What's wrong with dominance theory
http://www.iiacab.com/_Media/whatswrongwithdominancetheo.pdf |
|
|
| I actually understood most of the paper...It was very enlightening..Thanks for posting!!! |
| I've only glanced at it. I will print it out and ponder it a bit. I'm not too impressed- but I question everything I read no matter the source. Just because it is written, proven, or popular opinion, doesn't make it so.
My initial response is that the author should not back up his theories by comparing people to animals or vice versa. I've got to work on dinner. Kerry, thank you for sharing this article. It will help us stay abreast of what some are thinking and we could compare notes. I'll check back to see if someone had time to really analyze its contents. |
| Ah, Dee. This is one area truly worth exploring.
I'm working on my website so don't have much time, but here's a start for you: the dominance theories we've all been handed down like they were gospel date back to a study on captive wolves. The study itself had a few major flaws; one being that the wolves were studied in captivity and not in their natural setting, two that they weren't even a pack - a wolf pack is a familial stucture in the wild, which was not the case with the constructed pack they put together of individuals with different backgrounds - and, three, dogs are not wolves. The implications are thus: 1) the observations weren't valid in terms of what they were supposedly studying. 2) some of the key observations they made were dead wrong - a higher status wolf does not physically force a subordinate pack member into the infamous "alpha roll" - a subordinate offers it to APPEASE the higher ranking member and keep the peace (tsk, tsk, all those years of slamming our dogs to the ground for naught) 3) a genuine pack is typically conflict avoidant, not this status seeking quagmire of wannabes we've been led to believe. You're there to survive together, not beat the crap out of each other and vie for leadership rights. Conflict zaps valuable energy. Energy is better put to use raising your young, protecting the pack from outside threats and securing food. Typically there is one breeding pair in each pack and they are usually but not always deferred to. 4) dogs are something like 14,000 years away from wolves even if they are genetically close enough to inter-breed. We've done some selecting for various things that are not wolf like but make dogs suited for cohabitating with humans in a way wolves are not. They don't typically have the pack structure of wolves. Stray dogs may congregate (for instance around food sources - i.e. a dump or a carcass) and we see that as a pack. but it has no pack stucture per se - dogs come and go and operate as individuals. What they do have is a rather sophisticated way of communicating with each other which is designed to, in the socially adept dog, keep the peace, most of it using body language. Probably for as long as there have been dogs, there have been humans who tried to train dogs on some level. Someone took that poorly designed study's invalid conclusions, and then added insult to injury by extrapolating that to dogs with very little understanding of the differences betwee the two. Sort of a double-whammy. This set the foundation for some unequivicolly abusive and/or just completely counter-productive training methods, among other things, that you, as a fine southern lady  , do not want to know about.
Patricia McConnell PhD writes the following in her chapter "The Truth About Dominance" in The Other End Of The Leash - Why We Do What We Do Around Dogs: Just as people were taught to "Spare the rod and spoil the child", people have been advised for years to "get dominance over their dogs" and so often dominance means getting aggressive. Even the Monks of New Skete, whose book How to be Your Dog's Best Friend inspired me and at least a million other people, advised owners to act like wolves and do "alpha rollovers" - to throw dogs down on their backs to ensure that their dogs would accept them as leaders. The book's main author, Job Michael Evans, later said that he deeply regretted that advice" p137 In fact, read the entire chapter if you get a chance. There are any number of other excellent sources that touch on the topic and I can't cover it all here: it would take a book to explain what's wrong with the way we view dogs and the damage that's being done thanks to our misconceptions, yet we cling unquestioning to them because they've been repeated so many times, even by people who should know better, that they've become Truth. We all started out as a blank slate when it came to understanding dogs. It's not intuitive. It's learned. Some of us had different exposure than others, learned faster, learned differently, were truly turned on by wanting to understand. Whatever the case may be. The vast majority of pet owners just want a dog who will behave in a civil manner. They don't want a PhD in animal behavior. They just want some nice, easy ways to turn their dogs into something they can live with. The good ones typically take their dogs to class. Like the one in Sybil's obed class who has a larger intact terrier whom she understands not one iota about. Every week for three months now, he sees Sybil arrive and barks at her. And every week, Sybil, who is pretty socially adept, lowers her body as she approaches him "submissively" (it's an appeasement), but not fearfully, and lets the dumb dog sniff her privates while the owner assures the poor lad that Sybil is indeed female. (If he hasn't figured this out by now, he's dumber than he looks  ) I could avoid him and I would if he stressed my dog out, but for some reason this amuses her and she always licks his muzzle (appeasing gesture again; he's not being dominant, he's being RUDE) and assures numb-nuts that they can co-exist in this class just fine.
Last night while the instructor was chatting and we had our dogs in relaxed heel position, the terrier decided to get himself another whiff. I saw him. Sybil saw him. He got his whiff. She ignored him. Then I saw him lift his front leg and go to hook his paw over her back and I knew that he was about to cross the line and that she would tell him to back off and she had every right to do so. And I also knew that although his owner has instilled no manners in him whatsoever and he is clearly under-finessed in the fine art of speaking dog, he is fundamentally of sound temperament and would take a hint. Sure enough, she wroofed! once. Then let it go. I praised her. He backed off, half grinned, point taken. At that point, when both dogs had made some significant social progress, his owner - whom I like A LOT, don't get me wrong, she's like "our" Val here: sunny, funny and sweet - just with a lot less dog savvy - cried out: "she GROWLED at him!!", hugged the wee laddie and apologized profusly to him. I almost fell over laughing. I know I shouldn't. I know I should have seized the opportunity to educate her as to what had gone on - I did try, but her feelings were too hurt on her rude dog's behalf - and explain that I set her dog up, but she was just aghast at my dog's vicious behavior. Not angry. Shocked, because Sybil had never been "aggressive" before.
I'll probably try to explain it to her next time. And I'll probably be wasting my breath. I just thought it was such a good illustration of how incredibly dense we are when it comes to our dogs. The first thing we need to do is treat them like dogs, not wolves, not furry children - they're dogs. Wonderful in and of themselves. We should respect them for what they are. And what they are not. Failing that I'll probably bring some muffins next time to class and apologize to Ms terrier mom on behalf of my vicious bitch, because it's easier just to appease her than try to communicate the truth. Right? Kristine |
Didn't find exactly what you're looking for? Search again here:
Custom Search
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|