today, 2002.

6. Maria Vaca-Guzman and Arnold Arluke, Article cited.

7. Ibid.

8. Ibid.

9. Patrick West, Conspicuous Compassion. Why Sometimes, it Really Is Cruel to be Kind, Civitas, 2004. 

“Furry Babies” Are Lousy Baby Substitutes

When a man is penalized for honesty, he learns to lie

Criss Jami, Salomé

  

During the Renaissance, at the dawn of the Industrial Revolution, humankind underwent a “mutation of sensitivities.” This would eventually lead, in the 19^th century, to an important change in the animal condition. A passion for animals, which had previously been limited for the most part to the lords, would be propagated throughout the rising classes of the bourgeoisie, making its way into the hearts of average people. (1)

This change in the animal condition corresponded to mankind’s efforts to civilize and moralize the general population, a slow process of taming our impulses. (2) Before this crucial step in our spiritual and moral evolution, manifest violence was widespread throughout all social strata, both towards humans and animals. Slavery was considered natural and legitimate; animals, the poor, the insane, blacks, women, and children were generally treated as chattel or cannon fodder. Men all carried knives in their belts and did not hesitate to draw them at the slightest dispute. “Fear reigned everywhere; one had to be on guard all the time,” writes the magisterial, historian, and sociologist Norbert Elias. (3) Food animals were butchered in the middle of the street in horrible conditions. Pitting dogs against bulls or bears was a fairly common pastime for both rich and poor. It was not rare to see an annoyed coachman beat his exhausted horse to death when it refused to advance. (4) It was thus necessary to find ways to heal the evil that was threatening order and eating away at society’s very base.

Animals as Saviors 

For the Christian Church of that period, to love animals as did the saints St. Francis of Assisi and St. Cuthbert was a way “to establish the pure reign of charity among men,” notes French sociologist Éric Baratay. The idea was to eradicate “the taste for blood and cruelty, to improve Man for his brothers and thus to protect humanity itself.” (5) 

Because mistreatment of animals became a sign of poor cha-racter and was then considered a bad example for children, it was believed that the opposite — affectionate contact with pets — would help mankind free itself from its archaic cruelty and insensitivity. According to this evolutionary strategy, as evolutionary biologist Kevin MacDonald would put it, loving animals means loving human beings, and not loving animals is almost proof of inhumanity. It was Thomas Paine in The Age of Reason who said, “Everything of cruelty to animals is a violation of moral duty.” (6)

It has long since been forgotten, but humane societies like the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA), which came about in the 19th century in most Western countries, were originally founded mostly to put an end to violence towards people — the link between cruelty to animals and cruelty to humans being long established. (7) 

Even the famous French “Gramont” law from 1850, which condemned public mistreatment of domestic animals, had among its aims an anthropocentric one: to improve mankind. (8) This law had equivalents in all Western countries. For example, in 1820, abuse of livestock and “blood sports” were prohibited in several American states. An 1866 New York law, which later became a model for all anti-cruelty laws in America, made it a misdemeanor to maliciously hurt or kill any domestic animal. (9)

The universal idea that affection for animals makes us more human takes on various forms across different cultures, but it is recognizably part of the founding credos of numerous societies. It has become popular wisdom, and we shouldn’t underestimate its power over us. (10)

 

Animal as Doctors

Our appreciation of animals is not based solely on the notion that they make us better human beings; it is also that they add a little spice to our often sad and fastidious lives. We interpret this as a contribution to our physical and mental health, believing that they heal us from various threats to our wellbeing — inactivity, violence, anxiety, stress, solitude, boredom, depression, cancer, and mental illness, to name but a few.

This symbiotic concept, which suggests that people’s physical, moral, and psychological ills may be cured by the reassuring presence of animals, has become known as “zootherapy” or “animal-assisted-therapy” as it is now called, a term “that can refer to institutionalized therapy sessions led by health professionals or another such intermediary as well as simply having an animal at home. The word ‘zootherapy’ is thus a generic term designating the positive impact of animals on people,” (11) and to give you the full story, I will add the impact of people on animals, since it is generally agreed that this form of affection is as good for them as it is for us. 

American Jewish psychiatrist Boris Levinson, who is conside-red the modern day father of this concept, summarized the im-portance that animals could have in people’s lives in several beacon articles published in the sixties and seventies. (12) According to Levinson, who advocated sex with animals, an emotional relationship with an animal is in itself a physiological intervention comparable to a drug. Since the publication of his writings, this line of thinking has become so mainstream that zootherapy is now a modern institution, with many such interventions being carried out as official treatments. They are “administered” by individuals and by organizations, all of whom aggressively promote the perceived benefits of companion animals. 

University of Concordia psychology professor Theresa Bianco, for example, cannot say enough good things about pet therapy: 

There is a substantial body of research showing that people of all ages derive a multitude of psychosocial and health bene-fits from their involvement with pets. […] Moreover, these benefits are not limited to pet ownership, but also extend to therapeutic interventions involving a variety of animal species. In some instances, the mere presence of the animal is sufficient to reduce anxiety. (13)

American veterinarian Marty Becker summed up the vital role animals play in people’s lives at a symposium on animal well-ness: 

Most important, veterinary medicine is embracing the bond as a vital force for not just happy, healthy pets… but happy, healthy people as well. (14)

The present height of the pet phenomenon is thus closely linked to the perceived benefits of animals on people, and of people on animals. Allow me to emphasize the word “perceived,” because while public and manifest mistreatment of animals was indeed prohibited starting in the 19th century, the use of animals for recreative, therapeutic, and spiritual purposes has untold consequences, not only on animals and nature but also on humanity.

Extract from The Globo Trickster Book

www.amazon.ca/dp/B0BQ91T2K9

www.amazon.com/dp/B0BQ91T2K9

www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B0BQ91T2K9