12/07/2024
RELATIONSHIPS ARE NEVER AS CLEAR CUT AS WE THINK
Yesterday whilst watching my Romanian rescue Lily share toys with my mini terrier Lucy I saw how complex a relationship between two dogs can really be.
Many many years ago we saw dogs as having a hierarchical relationship with one another with one dog being the top dog over another. We would reason that aggression between dogs was to fight for dominance, fight to be that "top dog". It's been debunked that theory but the topic of dominance is still heavily debated with many incorrectly basing training techniques on the need to be the dominant one over your dog. (Which couldn't be more incorrect if it tried).
Some have tried to instead explain dominance as being resource dependent - that one dog may tend to show dominance over one resource eg a toy, whereas the other may show dominance over another resource e.g. food. That this is down to individual preference - what matters to that dog?
Even that is too simplified.
Yesterday I saw a fascinating conversation between my two dogs as I supervised them with their toys. Lucy was chewing at the toys ear. Lily tried to take it off of her. Lucy froze and held onto it. Lily backed off. In that instance Lucy was dominant to Lily. Lucy won the resource. That's all dominance is. It isn't aggression and fighting. It's a momentary holding or obtaining of a desired resource. The challenger backs down out of their own choice. (The resource can be anything, toys, food, sniffs on the ground, people, beds, sleeping spot, play).
Just a few minutes later Lucy had finished chewing the ear but was lying next to the toy. Lily leaned across to grab it. Lucy dropped her head, leaning closer to the toy but Lily swiftly took it regardless. Lucy backed down. In that moment Lily was the dominant one. Over the same resource, in the same interaction between 2 dogs, in the same 5 minute time frame.
Dominance isn't a trait of a dog, and it isn't something that can be categorised by resources either. Dominance is literally a momentary outcome of a momentary situation. That's it. Dominance is only achieved because the challenger chooses to submit. It's a consequence to a conversation. It's just not generalisable as much as we want it to be.
We like to categorise things as humans. "He thinks he's top dog", "he will fight for dominance", "he sees himself as the alpha" is such outdated language that I think is still relied upon because we feel like it helps us to understand the motives of this species in our homes. Good old cognitive dissonance means it's really hard to let go of a belief you have, especially when it's helping you.
I invite you to try to understand your dogs in ways that don't involve big sweeping statements like "dominant dog". What are you seeing that you are labelling as dominant? Is it actually confidence? Anxiety? Assertiveness? Need? Habit? Tolerance? Pain?
There are SO MANY details that we miss when we rely on just the one label of dominance and in this detail is your ticket to a much richer and more authentic relationship with your dog.
There is nothing more educational than watching two well socialised dogs build and maintain a relationship with each other. If we take away our expectations of what we think we will see we can start to uncover the truth of what is really ongoing. š¾š
Disclaimer to say my dogs are always supervised around toys because I want to ensure conversations never escalate to fights. So far, due to the excellent social skills my dogs possess, it's been fair reasonable conversations over resources only. I don't push that by having them eat together etc as I don't think that's fair. A primary need such as food isn't something dogs should ever feel they need to discuss.
Picture of the two dogs in question. Lily on the left, Lucy on the right. Yes dominance is not about size difference either and how likely "they'd win in a fight". Dominance and submission is about communication and choice.