I've been considering the relationship between the animals, both organic and synthetic, and their owners.

On my first reading of Do Androids Dream, I focused on the slightly more tangible relationship between characters and synthetic humans. This is mostly made up of the inter-character dynamics between Deckard/Rachael, Deckard/Resch, Deckard/his bounties, Isidore/Pris. The first three serve as a canvas for Deckards relatively unsympathetic character to be fleshed out upon the variety of Nexus-6's he encounters, typically in the oft mentioned hunter/hunted dynamic. Isidore's encounters with Pris, Batty, and the others allow the reader to encounter the androids in a more relaxed environment, although that doesn't last long.

The "electric sheep" of the world are intended to provide an emotional canvas for those people left on Earth. Mercerism advocates empathy, and empathy in the Deckard's world is expressed through a nurturing dynamic. However, the lack of wholly-organic animals leaves the issue to providing the necessary canvas for the remaining impoverished humans. Enter the artificial animals. Apparently, these contraptions are so cleverly made, that if one is made in the image of previously organic animal, only a long-time caregiver can recognize the difference.

Much like the question, "What is the difference between an android and a human?" the line between an artificial animal and a real one is immensely blurred. The answer to that question is never really explained, but the relationship that the characters perceive or desperately desire with both real and artificial animals is a clear connection to the boom in consumerism in the 1950's and 60's. This fascination with owning the "best mode" of animal, despite that creature potentially being alive, is in sharp contrast to the religious overtones that the characters in Do Androids Dream present it to one another. Androids are also presented in this context, but as our characters are on Earth, the only instances of human-android interaction are as combatants and Rachael, which is an interesting case to be sure.

I'll continue this line of thinking more in my next post.