I am about to make very bold claim.
I don’t often do this, and I know that others have made very similar claims.
But the more I see of dog people– in all sorts of permutations– the more I know that we are experiencing this animal through a distinctly cultural lens.
Dogs exist as the biological entity Canis lupus familiaris, but they also exist as artifacts.
In the West, they are mostly objects of conspicuous consumption, as Thorstein Veblen clearly understood in his Theory of the Leisure Class. They do not have that much economic utility in themselves. Their value is mostly what they say about their owners.
And because dogs have this utility in our society, what we do with dogs says a lot about us.
Even apparently banal things like what we feed them results in severe disagreements. Long, excruciating disagreements. Prey model raw fed versus BARF versus Purina One versus Alpo. Everyone has a theory about what dogs should be eating– and everyone claims to have a monopoly on truth.
But those arguments are tame compared to the real areas of culture war in the dog world.
I would contend that the two biggest areas for conflict in the dog world are in breeding and registry systems and in training methods.
If I want to get a ton of hits on a blog post, I just have to post something that enters into one of those categories.
I could do it right now, but I’m not.
Those two areas are major, major issues within dog culture, because both tell us major things about how people view dogs as well as how they view the dog-human dynamic.
These categories speak to Weltanschauung.
When we start talking about those things, we are actually debating the nature of existence between Homo sapiens and Canis lupus familiaris.
And when we talk about that existence, we are fundamentally talking about our own.
Which is why debates over these two issues can often deteriorate into nasty affairs.
When we talk about breeding and registry issues, we are talking about how we view the future of the dog. We are talking about how we think we can best use the genetic base that was passed down to us from the millennia to make things better for dogs. We are discussing what we think is best for the dogs, both in the present and in the future.
When we are in this category, we are also making very strong value judgments. How do we know that an animal is good enough to be bred? How do we know that the registry system we have chosen is a good one?
Those are weighty questions. Fundamental questions.
And different cultures and different people have fundamentally different values systems in this category.
But the differences are so fundamental that there cannot be anything but conflict.
Even debates in that contentious category are tame compared to the dog training method wars.
Not that many people breed dogs, but everyone who has ever owned a dog must train it.
And what method we use to train our dogs is really nothing more than a reflection on two aspects: what is a dog? and what is my relationship to that animal?
These are reflections of the ego.
The ego can see itself reflected the benevolent person who wants to use methods that nurture the dog as it exist. These are your positive reinforcement types. Behavior problems are the result of misunderstanding the dog as an organism.
Or the ego can see itself as the hard ass, believing the whole world is the result of civilization going too soft. The dog as organism craves to be controlled. When it’s not controlled, it tries to control. That’s where behavior problems come from.
And of course, there are those who call themselves “balanced,” whose egos tell them that it’s better to be unique and independent.
So they borrow from both– and tick off both.
Dogs themselves adjust to whatever people use. They are adaptable enough to put up with our insanity. They’ve been doing so for tens of thousands of years.
Because we use dogs as reflections of ourselves, it is very hard to get any objective science about them.
I know now why so many behavioral scientists would rather study rats or primates. We can have emotional and intellectual distance from those animals that we can never have with dogs.
The dog is an organism, but it is so much a reflection of our own views that we cannot really consider them objectively.
I know I can’t.
And you can’t either.
Last summer, I watched a video of David Mech telling people to think about wolves as if they were any other animal in the ecosystem. I understood and believed him in my rational sense.
But in the real emotional sense, I cannot.
I can easily advocate for predator control for things like hawks and mink, but when it comes to wolves, I just start stammering around.
This visceral reaction first popped up many years ago, when one of my classmates bragged about killing a coyote that he’d caught in one of his fox traps. It was like someone had gone out and shot a dog. It was that upsetting.
But I didn’t care at all about the red and gray foxes he was trapping. He’d killed many of those animals, but they didn’t elicit such an emotional response from me.
I am sure that a lot of my reaction comes from my own really deep appreciation for the dog. Dogs were my best friends as a very young child, and because I lived out in the country some distance from other children my own age, they were my closest playmates.
That early socialization has had a profound impact on how I experience dogs. I see them as partners and companions. I do not see them as babies. I do not see them as underlings.
Of course, there are also evolutionary reasons why we feel so strongly about dogs. Man and dog co-evolved, and how that has affected our perceptions of them must be fully considered before we start trying to come up with all of these grand theories on which we organize our various warring camps and fiefdoms.
But it all really comes down this:
With dogs, it is impossible to be anything but subjective.
And that’s okay with me.
But I think we should all be honest with ourselves and admit it.
Admission might help us look for the truth.
And maybe ease these intense dog culture wars that are raging all around.
