I have just been catching up with a thread on another online message board (New Rider Natural Horsemanship) and am feeling totally despondent about the grip which certain notions about dominance have on some people. The same arguments keep turning up repeatedly, no matter what one writes. I intend to post a reply or two in due course, but feel I need to "count to ten" first otherwise I might say something rude!
However, it got me thinking about how helpful it would be to be able to give people something they can read which would cover all the essential points in a clear, concise, and reasonably tactful way.
Lesley, I would have no hesitation in recommending the relevant chapters in your books, which I think do a very good job of the above, albeit in a less constrained way - if I thought people would actually get hold of the books. A web page might stand a better chance of actually being read by those I am trying to reach. (Such a page could have a "Further reading" section, of course.)
In the past I have posted links to Lucy Rees' essay De revolutionibus, and to Lesley's The Myth of Dominance. Yet the same old chestnuts keep surfacing - the conflation of dominance with leadership, a horse stepping back away from you indicates recognition of your dominance, that horses like to know their position in the hierarchy, and many others.
Does anyone know of other webpages to suggest?
I suspect there isn't much else out there, so I am thinking about putting together something myself (despite being hopelessly slow when it comes to producing text). One appealing format is a series of questions and answers. It would be less like a FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions) and more like a conversation between two people - possibly with an element of Socratic dialogue, but without becoming too preachy. Anyway, if anyone has any ideas, I would love to hear them! (And if anyone thinks it's really not worth the effort, I'd like to know that too.)
I am here (TH Forum) largely because although New Rider is a very useful and interesting forum, I get frustrated about the fact that it is not even possible to discuss this issue without stepping on toes and getting lots of backs up.
While I enjoy the discussion there, it is a relief that there is also a place where it's possible to see different opinions and in particular - evidence - being discussed.
I would love to be able to refer to specific webpages (preferably ones with references to research ) for the occasions when I can no longer go without saying anything.
Is it possible to get links to the two pages you mention, Francis (esp. in English...)? I would be very much in support of creating a new page (useful to help get my own mind clear but also to refer to in dicussions such as the one on NR), and I would be happy to help if that's any use.
By the way, I wouldn't say I am happy that there is yet any clear and consistently applicable definition of social order within a herd, but I am quite happy that whatever it may be, it is certainly not a stable pecking order maintained by dominance. I don't need research papers to back this one up, I only have to look at the group my horse lives with. Or am I falling into the same trap as I feel lots of my fellow New Riders do, and only seeing what I'm looking for?
This message has been edited by DDHeff on Feb 11, 2007 7:43 PM
Andy Beck wrote an article for us on Why Does My Horse about dominance, haven't read it recently and can't remember exactly what was said but hey if Andy wrote it, it can't be all that bad!
Puzzlingly, searching for '"myth of dominance" horses' with Google doesn't turn up the article I had in mind, but lists a site I hadn't seen before - http://www.hiddenhorses.com - which looks interesting and... slightly odd.
Lesley Skipper's website has a page "The Myth of the Alpha Horse":
I think both Lesley's and Lucy's articles are really good, and certainly help to untangle some mixed-up notions if people take the trouble to read them.
I think I might include this quote from Lucy Rees in my NR signature : "It is a curious state of affairs when those who know that dominant attitudes repel horses fail to grasp its true significance: that horses do not obey dominants. They avoid them."
As usual, I'm drawn to the language-based problems of peoples' use of "dominance" and why some seem to get satisfaction out of the concept whilst others feel it is "all wrong somehow" plus not corresponding to what they actually see.
The mention of obedience throws this into relief - our model of dominance includes the power to get another to do something at our behest - something, that is, in our interest, like "Clean the floor", "get me a pineapple" "attack the fort" "get out of my way" - and, whilst orders can be given by signs, in the human context, these are nearly always culturally agreed stand-ins for verbal commands. In other words our idea of obedience is bound up with symbols (language)plied to gain some end, and implying a relatively fixed social relation in which who gives and who receives the orders doesn't change much.(Orders given in the interest of the other - "mind the bus!", "don't play with knives!" - don't respect the social order in the same way and don't seem to provoke models of "dominance" to our minds, which may throw some light on why we sometimes have a lurking feeling of guilt about the whole dominance/obedience axis - we know it belongs to the context of self-interest.)
Clearly in non-verbal-based communities, these abstract orders are not given - there are signs used (ears back, wagging tail, whatever), but these are being employed to make an immediate change usually involving access to some preferred item - food, mate etc - in other words, they belong in a competitive situation, to which, if the actions are repeated sufficiently often between the same individuals, we give the name of "dominance", reflecting what it would mean to us if we found ourselves in a similar situation - because, being abstract-language-ruled animals, we ABSTRACT from a practical situation to an ongoing social order and conceptualise what we feel to be happening in words. And of course, whilst in our system, "obedience" flows from "dominance", there is no reason why it should apply in that particular way for eg horses, let alone transfer to contexts where humans are attempting to bid the other animal do something right outside its repertoire.
Effort-for-benefit (or access) models will cover a great many situations where humans stick in "dominance" and can be much more productive for further thinking.
Just wanted to say to Francis that you must have the patience of a saint!! I look at threads like these and all my good intentions just disappear. Just cannot be bothered to bash my head against brick walls like that. I get sucked in occasionally but generally regret it! My more usual tactic is to shamelessly pm anyone who looks as though they're thinking outside the box and invite them here!! (As some of you have found out!)
Hey ho, this is probably one of my least constructive posts on the site so I will go back to thinking positively! Apologies for the temporary blip....
I have stayed well away from about three threads over the last few days - I have personal experience of what happens when a vet believes that a horse should be punished for responding to pain (and am still dealing with the fallout), so I can't be detached enough to respond to that thread.
