This is all very negative. So far the pet is interpreted as a being that makes up for an emptiness in modern life. It does not really figure as an animal in these analyses so much as a surrogate human. And the human owner in the relationships is not a pet lover but a being living in a world of make-believe in which an animal performs the role of the silent, utterly faithful human companion who is the absent but truly desired presence. In the texts referred to so far, then, thinkers have attempted to give meaning to the human–pet relation, but have only been able to do so by two means: first, by concentrating on the symbolic potential of the pet while ignoring the presence of the real animal; and secondly, by never really contemplating the positive possibilities of actually living with a pet. These two means are related, I think, and we need to try to find an alternative way of engaging with the presence of the animal that emphasizes its status as animal when we contemplate the meaning and role of the pet if we are to construct a more affirmative conception of human–pet relations. We can do this, I suggest, by looking not so much at what we think about living with animals as by contemplating what it is that we think pets actually are.