I don’t think for a second that these will stop, but I think on the dog training and registry front, we are about to experience something like a Kuhnian scientific revolution. The old institutions that once made up the registry system and the “fancy” are quite moribund. The real debate now is about what will replace them. Similarly, the dog training methodologies of the past are going to become less and less palatable to new generations of dog owners.
That’s reality. The reason why the Dog Whisperer is so popular is that he’s expressing one last final push of the old ways. The fact that his show is so popular means that the old ways will last maybe a decade longer, for his mantras have become popular memes that I hear repeated over and over.
When I was getting into dogs, Patricia McConnell was the gold standard for dog behavior. Now , we’re all hailing Cesar.
As the Millenials move into full adulthood, however, it is very unlikely that those methods will be socially acceptable with the broad base of American society.
This will be the paradigm shift that will fundamentally change dog culture.
Those who are fighting on the hard-line of dog training might as well pay attention to this coming revolution.
It’s not far off– maybe 20 or 25 years.
Things will change. And what will come out of the creative destruction from this revolution will be better for both dogs and people.
But by then some other crazy dog culture war will erupt and it will be as existential as dog training method and registry and breeding issues are today.
People cannot exist without conflict somewhere.
I know dog people can’t.
***
I should finally note that within the various fiefdoms, cultures, and cliques within the dog world being an asshole is viewed as a virtue.
Especially toward those who have very real questions and then come up with hard data to refute various long-held myths.
That’s where you can sound virtuous by being so happy that a new disease has popped up in a show strain of your breed and just giddily laugh about it how “It kills show dogs!”
The absolute worst thing you can do in the dog world is be independent and objective about these cultures, cliques, and fiefdoms.
But it’s probably the best way to figure out what the heck is going on.
Because if you buy into the mythology and dogma too much, the scales grow on your eyes.
And you start making morbid jokes about diseases killing dogs.
And you laugh.
You’ve become the virtuous asshole.
My advice: question every single thing a dog person tells you.
Ask for the numbers.
Ask that they show you the money.
If something seems stupid and magical in its logic, ask for an explanation.
Think.
Do not believe.
Even if everyone goes nuts on you, you should never give up questioning things.
That’s how free societies should exist.
Dog cultures are not free societies.
But they will become freer if you learn to ask the questions.
We need a book from a long look at dog people, maybe one entitled “An Anthropologist At a Dog Show” or “A Social Scientist in a Dog Hoarder’s Home” – the one you linked to in the article about a study at sheepdog trails sounds good, but it might be about dog and human relationships? not the people themselves?
Dog people need to understand each other, through the eyes of a disinterested third party who is educated in human social structures.
I think you are really culturally tone deaf when you describe the popularity of training methods you dont agree with as somehow being in in their “last throes” (a la cheney in 05!).
I am only a couple years older than you. What I see is a fundamental shift towards young adults adopting pound dogs vs. buying pure breds. Often these dogs are high energy to say the least.
I don’t see an explosion in the popularity of fanny packs and strong convictions about training these dogs to be good citizens with positive only methods. I do see them trying to use whatever works while still feeling humane, and I often overhear them recommending ceaser milan’s books to each other.
You may be right about the methods, but you are lining up on the wrong side of our generation’s opinions of them.
Stay on the side that you feel is right, but you can’t really honestly believe that the average 20 something professional with a shepherd or pit mix agrees with you. Maybe, as you predict they will someday, but the trend line is not moving in your favor right now. (In fact its currently going the opposite way).
Bill,
Actually you are.
What you fail to understand is that the dog’s status in Western society is only increasing. It is even higher status in our culture than sacred cows are in India.
There are plenty of sociological reasons for this– breakdown of families, alienation from nature and good relationships with others, etc.
But in country after country, signs point to slow erosion of the old ways of dealing with dogs.
How many Western countries have banned e-collars (not something I agree with)? I hate to tell you this but America is probably going toward a more European socioeconomic and political culture, even if The Economist says the Scandinavian model is dead.
If Cesar hadn’t come around, these older methods would have almost disappeared by now.
The methods are going to change as the dog’s status increases. That’s been the historical trend.
And as these changes become more and more obvious, the behaviors we expect and want do with dogs are going to have to change.
I don’t know of anyone under the age of 25 who is dreaming of studying Koehler or worships Cesar Millan.
You misunderstand the Millennials entirely.
I hope you are right about Millan’s popularity among young adults, but Nielsen data, Amazon.com data and rapper Redman say you are dead wrong.
Millan’s high profile critics may be correct, but they are less “cool” than his high profile supporters. (Dr. Nicholas Dodman of Tufts vs. Vin Diesel, Ashley Simpson, Scarlett Johannsen and Tom Brady (he is an American football player).
Before a trend declines, it has to stop gaining popularity. If you are a prognosticator, being early with a forecast is just as wrong as being wrong.
