It's International Polar Bear Day. Why are humans so wild about fur?

What is it about polar bears – and other furry animals – that makes them so appealing to us hairless apes, both as icons of environmentalism and as high-status clothing?

AP Photo/Wildlife Conservation Society, Julie Larsen Maher
This polar bear named Gus was born in captivity in Toledo, Ohio, and spent his life in New York City's Central Park Zoo. When he died at 27 in 2013, he had survived two female companions, and became known for his "neurotic" behavior of swimming in tight figure-eight patterns for twelve hours a day.

What would it feel like to hobnob with a friendly polar bear? Would its thick fur be coarse, or soft? Would it be doughy and pot-bellied, or ropy with muscle?

We all know that polar bears are toothy seal-killers who'd be unlikely to grant us a romp. But something about their shaggy, trunk-like legs, their tufted pigeon toes, and their round ears makes them irresistible – and today no less than usual, as celebrations of International Polar Bear Day send their images fluttering through the media.

What is it about fleecy bodies that makes the fangiest of carnivores – and even their lifeless pelts – so beguiling to humans?

Perhaps dogs and cats are the answer. The past fifteen years have seen a proliferation of research into these animal's co-evolution with humans – which has taken place over many millenniums of absent-minded stroking, encouraged by the occasional lick. Friendly dogs with a knack for reading humans survived to bear more puppies because of the snack-bearing relationships they formed, goes the theory. And nomadic humans with good instincts for cross-species communication, benefited from the protection of barking sentries. Could it be that a penchant for silky ears gave our ancestors a slight edge over their more anthropocentric neighbors?

"Human life ways changed significantly in association with dogs," wrote Donna Haraway, a University of California Santa Cruz professor of the history of consciousness, in her 2003 essay, The Companion Species Manifesto. "Flexibility and opportunism are the name of the game for both species, who shape each other throughout the still ongoing story of co-evolution."

Of course, the human fondness for fur is sometimes just skin deep. Inuit people nap against the warm bellies of living reindeer, and they also bundle themselves against Arctic cold with fur clothing stripped from the same animals. It's not hard to imagine the immense benefits that furless early humans would have enjoyed, upon learning to associate a wooly animal pelt – dead or alive – with comforting warmth.

The ancient tradition of wearing other animals' pelts has evolved new meanings in modern urban cultures: fur coats often carry both the prestige of high class and the stigma of cruelty. In fact, human-animal relationships have long extended beyond the realm of biology, into cultural spheres like fashion and totemism, which both involve animal furs.

"At the heart of totemism is imaginative and even felt identification with another species: by selective hunting rituals, clan- and/or gender-specific rites of passage, and sometimes vision quests, tribe members come to see the social and natural worlds as intimately bound up with each other," Ralph Acampora, a Hofstra University philosopher who specializes in animal studies, told the Monitor.

"Today, in a consumerist civilization," he continues, "it is not terribly surprising that some folks should find it suitable to seek status... in the purchase and parading of fur."

Polar bears' sympathetic personas have given them a uniquely iconic – if not totemic – international status. They quickly became uncontested ambassadors of the shrinking Arctic and the face of global warming – so clearly that in 2007, a leaked memo from the climate-skeptical George W. Bush administration directed U.S Fish & Wildlife Agency employees not to discuss "climate change, polar bears, and sea ice " at all, while traveling abroad for work.

Conservationists Nigel Leader-Williams and Holly T. Dublin wrote in 2000 about the vital role of irresistible animal like polar bears, within conservation movements. "Charismatic megavertebrates might be the best vehicles for conveying the entire issue of conservation to the public," they wrote.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.