Five Bone Bookshop

The New Work of Dogs: A Review

by RuffWriter

Bounding down the driveway ahead of my Significant Human, I urgently sniffed the U.S. Bone Delivery Human's daily offering. Yes, there was the usual stack of newsprint-scented catalogs, the normally irresistible smell of the bone the Delivery Human always brought. for me...but today I panted to learn what was in that brown paper package! Was it that Katz book I'd been waiting for, "Soul of a Dog"? As the Canine author of the "Five Bone Book Review", my work is to help Humans nose out the latest Books on Animals from a Dog's point of view. I take my work seriously: I am a book-hound, quickly sensing the sincerity of Human authors who know and respect Animals, snarling at those who don't.

But Jon Katz throws me off the scent: His ambivalence about the motivation and abilities of Dogs is astounding! When he wrote "The New Work of Dogs" in 2003, this talented author who pens thoughtful books and columns about Dogs and rural life, co-hosts a radio show named “Dog Talk”, and bought himself a farm called Bedlam, also accepted uncritically a psychologist’s explanation of Humans’ love of Dogs: Dogs are “social parasites in the best…sense of the term – able to insert themselves into the social system of another species in order not only to survive but to sleep on soft beds and get great stuff to eat.” “Despite a dog’s limited intellect and language,” Katz wrote in “New Work” in 2003, “owners often behave as if (emphasis by review author) their dogs can understand and respond to them.” Katz explained that psychologists call this Human tendency “the theory of mind”, ‘the willingness to attribute complex feelings and thoughts to other people, animals, or objects”. Later in the book, this supposedly Dog-admiring author wrote: “It’s presumptuous to try to speak for another species, especially one that can’t talk or even, in conventional terms, think.” How can an author who believes Dogs are “social parasites” devoid of the ability to think, write a book that a Canine reviewer would find credible?

Katz’ premise in “New Work of Dogs” is that whereas Dogs used to “work” in the traditional sense of the word, herding sheep, for example, Humans now turn to them for their “new” work providing emotional support to “increasingly discontented, disaffected, isolated, needy, lonelier” people. Despite Katz’ assertion that Dogs can’t think, he says he’d “like to consider their new work from their perspective, as much as that’s possible.”

From my lowly, supposedly unthinking perspective, then, do we Dogs consider the emotional support of Humans “new” work? Granted it’s not farm or wilderness work, but since when did Dogs not comfort their Masters (an “old” term) in sickness or bereavement, lie near them by the hearth in fond companionship at night, gently nuzzle the elderly and withdrawn, play with children?

For his book about Dogs’ “New Work”, Katz meticulously interviewed Humans and their Dog Companions from many walks of life, calling this his “journey through Dogville, U.S.A.”. There was the high-powered lawyer who found it easier to communicate with his Dog than with his Human family; a club of divorced women who preferred their Dogs’ company during painful transitions; a dying woman who found continued strength and joy in life with the help of her Dog; a teenager who sought respect from his peers by beating his Dog before taking him on a walk, in order to make the Dog appear ferocious. Hardly a typical cross-section, perhaps, but they fit nicely into Katz’ book-selling theory that Humans are asking too much “new work” from their Dogs, while “barring them from doing almost everything they naturally want and need to do, from roaming and sniffing to settling dog scores and chasing squirrels”.

Is that truly all we want to do, “roam, sniff and chase squirrels”? I can tell you about Ginny, the Dog in “The Blessing of the Animals” who loves to rescue cats. How about “Beauty in the Beasts: True Stories of Animals Who Choose to do Good”? The good these Animals did was by their choice, not training. “Kindred Spirits” offers many examples of the Human-Animal bond providing mutual love and support. Long before his work might have been labeled “therapy”, a Saint Bernard in my own Humans’ family loved to commune with residents in a nursing home: He needed no training or urging to gently visit with each and every one. Reminiscing, after the Saint's visit, these same residents remembered tales of their own parents’ and grandparents’ companionship with, as well as support from, their family Dogs.

Now you will understand why this Reviewer was so excited to read Jon Katz’ 2009 book, “Soul of a Dog”: Since Katz wrote “New Work of Dogs” in 2003, I wanted to learn whether the intervening six years had brought Mr. Katz any deeper understanding of Dogs’ often selfless motivation and ability to think and feel. Did he now understand that Dogs have always gladly given emotional support to Humans, as well as serving in traditional “work” roles?

Disappointingly, Katz drags out his old ambivalence in “Soul of a Dog”. He asks extensions of his same questions: Do Dogs have consciences, a sense of self? Do they shape their own lives? Hampered by his old attitude of the superiority of his species, Katz still believes Humans project onto Dogs the abilities they “want and need them to have, allowing Humans to be manipulated into trading food and shelter for what they see as unconditional love.” Yet he grants that his Border Collie works NOT due to any desire for a “soft bed” or “great stuff to eat”, but because “it’s deep in her bloodlines, the result of generations of service”. He freely admits that Rose is “my right hand – my entire right arm, actually” in running his farm. He gives numerous examples of her problem-solving prowess. Here is a Dog like those who, according to Katz’ writing in “New Work of Dogs”, “at least in conventional terms, can’t think”. Yet Rose’s problem solving ability is so well known that people call the Farm to ask for her help with farm emergencies.

How many Bones shall this Reviewer toss to “The New Work of Dogs”? The author clearly admires Dogs, yet six years and one Farm-owning experience after writing that “New Work” book, Katz still can’t bring himself to admit that Dogs have always had the capacity for selflessness, loving to serve Humans in both traditional work and emotional support roles. Nor, although he sees the evidence daily and depends on it, can Katz yet believe that Dogs (“in conventional terms”, whatever that means) actually think! This author’s continued ambivalence about the motivation and abilities of Dogs continues to handicap his work with the very cause for which he writes, as he tries to convince his wide audience of Readers to better appreciate and care for their Canine friends. I toss your “New Work of Dogs” Two Bones, Mr. Katz, along with the fervent hope that, at Bedlam Farm, you will eventually discover what we, Humans and Dogs, already have in common: Both Heart and Mind.