Race, Resilience, and the Human-Animal Bond: Insights from Black Americans for Advancing Equity and Justice in Social Work

Background and Purpose: Human-animal interaction (HAI) is gaining recognition in social work as a meaningful factor in health, well-being, and family systems. Companion animals foster emotional regulation, stress relief, and resilience, acting as protective factors. At the same time, pets can be sources of stress or exclusion when access to them is limited by housing restrictions, economic hardship, racial discrimination, or punitive policies that disproportionately impact marginalized communities. As the field of veterinary social work grows, and as social workers increasingly engage with families that have pets, it is essential to understand how dynamics of the human-animal bond unfold in historically excluded communities. This qualitative study explored how Black Americans understand and experience relationships with animals through personal, cultural, historical, and structural lenses.

Methods:

Thirty-one Black American adults (ages 22–55) participated in semi-structured, in-depth interviews exploring their relationships with animals, experiences with pet ownership, and views on animal advocacy. Participants were recruited through convenience and snowball sampling across diverse U.S. regions and professional sectors, including veterinary and wildlife fields. Interviews were conducted via Zoom, transcribed, and analyzed using grounded theory and inductive thematic coding.

Results:

Five key themes emerged. (1) Empathy rooted in shared oppression: Participants described deep emotional connections with animals, particularly stigmatized dog breeds, based on shared experiences of harm, surveillance, and discrimination. (2) Social and emotional benefits of pet-keeping: Animals were described as sources of comfort, stability, and healing in the face of racism and trauma, sometimes offering a safer emotional connection than human relationships. (3) Positive intergenerational narratives: Participants shared family stories, often reaching back to ancestors who lived through enslavement, that helped shape cultural understandings of animals as protectors, companions, and sources of pride. (4) Pet companionship as a racialized privilege: Structural barriers—including pet restrictions in housing, economic insecurity, and limited access to care—shaped participants’ ability to own and care for animals and contributed to internalized guilt about deserving or affording pet companionship. (5) Racism in animal welfare and advocacy: Participants noted underrepresentation, exclusion, and white saviorism within animal-related spaces. Some drew explicit parallels between animal control interventions and broader forms of family surveillance (e.g., child welfare) and policing in Black communities.

Conclusions and Implications:

Findings highlight the importance of anti-racist, culturally responsive approaches to HAI within social work research and practice. For many Black Americans, companion animals are vital sources of comfort, security, and healing. Yet structural inequities often limit access to these relationships and shape the conditions under which they occur. Social workers are increasingly positioned to address these dynamics—whether through direct practice, systems-level advocacy, or interdisciplinary collaboration with animal welfare and veterinary professionals. This study informs efforts to decolonize HAI and animal advocacy, support Black pet guardianship, and promote equity and belonging in emerging areas of multispecies care.