How the Rise of Virtual Pets redefined Traditional Pet Culture
With the ever increasing portability of smart devices and the connectivity of the internet, different areas of life (including pet keeping) are both encapsulated within and extended beyond the electronic device, and has entered into and become intertwined within the quasi-visible rhizomatic cyberspace. The cyber-community’s fondness for pets may be seen as a natural extension of the love and visibility of the pets we encounter in real life, or alternatively, it may be an intentional act to morph pets into the complex cyber dimension. The prevalence of animal memes, pet videos or GIFs, online pet shaming, the rise of social media accounts for celebrity pets, and pet-centered social networks all seem to evidence the growing influence of pets in our online interactions. Nonetheless, the most intriguing phenomenon might be that of the virtual pet. While photos, videos or other forms of media mentioned above are intricately linked to the existence of a real pet animal uploaded onto the cyberspace, virtual pets involve the owning and raising of a pet which is born out of the internet or mobile application, and are virtually non-existent in real life.
Whilst the popularity of virtual pets have gone through extreme ups and downs over the past twenty years, they have continued to sweep the world with different tides. The first widely popular virtual pets was Petz released in 1995 selling over 22 million copies worldwide, followed by the introduction of Tamagotchi in year 2004 as a keychain pet; the launch of Pet Society on Facebook in 2009; and relatively more recently, the continued craze of Neko Atsume, a cat collection game released in 2014 and 'Tabikaeru’ (Travel Frog) in 2017. Despite the exponential growth of both the cyber-culture and virtual pets, the keeping of virtual and real pets are not mutually exclusive, indicating that the modern pet culture has branched into two categories and has continued to expand. Hence, this article aims to understand the cultural phenomenon behind the trend of virtual pet keeping and whether the change in the medium of pet-keeping has affected people’s attitudes towards pet animals. The focus will be on two main aspects: first, the two tides of change in pet culture over time — from the past to the rising of cyber-culture, and the incremental shifts within the cyberspace itself; Second, the dichotomy between real and virtual pets serving as a reflection of the human approach towards companion animals.
The rise of aristo-‘cats’ : the definition and function of Pets
Prior to the boom of cyber-culture: past to present
Pets are often considered as a special class of companion animals defined by their close relationship with human beings. Although dogs and cats are generally viewed to be the most ‘pet-like’, pets do not have to be domesticated, and they can be any animal chosen by the human and coined the term ‘pet’. However, a more encompassing definition of ‘pets’ is given by Keith Thomas, who has pointed out three main features of pet animals: first, they are animals which are named instead of being addressed by their generic species names; second, they possess a membership in domestic units by being allowed into the human’s house; and third, they are never eaten as they are viewed as quasi-humans instead of consumption animals.
Although pet keeping has been practiced for centuries in different societies around the world, pet keeping has only exploded in popularity in the relatively recent times, and could be seen as a general reflection of human affluence and state of life since it has been suggested that pet keeping can only be realized in societies where people are free from the struggle for survival and without scarcity of resources. The trend and function of pet keeping appear to work in a cyclical manner, and has continuously moved between capturing positive and negative connotations despite the change of circumstances. Pet keeping has reached one of its heights as a signifier of rank in both the ancient times and in the early nineteenth century instead of the modern notion that they confer benefits on humans as a companion animal. Akin to the origins of zoos, pets are often kept by empires or individual owners as a display of power either through active capturing or received as gifts. Their ornamental and exotic qualities pertains to the owner’s status, and demonstrates their vision and mastery over nature. The keeping of high status pets is also generally linked to the social elite in the nineteenth century as a signifier of class difference between them and the rising industrial class. This trend is similarly found in France in the same era where luxury and pets often went hand-in-hand, with pets adorned in the same clothing as the owner, serving as an indirect signifier of the owner’s wealth. The use of real pets as a showcase of class is also revived in the modern era, signified by the growth of new pet products, covering a range of special dining food, health treatments and the introduction of pet psychologists, assigning pets with a quasi-human status.