I've previously got into disputes (with people I suspect I might get on well with in person) about dominance vs leadership, so I'm staying away from that thread too.
There have been quite a few discussions on this forum and on NR about anthropomorphism - but I wonder if sometimes it would help to discuss animals' emotional reactions in terms of how humans might feel?
For example, a recent discussion centred around how to punish a pony who had offered her heels when disturbed eating. The pony had just arrived that day, and the main response was that she should immediately be punished to demonstrate who was alpha mare and who owned and controlled the food.
My temptation (but again I managed not to respond) was to respond with a little vignette about being stranded in a foreign country, having had your handbag snatched. The only resource you have left to you is your cashpoint card. As you nervously key in your PIN number at a city centre cashpoint, someone walks up, stands very close behind you and says something you do not understand. Do you consider that, since they are clearly a natural leader, you should step politely aside from your one remaining resource? Or do you act to protect it, regardless of whether the person's intentions (which you have no way of determining) were peaceful or not? What is your predominant emotion in that situation? If the person then reacts aggressively to you, how likely are you to trust them?
Do people feel it is counterproductive to use an anthropomorphic example to try to highlight that an animal's reponse may be governed by an emotion with which we can empathise?
I've kept out of this so far because Francis is so good at putting this whole sorry mess into perspective without getting irate about it - which I find increasingly difficult the more utter twaddle I read about this subject. I think the idea of using what Marthe Kiley-Worthington calls 'conditional anthropomorphism' in this context is actually a very good one - I liked the example given! When giving lectures and seminars I've found that using examples from a human point of view makes people think a bit more about their approach. Of course, you will always get people who will argue that such examples are not valid because they are anthropomorphic, but I've found that if you simply ask politely, 'Why do you believe that?' it usually stops them dead in their tracks, because for the most part they haven't really thought about it. In the same way, I've managed to start some meaningful discussions about dominance by asking people (again, tactfully and politely, which isn't always easy for me!) why they believe the things they are saying about dominance (e.g. what evidence do we have that this is the case, etc).
I feel so strongly about this subject because I've seen the harm that can be done by people ignoring signs of distress, pain, fear etc by using the approach which reduces so much so-called 'problem' behaviour to a question of dominance. Sadly it seems that because it seems like a good 'catch-all' explanation it has become very deeply rooted. I'm frankly appalled by the way in which some behavioural scientists use findings about 'dominance' studies based on methodology that would never get them published in some other branches of science (while I'm taking cheap pops, what about the way in which so many behavioural scientists cite one single example of an observed behaviour as proof that this behaviour will occur in all environments and circumstances? better not go any further down that route!)
I used to stick my oar in every time I came across dominance threads on forums, but (with the exception of this one) I tend to steer clear now, as I just don't have either the time or the emotional stamina to do it any more (in a slightly different context I almost fired off an e-mail to Radio Times after one reviewer commenting on March of the Penguins stated that of course penguins can't feel love - I wanted to ask, how does he know? How long has he been a penguin? but chickened out in the end because I thought what's the point?).
Depressing as the whole thing is, I hope Francis and everyone else who feels strongly about this subject will keep plugging away at ot!
Completely agree that "conditional anthropomorphism" can be a very good thing. Marc Bekoff makes the case for it too in Minding Animals, various articles and no doubt in his subsequent books that are on my to-read list. I think as long as you are aware that it is anthropomorphism then it can be an extremely useful - and still scientific - tool.
I think you have to be careful in its use though as sometimes it's worked the wrong way - eg as an argument against flooding I've seen someone try using the example of forcing an arachnophobic to hold a big spider. To some people who have not experienced that level of fear they see it as further "evidence" why what they perceive as merely a "short sharp shock" is the best way to go about things. So it depends on the example used (and I really like the one Dorothy mentioned, will have to remember that one) and the person you're talking to.
As for some published science - yup, again, completely agree, aaaaaaarrrgggghhhh! It amazes me how much of the older behaviour-related dodgy science is still considered so seminal by some. I must confess that I have inadvertantly written the odd bit of dodgy science but at least it's either been ripped to shreds by peers or retracted. And besides, I have less concern about its implications for black hole welfare - they can look after themselves!
Like your point about black holes, Catherine - but are you sure you haven't underestimated the GRAVITY of the situation? (boom boom! - sorry about that one LOL!)
Actually I feel quite sorry for black holes, because it appears that some physicists, certain that one day humans will throw off their corporeal existence and be able to control the whole universe, believe we will devise a way of dumping matter down black holes in order to stop the universe from dying...at least, that's more or less what Barrow and Tipler propose in The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (admittedly that was 20 years ago and no doubt, as you say, black holes can look after themselves...)
Anyway, back to the topic - good point about the flooding example - I think the problem with this (and may be one reason why flooding has become an 'acceptable' (though not to me!) part of some training methods) is that in certain humans it does seem to work - IF their level of fear is not that great to begin with. The trouble is that we tend not to hear about the instances where it doesn't work, and of course animals can't tell us directly just how fearful they are in the first place (although I think we can often deduce this from their general demeanour - e.g. if a dog trembles and pees himself/defecates I would surmise he's pretty frightened, whereas in some dogs a less elevated level of fear might result in aggression rather than the pee/poo reaction).
I believe the inappropriate use of flooding in animal training is yet another aspect of the whole dominance thing - a way of breaking down resistances by imposing the trainer's will - such as making a foal submit to intensive, intrusive handling.
So yes, we do have to be careful what examples we use - but I think as long as we are aware of how it could be subverted, we can use conditional anthropomorphism effectively - especially to illustrate why the 'dominance' model doesn't necessarily work the way people expect it to!
) for the occasions when I can no longer go without saying anything.