corvus
Posted : 2/9/2007 5:36:37 PM
Firstly, I'd like to thank everyone for some really great posts. Everyone is really challenging me to think this through and try to work out what I believe is true.
When I talk about our top dog, I only really call him the top dog because he tends to get what he wants. I think he tends to get what he wants because he wants it more than anyone else wants to defend it, so whether that is actually a hierachical thing or not is pretty shady. I use hierarchies because I don't know any better way to explain what I see. I think Cressida's distinction between pack animals and social animals is exactly what is bothering me about hierarchies. I mean, people form hierarchies whenever they get together, but it isn't a set thing. When I'm deciding whether to comply with someone else or stick to my guns and argue some more, it comes down to how much I care about the issue. If I can see that the person I'm arguing with cares more about winning the argument than I do, I give up and comply with whatever it is they want me to do. That's because the cost of fighting isn't worth the reward of 'winning'. What if all doggy interactions work in the same way? What if, a dog that nips or gets pushy around humans does so because the cost of the fight is negligable (sp?) next to the reward that comes when the dog 'wins'. Example, if the dog growls at you when you try to get him off the couch, maybe he just likes being on the couch and doesn't want to get off enough that he thinks it's worth telling you in no uncertain terms that he wants to be left alone. That's not to say you should let him do what he likes, just that he's not necessarily challenging you. Maybe he's not slowly taking charge. Maybe he really just likes the couch because it's comfy.
Same thing with every other thing a dog does that might be seen as challenging behaviour. What if all the dog is doing is seeing what might work so that they get what they want. Every animal wants what they want and wants it now. Why should it be more than that for dogs? If aggressive signals work for dogs, why should it mean that they're not just using what they know works, but are going so far as to challenge your position in a hierarchy that may or may not exist, or may or may not include humans? Dogs can learn a new way to get what they want at any time in their life. All they need is to try it once and have it work.
Dogs frequently test boundaries that you have set. It's natural for any animal to do that. I've met cows that go through a stroppy adolescent stage where they act up and test you to see what you'll do if they refuse to do what they know you want them to. It's pretty hard to make a cow do something it doesn't want to do. And yet, somehow, we'd get through that stroppy stage and come out on the other end with a docile cow that generally complies with you because you're generally more stubborn than they are. My question is, why should testing and pushing boundaries be considered a challenge when I believe it to be a natural thing for any social animal to do? Hell, I've even seen wild birds try things on to see what they could get away with.
And territoriality is a whole different ball game. Like Kim said, there is no hierarchy in a territorial encounter. That's why I brought up the strange dogs in the street. They're not on their property with their people. Because they're loose, they've met all sorts of dogs and people. They are very well socialised through neglect, but they still pretty much ignore the people in a 'pack' unless people make an effort to interact with them. Why would they do that?
Finally, I guess it's obvious that dogs don't see humans as dogs. My question is more about what makes us think they include us in the social hierarchy when they know we're not dogs. When I got Kit, Penny spent a few days trying to play with him. That all ended when Kit decided she might have milk and went looking for it. From then on, Penny would not tolerate him near her. She still snaps at him if he gets close to her, but if he stretches out all comfy on her bed, she grumpily goes and finds somewhere else to lie. Penny does treat him like a member of the family, but while she imposes the doggy rule of possession on him, she doesn't see him as a family member that she can manipulate or challenge for something she wants. She knows he'd run if she wanted her bed badly enough, but she lets him keep it, even though she doesn't let him come near her when he wants to be friends. I see the same thing with the cats my dog shares the household with. She doesn't interact with them the same way she interacts with other dogs, and she doesn't interact with humans the way she does with other dogs. So, where is the proof that we belong in the same social framework?