"The Macho Myth" -Dr. Ian Dunbar
This is a little old, but I think it's great...
The social structure of domestic dogs is often simplistically described in terms of a linear dominance hierarchy, in which the topdog, or “alpha animal”, is dominant over all lower ranking animals, the second ranking dog is subordinate to the topdog but dominant over all others, and so on down to the lowest dog on the totem pole. Moreover, it is popularly believed that rank is established and maintained by physical strength and dominant behavior, that the more dominant (i.e., higher ranking) dogs are more aggressive and that the most dominant dog is the most aggressive. Hence, dogs that frequently threaten, growl, fight and bite are often assumed to be “alpha” animals. The majority of the above assumptions are quite awry. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Such a simplistic view of a most sophisticated social structure is an utter insult to dogs but more disturbing, when cavalierly extrapolated to dog training and the dog-human relationship, such bizarre notions are ineffective, counterproductive, potentially dangerous and quite inhumane.
Read more: http://www.dogstardaily.com/training/macho-myth
----
The social structure of domestic dogs is often simplistically described in terms of a linear dominance hierarchy, in which the topdog, or “alpha animal”, is dominant over all lower ranking animals, the second ranking dog is subordinate to the topdog but dominant over all others, and so on down to the lowest dog on the totem pole. Moreover, it is popularly believed that rank is established and maintained by physical strength and dominant behavior, that the more dominant (i.e., higher ranking) dogs are more aggressive and that the most dominant dog is the most aggressive. Hence, dogs that frequently threaten, growl, fight and bite are often assumed to be “alpha” animals. The majority of the above assumptions are quite awry. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Such a simplistic view of a most sophisticated social structure is an utter insult to dogs but more disturbing, when cavalierly extrapolated to dog training and the dog-human relationship, such bizarre notions are ineffective, counterproductive, potentially dangerous and quite inhumane.
Read more: http://www.dogstardaily.com/training/macho-myth
----
Comments
It may be simply that I'm basing my ideas off the dysfunctional pack I have. But if I follow this article, it seems to me I had two middle status dogs (Toby and Bel) and a low status dog (Kai, my GSD). Bel became "top dog" through a fight and nearly killing Toby. But even after she established herself as top dog, she still did a lot of appeasing gestures, esp. to Kai, who was in no way a "top dog." Much of her play with him involved running to him and licking his mouth, even after she was an adult dog and up until the time he died. (Could this be that she considered him to be her "parent" given that he was an adult dog when she came in as a pup?)
I'm just beginning to question the entire idea of a strict hierarchy in dogs.....
I think that is actually what is being described in this article, I don't think he is describing a tight-structured "pecking order", what he is describing are politics of a seniority-based system. He mentions Dr. Thelma Rowell referring to it as a "subordinance hierarchy", which I had never heard before but I think that's a pretty accurate description of what I have seen here with our dogs.
Based on the latest understanding of Wolves in the wild, they now describe the dynamics of a Wolf Pack as a "Nuclear Family Unit". In a wolf pack the politics that play out are done so by the "children" in the family, just like in a human family. I think one could look at the individuals of a family (wolf, dog, or human) and extrapolate some type of "rank" in that family, but the members of the family would probably disagree with any of those suggested rankings save for the mom and dad being the "top dogs", as the members of the family are not actually fighting for rank.
My point is, I think it is useless to try and apply "rank" to your individual dogs because, at the end of the day, (and this was one of the most important points in that article) the "rank" of the individuals is irrelevant in regards to the way you manage them and the way you train them. Also, that "rank" is being applied by an observer who observers the group as a whole and each individual while the dogs in the group are not even considering their "rank" in the group - they are focused on the "rank" of the higher-ranking dogs (the elders). Meaning, they are more worried with appeasing their elders than they are in changing their "rank". Hints why Dr. Thelma Rowell refers to it as a "subordinance hierarchy" - the hierarchy is formed from the bottom (youngest) up.
Also, about your description of Toby being (or fighting to be) "top dog", I think you should look at them more like 2 close-in-age siblings than members of a "pack" or social hierarchy. In a family, if 2 siblings fight, does the "victor" then "move up" in some secret social ranking game?
Consider this part of the article and how it applies to your specific dogs (*cough* thyroid problems *cough*):
People’s misunderstandings about the relationship between rank, dominance and aggression tend to exacerbate fighting problems, which are largely the product of asocialization, the mixing of socially ill-unprepared adult dogs and inappropriate feedback.
----
The part of this article that I found very interesting was this section (specifically the parts in bold)...
Social Rank and Aggressiveness
It is generally assumed that high rank is correlated with aggressive behavior. In reality, a growly, macho topdog is a rare find. Topdogs rarely growl — they seldom need to! The true topdog is usually a pretty cool customer, who is secure and confident of his privileged position and has absolutely no need to fluster and bluster to bolster up his rank. Basically, "If you've got it, there's no need to flaunt it." A true topdog is more likely to share a toy, a bone, or a sleeping place, than fight over one. On the other hand, bottom-ranking dogs rarely growl either. The prime directive of a low-ranking individual is to maintain a low profile. Barking, growling and snarling only draw unwanted attention and if it came to a fight, the underdog would most certainly lose.