Nonetheless, the idea of pet keeping had also been viewed in a negative light, whereby it had been condemned by the church as a form of heresy as it was against the anthropocentric views conveyed in the Bible. The distaste against pets was also caught up in the 1960s, where pet keeping was condemned as a form of disease, and was regarded as a pathological substitution for real relationships. Konrad Lorenz, animal behaviorist, even referred to pets as ‘social parasites’. The hostility against pets may be viewed as an expression of anxiety against the decline of social relations which corresponded with the rise of Fordism, where the methods of mass production were seen to have caused the alienation of individuals.
Despite the negative connotation associated with pets, pets were found to possess positive functions in relation to education and companionship. The educative function proposed by Victorian families in teaching domestic virtues to children played a lasting influence on the modern era and has also sped the humanization of pets as members of the domestic unit. Theories introduced by scientists, including the biophilia hypothesis by Edward Wilson, suggested that the human-animal relationship is mutually beneficial, and research shows that pet keeping may develop nurturing behavior in children. However, the most important (or most advocated) modern function of pets is that of companionship. As suggested by Franklin, pets provide ontological security in the postmodern era where modernization has deteriorated the traditional social networks values, and hence pets may play a surrogate role filling in the voids of human relationship. Another reason for the thriving pet culture is due to the increasing physical and cultural marginalization of animals in our everyday life, where pets remain our sole form of direct physical contact with animals and ironically, with nature.
Hence, over the course of history, pet-keeping was seen to carry three main functions: education, companionship, and identity-building. These functions are then further extrapolated and amplified during the rise of cyber-culture.
Post cyber-culture: the rise of virtual pets and subsequent changes
The cyber-culture which spans over the virtual and physical realms seems to provide a new dimension in approaching the definition and function of pets. While a virtual pet only seems to fit within the first criterion of Keith Thomas’ definition of pets (which is that of being named), the latter two criteria suggest a factual impossibility which highlights the distinction between the real and virtual pets apart from their physical existence. Often viewed as an artificial human companion, although without a concrete physical form, it sustains the function of real pets in providing companionship and identity-building. By being either a simulation of real animals as exemplified by their need of nourishment, exercise, sleep and care, it expands the notion of pets by possessing a quality absent in real pets –fantasy, for example, alien creatures in Tamagotchi.
Virtual pets can be further broken down into two forms: web-based and mobile application-based. Examples of the former category include Pet Society and Neopets, where users can access their pets through the web browser and enter into a virtual community. The main objectives often involve spending virtual money on pet items or food, interacting with the pet through completing missions. Other web-based virtual pets such as Petz will also include breeding and adopting ‘real’ animals or non-existent creatures. Whereas software-based virtual pets often focus on simulating the raising of the real pets and will often emphasize the ‘collection’ feature, which is shown in Neko Atsume, where the owner has to arrange props to attract and collect ‘rare cats’.
The cyber-culture which virtual pets are founded on is often described as an structure that results from or is directly mediated by the computer. It has emerged and developed into social and cultural prominence between the 1960s and 1990s, with the twenty-first century representing full-fledged embrace of this culture through the introduction of smart-devices. Generally known for its connectivity in bringing people together, the interactive features found in the cyberspace can equally be found in virtual petting systems, including simulating the direct response of ‘touch’ through petting the pet with the cursor.
