Patricia McConnells take on the "D" word.
A great read, from one of my favorite authors on behavior.
http://www.theotherendoftheleash.com/the-concept-formerly-described-as-dominance/
http://www.theotherendoftheleash.com/the-concept-formerly-described-as-dominance/
Comments
I really like her point regarding the density of resources in a fixed area. Like how wolves in in captivity may appear obsessed with a social structure, but really they are just guarding the grouped resources in their relatively tight living quarters and so it appears they are fighting over the social structure all the time.
----
I didn't have the time to read it as carefully as I'd like, so I'm not sure I understood the point about density of resources. Was she trying to say that wolves in captivity fight over social structure more often because they are always near, and therefore always guarding, resources?
Also, I understand she was going off the definition of dominance from the literature, but it seems that the d-word is such a loaded term for us laypeople that she'd be better served using something else to describe it. For example, I think "status" is a better description of "priority access to resources." A high status dog gets priority access. She used the metaphor of celebrity in her post, but I don't think any of us would describe a celebrity as being dominant; however, I think most of us would describe celebrities as having high status in society. Dig?
@Dr. Dave - I think she was saying that wolves in captivity appear to fight over social structure, but are really arguing over resources, because due to being in captivity they are always near resources, and therefore always guarding them (resources).
----
And thanks for clarifying. Sounds like I wasn't too far off in my reading of her point about wolves.
I think I see "dominant" as "overwhelming." For example, people tell me & me dad we have a dominant personally
Likewise, hubby & hubby's mum have a "submissive" personality. They're pretty calm, reserved & quiet. If they have an opinion, they tends to keep it to themselves, & are the "avoid an argument" type of people. [ tho I've been bringing hubby out of his shell the past 2 years! moihahaha ]
So, for me, "dominant" or "submissive" are just descriptions. The way you say someone is "Aloof," or that someone is "super social." Neither, IMHO, are bad. Neither are good. It just is what it is.
There are "dominant" dogs, but I think it's a personality for them. Not a deliberate behavior. [ for example, I would never say, "He's trying to dominate you." ] I just think some dogs have overwhelming personalities. Others tend to be "softer." Some are in the middle.
So for me, dominant isn't a bad thing. It's just one of many flavours
If that made sense
See, I don't think being loud, blunt, opinionated, short-tempered, or stubborn are actually signs of being "dominant." A person could certainly be all of those things and not seek to dominate others. I mean, when you're being blunt and opinionated, is it because you're seeking higher social status and greater access to resources than the person you're talking to? Probably not, so dominant isn't really an accurate description. Also, a person who's not opinionated or blunt can be domineering. A lot of status-seeking people are the slick, underhanded, or even passive aggressive type.
So likewise, a lot of dogs are called dominant when they're actually just boisterous or have poor manners. I guess the problem is that people do think an overwhelming dog is a "dominant" dog, even though the two aren't connected.
There's also the personality type (for dogs and people) that doesn't necessarily want to boss anyone else around, but they don't want to be bossed around, either. They're independent. They may be stubborn and uncooperative, but they're not dominant unless they're trying to dominate someone.
I understand what you're saying tho. In my mind, when I hear a "dominant" dog I've just never associated it as something "bad" the way many people do. I always assume the dog is probably just strong-willed & people call them "dominant" because that's the only word they know.
I suppose, in the Dog World, & even in the Human world, there are so many words that can describe temperament / personalities, that we all eventually get lost in translation.
I guess the point I was trying to make was, even tho I am NOT dominant, people still misunderstand & perceive me as "dominant" until they get to know me. Then they realize it's just the way I am.
I imagine it is the same for dogs, only, there is more stigma with the damn alpha / dominance / submissive crap. Ultimately, I think people are misunderstanding their dogs, as you say. A dog that is "overwhelming" doesn't make it "dominant," but people perceive it that way.~
Just like generally people in control of situations tend to be more quiet, more still.
I know I personally am far more drawn to the person who chooses their words carefully, speaks when they have something of value to say, and isn't trying to call attention to themselves. I am in fact repelled by the so called "life of the party".
So really what McConnell is trying to get across, is that most people have NO IDEA what the word DOMINANT actually means. If people really like this word so much than they should use it in it's appropriate context. Not when a dog is feeling rammy and humping a pillow. That poor dog is not exhibiting dominance over the pillow, it is blowing off steam for christ sake. But someone, dog or human, who is in control of all of the resources in a situation would theoretically have dominance over the situation. Just that definition isn't nearly as dramatic or scandalous as producers and trainers would like, so they need to coat in a big thick coating of crap.
Sangmort, I laughed about your normal talking voice being loud....My husband is German, and people are always asking him why he is yelling. He's just talking in his normal, brusque and kind of loud voice
It's been so useful for me to read works by people like McConnell who ask us to rethink dominance. It's been very eye-opening to read people's comments here on this forum and to think of the way dog's "rankings" are situational, depending on access to resources that are important to them. The whole dominance thing (as it is traditionally thought of) never worked for me--I was puzzled by it when watching my dogs. Now, when I think of it as some dogs being more controlling of some resources, it makes more sense.
Example: Toby, who has been labeled a "highly dominant" dog, is a terrible resource guarder. Of some resources. Of food, of access to me. I manage this behavior now. But some things he could care less about, like toys, or laying on the dog bed. And I've seen him do what I think of as a version of handicapping behavior too: My old GSD has always loved to stand at the door after he goes out, and mouth whatever dog comes out after him (it used to be a problem behavior, but now, it's just something he does gently). Toby will willing wait to go out the door after Kai, and stands rather patiently for the mouthing before going on. (he didn't used to be so patient with it when Kai was younger, but now, it's more ritualized than anything else). If I tried to fit this behavior into the never changing ranking of dominance and submission that (unfortunately) some trainers still use, I'd get very mixed messages indeed, as Kai is not a dominant dog in any sense of the word. But he does love to go out the door first, and the other dogs let him.
This is one of my favorite examples, this comment was posted on one of my videos:
"Nice background! Looks like New Mexico? Wish I had that kind of set up. My dogs however do subscribe to the alpha pack mentality. My dog and my wife's oldest female are both co-alphas while everyone else kisses their butts, lol."
That doesn't even make sense if you subscribe to the BS alpha/dominance crap to begin with!
As for someone saying a dog is "highly dominant", that's redundant, isn't it?
Also, the irony there is that a dog that resource guards an object is showing their insecurity over other dogs taking that object - which is contradictory to what a dog being "dominant" is.
If the dog was a "dominant dog", based on the definition in the article above, he wouldn't need to constantly worry about the other dogs taking that item as he would have "priority access" to that object - and therefore wouldn't need to fight...
(start sarcasm) So, if your dog was "highly dominant" then for sure he would not need to fight to keep the item - after all he is more dominant than dominant, he is highly dominant. He's so Alpha he is uber-alpha. So alpha he dominates himself! He's alpha over the alphas! He's the "dominant alpha". LOL (end sarcasm)
----
Definitely a "cultural" thing