Can I comment on the sexual nature of both of the two currently popular dog training shows on TV? People who do NOT have a dog, do NOT want a dog, and are NOT planning to have a dog watch these shows, why?
Because they get a thrill from the shows. IMO, these shows aren’t really about dog training at all – at least not from the viewers’ view point.
Victoria clothing is one accessory away from a costume – and that accessory is a whip. Can’t everyone see that? And the choking, bullying, and language (packleader, dominant) that that other TV show trainer uses – do you need a road map to what it really pulling non-dog owners to the show?
IMO, it isn’t about dogs or dog training. It is a T&A show for B&D people.
It is a sign of the way we have accepted the dog as one of us, that some B&D people can get a thrill from watching inter-species pairs interact that way.
What’s next, girls who dress up in fancy clothes and go out for a candlelite dinner with their dog named Romeo? Dudes who take thier long-haired dog for meaningful walks and sweet conversations? I’m going to stop here, you get the point.
We are ALL subject to whatever cultural influences we have been exposed to, but there is also the blunt facts of what WORKS and what doesn’t, and this can trump all the platitude spouting and political correctedness(which changes like the fashion industry) out there. Take dog training, for example(surely you didn’t think that was going to be allowed to squeak by with THIS crowd, did you, Retrieverman!)–now I am ALL FOR positive reinforcement and humane, kindly treatment, but in some situations, and with some animals, it doesn’t always work. Simply the facts. My experiences have included dogs that the “positive only” tribe have decreed as “untrainable” or of having “poor temperments” and get given away or sold to the ignorant, euthanized, or taken to the pound(which usually means being euthanized), because no one was willing to get a bit firm with this dog in order to control it(whenever said individuals thought some sort of control or obedience was necessary). End result–dog DIES. Someone who is NOT more worried about what other people think about them, or trying to fit what is politically correct at the moment, gets said dog, does whatever is necessary to let it know it MUST comply in certain situations to be acceptable(but only just what is necessary–no more), and such “untrainable” or “difficult” dogs end up being extremely, happily, wonderfully, and willingly obedient ever after with no further “firmness” necessary. Such dogs remind me of “tough love” kids, who unfortunetely, just don’t always respond to what is considered “reasonable” treatment–yet are full of potential if they can be reached. On the flip side, I certainly do not condone such methods unless ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY(certainly not a way to attempt to start traing any dog, child or other kind of animal), but, by gosh, sometimes it is justified, and it works, whether or not the present cultural views accept that or not–facts vs. philosophy. I work in a large zoo, where everyone now WORSHIPS Karen Pryor as a God, and no training other than clicker training is acceptable(even though Karen Pryor herself says that it is not always applicable to all animals and all situations), and this tribe is HELPLESS without their clickers! I am very unpopular with this group(despite the fact that I think clicker-positive-reinforcement is a great way to train in most circumstances) because I dare to remind them that people have been training all sorts of animals humanely for THOUSANDS of years before clickers ever came along, and other methods DO work and should be taken into consideration at times(better than giving up!)–but no, some people are so wedded to this relatively new cultural phenomenon that they just will not consider any option. To me, this is a form of blind stupidity, as well as a cultural influence…..
To be honest, if a dog has to be physically dominated all the time to make him behave, he should be euthanized.
It’s just not worth it– and certainly not worth the risk.
These certainly don’t belong in any gene pools.
I’m okay with euthanasia. It’s painless if done properly with a veterinarian.
I am not ok with it, how do you or anyone else know
it is painless? We all want to think it is painless to
make it easier to accept.
If they are unconscious for death, I don’t know how it could hurt very much.
Science Willie? Observation? Haven’t you ever been under general anesthesia for surgery – you don’t feel a thing.
People get spayed – called hysterectomy in people, but it is the same thing – and wake up sore, and sometimes heal slowly and painfully, but everyone says the surgery didn’t hurt a bit.
I know someone who died and was brought back by the doctors twice that I know of for sure. Want to know what he said ?”Being dead is easy, it’s the dying that’s hard”. It’s the struggle which is so rough, being dead is not.
PROPERLY DONE, by a veterinarian, the dog is put under, just like for surgery, and while under, then he is overdosed to sleep forever.
You might not like the idea of being dead, but death comes to everything that lives. But rest assured that being dead is NOT painful – it’s the dying that is so hard. That is what the anesthesia is for – the dying is reduced to falling asleep. Few people are allowed to make the journey into death as painlessly as our dogs are.
I guess you have to look into your friend’s eyes
when his life is being ended to appreciate the
fear and pain involved in dying. You guys are
really full of shit.
I’ve had a ton of comments on here before everyone piled on.
What I was saying is that any dog that has to be physically dominated all the time to make it behave should be euthanized.
What I mean is that there are so few dogs that need that.
It is really an extreme case, but if you listen to some of these people talk, they think the dogs want to take over the world, have nuclear weapons, and rule us with an iron fist.