Such features, however, seem to have resulted in an increasing marginalization between that of the human ‘owner’ and the pet animal than that of real pets. The marginalization can be divided into three layers. First, animals are generally physically and culturally marginalized from the urbanized settings, may it be farm animals or wild animals, with the exception being companion animals. Hence, the display of these animals on screen heightens the fact that they are removed from our daily lives. Second, whilst companion animals are in closer proximity with our daily lives, having to resort to approaching pets through an electronic device poses as an obstruction to having direct physical connection with commonly found pets. This indirect contact thus serves as the second layer of marginalization. Lastly, the virtual and physical worlds are viewed as two heterogeneous forms of media. Having to approach the pet first through a smart-device, then having to cross the virtual-reality barrier and ultimately reverting back to our real-life reaction, this poses as another veil between us and the animals. This thus drastically reduces the proximity between the animal-subjects and the human users. This distance created is a double-edged sword — while it may arguably serve as a nostalgic reminder for absence of animals in our ordinary lives, it too may allow one to pay less attention towards ‘real’ animals due their invisibility created by the barriers erected.
This form of marginalization might rightfully allude to Baudrillard’s concept of the simulacra , where the plight of real animals has eroded due to the proliferation of visual images presented in the virtual sphere, and exemplified by the prevalence of virtual pets. The ‘hyperreality’ generated by the inclusion of common features which enhance the ‘playability’ of virtual pets and evoking a sense of reality through the personalized interaction further disconnects the user from the reality. The concept of virtual petting may in fact be an intensification of the stipulated simulacra, allowing people to be emotionally attached to the online creation in a similar manner to their pets in real life.
Apart from marginalization, fragmentation is also a common phenomenon of the cyberspace. Extending Descartes’ theory of the mind-body dualism, virtual realities dissect and expand this concept, enabling participants to play with identity in the cyberspace, which fragmentizes and exports the human user’s original identity in real life. This fission is akin to the aforementioned marginalization, creating wider gaps between that of the cyber-community and reality, which may therefore explain why virtual pets and real pets are not mutually exclusive — owners may simultaneously own and raise pets from both spheres, since the owner may have their identities virtually split in half.
Nevertheless, this discussion does not encapsulate the entirety of the virtual pet culture. Whilst the cyber-culture continues to adapt and evolve, recognized changes have been observed within the timeline of virtual pet servers. Mobile pet applications appear to share many similarities with real-life pet keeping, for example, the pets require lots of attention from the owner (may that be in the form of frequent pop-up notifications) and having the pets physically situated within the perimeters of the domestic premises or that of the electronic device and square horizon of the screen. Yet, virtual pet systems seem to have moved away from possessing a social function, to that of individualism and isolation, which is reflective of the amplified marginalization and fragmentation catalyzed by the cyberspace. Early virtual pets seems to encompass a higher degree of the traditionally perceived function of pets in providing ontological security due to their multiplayer interactive feature. For example, when two Tamagotchis are placed next each other, the wireless connection allows the two physically separated pets to play with another; Neopets allows users to engage in a pet ‘battle’; and Pet Society encourages the user to walk their pets to visit the pets of your Facebook friends. Therefore one of the most important features of prominent virtual petting systems rest in encouraging social interaction within the virtual world.
The new virtual pets only seem to have retained the function as a companion-status animal. The multiplayer feature gradually resorts to single players, directing the user’s focus onto their own virtual pets, own virtual households, and their own smart device. As in Neko Atsume, it is reflective of the growing isolationism in cyber-pet- culture, mirroring the intensified marginalization and the enclosure created between that of the user and device under the boom of cyberspace.
The Dichotomy between real and virtual pets — Hierarchy and Power
Although the possession of either a real or virtual pet does not preclude the existence of another, it does not prevent comparisons between the two classes of pets due to their similar functions or nature. The dichotomy presented does not simply reveal a power relationship between the two, but is also reflective of the human attitude towards pets in general.
Both real and virtual pets fit into the first criterion of Keith Thomas’ definition of pets — naming, which could be extended to the concept of identity-building. The act of naming is generally regarded as the incorporation of the animal into the human social world, serving as a term of address and reference. This anthropomorphization allows interaction and emotional attachment through endorsing the pet with quasi-human status, and is evident in a survey by the American Animal Hospital Association (1996) showing that over 51% of owners give their pets human names[1]. However, virtual pet names tend to be more fanatical[2], suggesting detachment from the real domestic sphere, which in turn allows humans to assume a similar degree of affection towards both classes of pets as they are not in conflict. Nonetheless, the act of naming suggests a degree of human control over pets. Names are created as part of the social construction, and hence the naming of pets reveals a hidden assumption that pets are considered as alien prior to having been accepted into the human world. Therefore, despite being escalated to a semi-human status through being given a name, pets may still not be seen as equals.