A topdog has little need to threaten and an underdog would be crazy to. Without a doubt excessive growling and repeated fighting is indicative of underlying insecurity and uncertainty about social rank vis a vis other dogs. Within a social group, protracted, blustery displays of aggression are the hallmark males especially in the middle-order of the hierarchy. Middle-ranking dogs threaten more and fight more frequently than higher- or lower-ranking individuals. What most people describe as an “alpha” dog is usually an insecure middle-ranking male.
With the advent of a litter on the social scene, it is not uncommon for a previously wimpy-wormy underdog to become ultra-macho with the puppies. While maintaining his lowest of low profiles with other adults, the ex-underdog may wield his newfound power with exaggerated swagger: relentlessly hassling the developing puppies and adolescents (especially the males) by staring, stalking, dogging (following), barking and growling. Once an underdog assumes responsibility as a rearguard, the other adult males seldom bother with the (soon to be adult) youngsters and often the social atmosphere in the pack becomes more relaxed.
Subordinance Hierarchy
When the framework of a successful hierarchy is viewed in a developmental context, it becomes apparent that "subordinance hierarchy" is a more descriptive and accurate term for canine social structure. This premise was first suggested by English primatologist, Dr. Thelma Rowell. Maintenance of an existing hierarchy depends on the underlings’ respect of the position of older, higher-ranking individuals. The status quo is maintained because, lower-ranking individuals are seldom physically or psychologically capable of challenging authority and so, only occasionally, is there need to enforce higher rank with a physical display, or more likely, psychological "dominance".
I have seen this behavior here, actually it is one of the few consistent social behaviors we see, and these behaviors are what originally led me to call our dog's "social hierarchy" one of seniority.
I can give an example of one going on right now...
Naum and Kodi: Naum lived with Stacey for a while with his litter-mate (Nelson). Nelson relentlessly picked on Naum, so much that Stacey had to keep them separated a lot. Eventually Nelson's picking pushed Naum to defend himself (Naum was surprisingly nonreactive and "chill" about Nelson's bullying), Naum defended himself with a very quick and decisive action, which injured Nelson. From that point on Nelson no longer bothered Naum.
A few weeks later, Naum came here to live with our dogs. Naum came into the family with very little conflict, he and Masha hit it off right away and that was that, Naum was now a member of the Anderson Family. At the time we had 9 puppies from Masha, and Naum spent a lot of time playing with all of them until each went to their homes leaving Kodi and Naum as the youngest of the COs (but there was several months between them).
Once Kodi's litter mates were gone Naum started picking at Kodi, Masha did a good job to police this but eventually both Kodi and Naum grew larger than Masha, and so she stopped (I assume because she didn't want to fight).
Kodi and Naum played too, they were good friends, but Naum always picked at Kodi when they weren't playing. As of lately we have been keeping them separated more than together because Naum has grown past Kodi a good bit (they are 4 months apart) and so he is picking more than playing with Kodi now. Eventually Kodi will grow enough, and Naum's growing will slow enough, to where they can once again play without any bullying.
Meanwhile, Luytiy, who is 3 years older, basically ignores both of them. Occasionally I will see Naum and Kodi offer appeasement behavior to Luytiy but that's it. Luytiy is way up the food chain as far as seniority goes and so I doubt their will ever be any real conflict between any of them.
I can share another example with Kumi and Kodi, if you like... but I may have already written more than anyone is willing to read.
----
I'm curious what additional observations you've had with littermates where there is no seniority?
I'd also be interested in hearing more....Kodi and Kumi stories sound good too. Also, how have your Shibas fit into this, esp. Maui? (He's the one who mostly likes his crate, right? How does he do with other dogs?)
What I'm surprised by in my pack is how Toby shows Oskar absolutely no puppy slack. Even when Oskar was (relatively) tiny, he simply reacted to him as he would to almost every other dog: snarling, snapping, and eventually biting. (The only dogs Toby tolerates are large docile males, which when I think about it, have always been older males. I suspect that supports Dunbar's theories--perhaps what Toby is reacting to is seniority based on age). I really had hoped he might at least show some tolerance of Oskar since he's a baby, but none. I suppose in this way Toby fits into the underdog category, the one that hassles the puppies. Except I'm not letting that happen, because Oskar has made it clear that he won't tolerate it, and I don't want a fight. (Oskar is bigger than Toby now, too).
Ok, I better go....I have a flight only a few hours away. But I'll be interested to read more when I'm back in town.
Since you have such a varied group of dogs, it makes it that much more interesting to learn about what happens socially within the pack.
So please, share all the stories you have!