If I get nothing else out of Natalie Angier’s NYT article, “Even in Animals: Leaders, Followers, Schmoozers,” I will always have this sentence: “Recent research suggests that highly sensitive, arty-type humans have a lot in common with squealing pigs and twitchy mice. . . .” I’m pulling that right out of context and flinging it into the wind. Do with it what you will.
Looking further into the article will cause a less felicitous reaction because, if you’re like me, you’ll be grinding your teeth at the headline and picture of birds lined up and saluting a strutting, fascistic leader bird. What, you will wonder, does this article have to do with the headline? I’ll tell you what: as the distinctions between humans and animals continues to blur, as the research in the article (and many elsewheres) suggests, we are finding fewer and fewer categories that make "human" a special instance. And if indeed, (don’t look now!) we are all animals of one kind or another, certain humans must scramble to find something in the research that helps to undergird that greatest of all sustaining hierarchies, the "natural" difference between us and them, fill in the us and them of your choice. I follow, you lead. I lead, you follow. By god, even the birds do it! So quit your complaining about the boss. I’ve skipped a few steps here, but you see where this is going.
The problem with articles like Angier’s, which is amusing and dimly informative, is that they necessarily oversimply what is incredibly subtle and complicated. Even if we get ourselves mesmerized by the leader/follower thing, we want to be very, very careful about what significance we give it. So, for instance, in studying geese, this result, “The only reliable predictor of goose leadership was boldness—the willingness to approach a new item like a scrap of carpet. " The bold bird is also, it turns out, the best at getting food. Other birds then follow this bird, the researchers claim, to get their own food. And pretty soon,the pictures claim, you have birds lined up saluting a natural leader. That is, they’ve formed a hierachy in which some people (or birds) matter more than others (because the cartoonish birds in the picture not only appear to be following, but also cowering , and they all look remarkably alike, undistinguished in all senses of the word).
That notion of the leader bird reminded me of endearingly wacky or wackily endearing Shaun Ellis (The Man Who Lives with Wolves) who writes about, yes, living with wolves. But not just living with, but living like, complete with eating what they eat (details that will stick with squeamish readers like myself) and trying in every way to experience life as wolves live it so that he can see them better, understand them more. He claims, among things, that when we think that the puppy who comes first out of its litter to greet us is the dominant dog, we are wrong; the dominant wolf, Ellis argues, would never be the one to encounter a new situation. The dominant wolf is always, first and foremost, protecting himself—and being protected by the pack—so that he/she is safe to procreate. Whether Ellis is right or not isn’t the point,. His rather large quibble with the standard interpretation reminds us that all interpretations are shaped by the structures we bring to them, the assumptions we apply.
So now that I’ve blathered on about everything but Snarly, I’ll end by saying that a dominance paradigm never worked with Pearl and was arguably the single most damaging relationship I formed with her. It exhausted me and frightened her. Does this mean that I now think of us as equals? I’m wondering: does it matter? We are, in Donna Haraway’s term, companion species. What we are trying to do in living together is to communicate across a rather large difference. I’m bigger, older, smarter in some ways, have more money, and can probably sing better than Pearl. What I understand less is what she can do (smell more and hear better, to name just two) that I can’t. As we live together, I’m trying hard to understand more about her, less about me, and a good deal about the two of us together. It isn’t easy, but it’s necessary.
12 years of waiting
11 years ago
Deb, Another thought provoking account...
ReplyDeleteSnarly, the beloved Pearl, is so misunderstood by so many. She wants to express herself as best that she can and I think she does a splendid job at it.
I believe that researchers have looked at animal and human relationships in so many different ways, that there could never be a consensus on what is actually the best relationship between and human and their companion animals. Dog and human interactions are very complicated and being the pack leader, as you say, is not always going to have to be the human.
It's probably a good concept for people to be in control of their pets but there is going to have to be a limit if there is too much of a struggle. If that struggle proves to be so totally exhausting, causing unnecessary conflict, and it results in damages to the relationship then the limitation has to be recognized and set.
It really is not unlike human relationships and unnecessary power struggles that many couples have in their attempts to control the other. Understanding the strengths and weaknesses of each other and accepting them as the other's personality is the more difficult and more complicated method of achieving harmony. Attempting to change another's behavior is not usually successful and leads to even more extreme behaviors if the person does not want to make the change.
An attempt to control and change a dog is even more complicated than trying to change a human but the effort is maybe more rewarding in the end, since the dog does not really have the capacity to reason or to think about whether it wants to change or not and will change if it sees that you are happy because of it.
Mr. Coco, of the Pack, is also incapable of being led by domination by humans. He also responds with aggression and fear towards any behavior that he perceives to be threatening to himself or to me. His response to positive reinforcement is much better than negative however; having each of the three members of the Pack understand who is being spoken to seems to be impossible. All three believe that it is their own self that is being spoken to in all communications when I'm trying to single out just one.
Poor Pepper runs and cowers, if a voice is raised in anger believing that she must be the cause of that tone of voice. I have always tried to get her to realize, and of course she never has understood, that she is almost always behaving in a calm and pleasant manner. I believe that the people who put her into the Shelter must have yelled and threatened her so much that she, to this day, cannot completely rid herself of that distant fearful memory.
Coco has brought out an aggression in Pepper that has never appeared in any other circumstances, which gives me further insight into his behavior and also, after eleven years, to Pepper's limitations in patience and her ability to lead the Pack when she is pushed too far.
Who holds the position of the Pack Leader role toggles back and forth and it depends on the situation. Most of the time, in the actual Pack itself, Binny the littlest one is the one who commands attention of the other two. He is able to lead the others in protest against perceived threats to the house but both Coco and Pepper also allow Binny to manipulate them in more passive and positive ways.
Again, thanks for the thought provoking exercise and I give praise to you for your ongoing attempts to have Pearl become the happiest and most contented dog/being that she should be. She is your friend for life as am I.