Traditionally, pets play an interesting role in constructing a particular narrative of self-identity: serving as an ancillary extension to the human owner and thereby reinforcing the anthropocentric imagination. Pets in the early twentieth century often signify a complex identity based on class, with the common notion that owners tend to find a breed that matches with their social identity or imputes a certain characteristic. The adoption of virtual pets further extrapolates this concept of identity-building. Generally seen as a parallel universe to the real world, not only is it easy to construct an alternative identity in the cyberspace, it provides multitudinous opportunities in literally creating a pet which is consistent with the virtual identity constructed or as an extension to the real identity. It is a practical alternative as it also mitigates the injustices of the real world, minimizes the social stratification as everyone is given default settings when creating their virtual pet account, with no indication of inherent superiority. The status-building aspect is only present if the user actively shares their collection or achievements through social networking. More interestingly, the human can easily shift between the pet and human identity in the virtual world as some systems morphs the user to assume the identity of the animal, as evident in Club Penguin, where the users become cartoon penguin avatars.
The human-command over animals is also reflected by the aforementioned marginalization in both the virtual and real world. While real pets are sometimes treated as surrogate human relationships, the connective feature of the cyberspace amplifies the detachment from animals themselves, as virtual pets only brings us closer to their virtual construction. While virtual petting allows users to imagine alternative lives of their currently existing or non-existing real life pets, it might lower human responsibility and awareness towards real animals since it is simply a virtual simulation[3]. Some virtual petting systems offer another function — breeding. Whilst breeding or kenneling in the real world may allude to status or profits, breeding in virtual games further marginalizes animals due to the tendency of in encouraging the breeding of mythical or non-existent creatures, or the merging of different species. This is also likely to be reflective of human-command over animals, since such acts make real animals more and more invisible.
The power relationship between real and virtual pets, and that between humans and animals can be summarized into two paradoxes: first, while the number of virtual pets continues to grow, they are generally perceived as less valid than real pets by both the society and the law; second, while the cyberspace offers humans a higher degree of freedom, it diminishes the freedom of virtual pets.
In relation to the first paradox, animals are generally prejudiced by the law. Although real pets and virtual pets are both coined as ‘property’, the law offers a lower degree or non-existent protection towards virtual pets. For example, while both types of pets may ‘die’ as a result from the inhumane treatment of their owners, legislation generally only guards against torture towards real pets[4] but offer no consequences if the owner purposely kills the virtual pet. Hence, although research suggests that people may perceive both real and virtual pets as living entities or devote a similar degree of emotional attachment[5], real pets are placed on a higher hierarchy in comparison to virtual pets.
Although it may be argued that both real and virtual pets are placed in a position of double subjugation, where the former is controlled by the breeder and owner, the latter by the server and human user, the subordination and containment of virtual pets is intensified due to the reliance factor. The human attitude towards pets often rests on the notion of domination and control as argued by historian Harriet Ritvo, where humans assume control over the animals’ biological impulses or perform unnecessary surgeries on them to improve their aesthetic appeal under the human gaze or expecting them to submit to human orders[6]. Virtual pets take this notion even further as they would not have existed but for the human’s active creation, and every move of the pet is determined by the human finger or mouse cursor. The cyberspace ultimately offers human users the freedom in having greater control than what is offered in the real world by diminishing the freedom of the virtual pet.