It’s nonsense.
If you have a minute, you could send me an e-mail? (lizfabritz@gmail.com) Would really be appreciated.
Best to your family,
Liz
Be sure and remind me, then, Retrieverman, NOT to be reincarnated as an independent-natured dog adopted by you! I don’t want to have to be re-reincarnated yet again so quickly! If a dog were so aggressive it had to be physically dominated ALL the time, that would be rather abnormal! My experience with physically punishing a dog usually involved only one or two instances with an especially hard-headed individual, then it was never necessary again. To me(and I think to most dogs) this is highly preferable to those who will not back up their demands when challenged by a particularly spirited canine, and end up nagging it incessently(and ineffectively). However, I still believe this should ONLY be done when absolutely necessary, as when if a command is not obeyed, it could mean the dog’s life was endangered, or some such situation(NOT because a dog doesn’t perform a trick on command, for instance!). I know corporal punishment of any kind is VERY politically incorrect just now, and it is certainly abused, but I believe in some situations,with some dogs, it is very necessary. I grew up when corporal punishment(i. e.–spanking) was still allowed in schools–I got my share for sure! As kids, we had ZERO respect for any teacher that would not back up their demands if required, and we ran all over such individuals, and I think some dogs are just like that, too. We LOVED substitutes and student teachers who had not yet become indoctrinated to such control, and vied with one another to see who could take the most advantage! One 5th grade teacher was very wise–she gave us kids A CHOICE–either a whipping(and she could weild a paddle with the best of them!) or we had to copy a dictionary page–verbatim–every jot and tittle. Most of us at least tried the dictionary page, but it was interesting to see how quickly most kids gave that tedious chore up, and selected a quick spanking instead! Growing up like this, it is little wonder I do not have the dislike of corporal punishment that seems to be fashionable now. And I think my dogs prefer and relate to a quick scruff shake or pop on the butt much better(when necessary) than endless sessions of boring obedience and nagging. Seeing how poorly most school kids behave now, I think a lot of teachers would agree with me! I do not see how they control classrooms anymore(and in fact, they don’t, in many cases). Humane and kindly treatment or training? Absolutely, if there is time, and if it works. It shouls always be the FIRST choice. Speaking of cultural differences in views on dogs(diet, training, etc.), I’m sure people in China think we are ALL nuts making such ado about so much meat! And the Islamic cultures are further assured we truly ARE degenerates wasting such time and effort on something designated as “unclean”!
Lane, not everybody can handle a wolf pack – many many families can’t handle a cocker spaniel, let alone a Jack Russell, or a husky sized dog.
I admire your feelings of devotion to your animals, and I am not sure exactly how I feel about someone wise enough to know when to give up on their love for someone, or their animal, which is ruining their life.
Perhaps sometimes it is a matter of who to love best? Like the woman who bring a baby home, and the dog growls at the baby, and she finds the dog snapping through the baby gate at the sleeping baby. The heart might love both the dog and the baby – but the head must give up the dog, not the baby.
Yes, even if the dog must be put to sleep. Just the same as if your brother lived with you and your spouse, and when you brought the baby home, he hated it, and tried to kill the baby when you weren’t watchiing, so that the house would be quiet again, and so the 2 of you would talk to him, instead of paying attention to the baby. Even if your brother had no place to go – once it is obvious that he is a danger to your baby, then he must leave.
This is one of the reasons why I feel that breeding dogs for their coats or conformation is silly. Dogs need to be bred to be good with children, and to make good healthy house pets.
If you look at the bigger picture, the family which puts to sleep a dangerous dog, and then saves a pound dog who was set to die, is even with dogdom.
I agree with you in theory about conformation breeding.
In theory, but in reality, there is such a thing as working conformation.
The way a dog is built has a lot to do with its ability to perform its function properly.
If you can find anything by Rachel Page Elliott, you can see what I mean:
Retrieverman – if you want to do a post on gaits in horses, try this:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page
Then, in the search box enter “muybridge”. You will find neat moving horses that you can put on your site.
The only bad thing is that horses run on their toenails (hooves) while dogs run on the balls of their feet (the hock is the same as the human heel), so horses have one more joint that is up off the ground.
Also we ride horses, so a smooth gait is desirable over just about everything else. Pet dogs need good temperament, good health, and reasonable conformation – NOT – great conformation, horrible health, and terrible temperaments.
When regular breeders factored in gait and conformation to weed out breeding stock with flaws, that was good, but now show breeders sometime look to breed for what I consider to be serious movement faults.
Even in breeds like the Golden Retriever where good form and movement have NOT been ruined, I still believe that a good disposition and good health is more important than gait, conformation, and show wins.
[...] Westfall, Dog Culture Wars *How we talk about our dogs says a lot about our [...]