Social Systems of Dogs
I have been reading an interesting ‘paper’ online. A woman in Europe has proposed an alternative model of dog society:
http://www.nonlineardogs.com/socialorganisation.html
The formation of this alternative seems to be in response to dissatisfaction or possibly outright disgust with the old dominance theory stuff. The actual paper is based on “systems theory” which I understand is a discipline unto itself, with lots of accompanying jargon. It was a tough thing to read, with not only jargon but lots of large words that may or may not have belonged where they were.
My understanding of the paper is that dogs interact directly with eachother only one at a time. While two dogs are engaged with each other, they exchange body language that is divided into two broad categories: ‘threat’ and ‘non-threat’. The purpose of the exchange when dogs interact is to establish what each dog means when posturing, what things are important to each one, and that neither dog is intending to harm the other.
The ‘threat’ and ‘non-threat’ body language is about the dog’s state of mind or level of discomfort. As each one displays one bit of body language, it generates a response in the other dog. A ‘threat’ is intended to tell the other dog to back off, and is a sign of anxiety. A ‘non-threat’ is intended to express just that: “I’m actively telling you that I’m not here to threaten you”. This is where dominance proponents get the wrong end of the stick. The one they call “dominant” is having the anxiety attack, while the one they call “submissive” who is giving calming signals, is helping to make the anxious one more comfortable. This seems to be the more confident role.
According to the author, the dogs will meet, exchange body language and reach some consensus about each other. The feedback loop going between them tends to make them more comfortable with each other. In group situations, she says that the new dog, after being looked over by the ‘regulars’ or residents, will seek out those dogs that seemed most anxious about him/her one after the other, even (or especially) if the new dog is anxious about them.
So dogs seem to value social comfort very highly, which would really account for the whole “information seeking” thing. Why else is a dog so driven to check out something that makes it anxious (producing lots of adrenaline and hyped behaviour along the way)? Obviously, confirming that the thing they are checking out is friendly is a huge motivating force, far above and beyond ignoring and not interacting (in the case of some dogs at least). To me, this smells like an instinct- a fixed behaviour that can’t be trained out, only modified.
The paper also mentions how the body language may form, the life stages and how the interactions vary in each, and dogs that have not had adequate socialization. One nugget that I caught was that dogs who display escalating threats may not have learnt that non-threat signals are an option, or that they are reinforcing. I assume that somehow, the non-threat signals of the other dog are not calming to the anxious one. These threatening dogs are said to be ignored or avoided, because the other dog can’t open a line of communication. Real aggression, as in the dog does not inhibit bites and is going to damage another, is said to be very rare.
This does give me something of a map to work with. I suspect that Amika is not truly aggressive (though the fear is, if she looses her mind completely, she could become so- call it temporary insanity). As I already know, her internal state is one of anxiety, which fits with the ‘threat signals’ she gives. I now have a new set of conceps where I can split out ‘non-threat’ signals and work on reinforcing them. I have read of trainers putting these calming signals on cue. This may be helpful for us.