Conclusion
The pet culture has entered into different phases throughout the course of history, positive or negative, performing the expected ancillary functions of companionship or identity-building. Despite the opening up of the cyberspace, which is often associated with being frontier-less, liberal, and providing a realm of possibilities, it has merely offered humans an alternative way to engage in the act of pet keeping. Yet, the ghosts of our traditional attitudes towards pets continue to linger, may it be in the form of subordination or a monitored state of living. However, if argued in the alternative, the existence of virtual pets poses the question of who is actually in control. Not only are human users powerless towards the deliberate closing of their virtual pet applications[7], the unattended device will emit constant notifications reminding the user to interact with their pet, suggesting the virtual pets’ omnipresence over our daily lives. This subverted master-pet relationship might mirror the theory of Taylorism in describing the post-modern society where humans are reduced to machines, since our mechanical pressing of the screens in catering the needs of the virtual pets may make us more machine-like. Nevertheless, the main observation sustains. The technological changes in the society did not significantly alter the way we view pets, instead we are reverted back to the traditional notions of pet keeping, but escalated on a wider, broader and illusory level.
Footnotes
[1] Franklin, Adrian. “Pets and Modern Culture.” Animals and Modern Cultures: A Sociology of Human-animal Relations in Modernity. London: Sage, 1999. P.95.
[2] Virtual Pet Name Generator: http://rumandmonkey.com/widgets/toys/namegen/12662#.VxHlszB942x
[3] “Tamagotchi as Simulated Experience and the Trajectory of Virtual Relationships.” Critical Thoughts About Tamagotchi — Criticism. Virtual Pets, n.d. Web. 17 Apr. 2016.
[4] CAP 169 Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Ordinance
[5] Kritt D. Loving a Virtual Pet: Steps Toward the Technological Erosion of Emotion. Journal Of American & Comparative Cultures [serial online]. Winter2000 2000;23(4):81. Available from: Academic Search Alumni Edition, Ipswich, MA. Accessed April 16, 2016.
[6] DeMello, Margo. “The Pet Animal.” Animals and Society: An Introduction to Human-animal Studies. New York: Columbia UP, 2012. P.162.
[7] Maiberg, Emanuel. “When a Cold-Hearted Corporation Takes Away Your Beloved (Virtual) Pet.” The Atlantic. N.p., 12 Aug. 2013. Web. 16 Apr. 2016.
Bibliography
Bell, David. An Introduction to Cybercultures. London: Routledge, 2001. Print.
Bloch, L.-R., and D. Lemish. “Disposable Love: The Rise and Fall of a Virtual Pet.” New Media & Society 1.3 (1999): 283–303. Print.
DeMello, Margo. “Display, Performance and Sport.” Animals and Society: An Introduction to Human-animal Studies. New York: Columbia UP, 2012. 99–125. Print.
DeMello, Margo. “The Pet Animal.” Animals and Society: An Introduction to Human-animal Studies. New York: Columbia UP, 2012. 146–69. Print.
Franklin, Adrian. “Pets and Modern Culture.” Animals and Modern Cultures: A Sociology of Human-animal Relations in Modernity. London: Sage, 1999. 84–104. Print.
Herzog, Hal. “Pet-O-Philia: Why Do Humans (and Only Humans) Love Pets? “Some We Love, Some We Hate, Some We Eat: Why It’s so Hard to Think Straight about Animals. New York, NY: Harper, 2010. 67–95. Print.
Kritt D. Loving a Virtual Pet: Steps Toward the Technological Erosion of Emotion. Journal Of American & Comparative Cultures [serial online]. Winter2000 2000;23(4):81. Available from: Academic Search Alumni Edition, Ipswich, MA. Accessed April 16, 2016.
Maiberg, Emanuel. “When a Cold-Hearted Corporation Takes Away Your Beloved (Virtual) Pet.” The Atlantic. N.p., 12 Aug. 2013. Web. 16 Apr. 2016.
“Tamagotchi as Simulated Experience and the Trajectory of Virtual Relationships.” Critical Thoughts About Tamagotchi — Criticism. Virtual Pets, n.d. Web. 17 Apr. 2016.
