There is already so much good stuff written about the negative impacts of using punishment and aversive training, so I didn’t want to visit that ground as such, but to take a broader look at it.
I want to start by recognising that whilst dog trainers can
seem obsessed with seeing everything in terms of reinforcement and punishment,
the general dog owning public do not. Like all human beings they very much act
based on what they perceive to be right, that fits their ‘safe’ world view and
ultimately on how they feel.
For many, when they do ‘punish’ their dog, these are often
not deliberate acts of harm or cruelty, but a manifestation of their own
emotional state – Angry, frustrated, embarrassed, annoyed etc. Often just
because their dog is really pi$$ing them off !
This is important to recognise, because for me that is an
important component of what punishment is. The expression of will and power
over the behaviour of another, expressed in a negative, often forceful way,
based on expectations and judgements of those who deliver the punishment.
We punish someone with jail because society has deemed their
behaviour to be unlawful, in other words the judgments of others have decreed
they should be punished. ( This in itself is not too controversial (on the
surface) as we must keep the ‘law abiding’ safe, and we do need some measure of
assuring a level of social cohesion and decency. However, there are many
questions that need to be asked regarding the motivations behind who sets those
laws and societal ‘norms’ in the future. For example, the treatment of
Homosexuals in the UK before homosexual ‘acts’ were legalised in 1967 . Pre
that date any expression of intimacy with someone I loved would mean I would be
locked up and have a criminal record ! )
We are understanding more about the emotional drive to
behaviour, not just in animals but humans too. Whilst the judiciary will still
look at punishing those breaking the ‘law’, there are more agencies prepared to
offer support for the underlying social, economic, and emotional health needs
that often underpin the behaviours. It is the offer of this compassion and care
that often does much more positive good than any punishment. Indeed, the
majority of studies show those who have accessed good care and support services
and rehabilitation programmes are significantly less like to ‘re-offend’ than
those who just get the punishment.
From my view point, the deliberate punishment of dogs has
nothing to do with training or teaching. Indeed, we must stop those who use
aversive and balanced training trying to share the same ethical ‘space’ by
claiming it is just a difference in opinions, methods and tools. It is way more
fundamental than that. What it is, is a difference in belief and value systems.
Those using aversive methods have decided the ‘task’ is
paramount. The use of punishment is directly and purely done to either get or
remove a behaviour. It is totally focussed on the behaviour alone.
What they don’t care much about in that moment is how the
dog feels, what relief they might be seeking or what need they might be
communicating. In other words ' you can feel how ever you like, just stop
communicating it'. Just like our own punishment system, they are an instant
judge and juror on what is acceptable. ( It is important we recognise there is
the same risk of not recognising these things using reinforcement. Again, if we
are just task driven, then the care and support need of the other is less likely
to be acknowledged.)
For me it is this simple. It is rooted in the dynamic where
one part of the ‘relationship’ decides what is and isn’t acceptable, with no
room for the expression of need, or expression of self, that the other may be
trying to communicate. It is this same dynamic that brought us the notion that
Children 'should be seen and not heard’. That women ‘should be seen and not
heard’ , and now offers us ‘dogs should be seen and not heard’.
In my opinion, aversive or balanced ‘training’ is nothing
but the deliberate act of someone seeking to forcefully exert their
expectations of what the ‘appropriate’ behaviour is, and will seek to ‘correct’
anything that falls outside of that. This is regardless of what that behaviour
may actually be representing for the one receiving the punishment. It is
totally, and firmly, rooted in control and task. When you are that focussed on
task, there is little or no room for care.
So, this is where we need to show how we are different. How
we can detach ourselves from being purely task orientated. To show that we do
care for the emotional experience of the animal in front of us. That we will
listen, without judgement or expectation. That will try and be available to
their emotional truth and seek to identify their care and support needs. This
is what truly makes us different to those who use deliberate punishment, not
the mere difference in methods and tools. This means moving away from the
obsessions with ‘how’ to change behaviour (Task) and be more focussed on, and
celebrate, the ‘whys’ that lie beneath (Care).
I hope that by focussing more on education and awareness
regarding those care and support needs, and the importance of an individual’s
emotional experience, more aversive trainers will come to see the need to make
this shift and see why it is important. Fighting over methods and tools often
leads to more entrenched standpoints, and the operant merry-go-round continues
to pull people in.
Time instead to move away from these arguments and
obsessions with task. Let’s put care front and centre in all we do, in the
language we use, the way we educate - then the discussion around deliberate use
of punishment becomes more mute, as it has no valid part to play in a care
approach. This is not about 'rights and wrongs', but about what we believe and
value when considering the needs of others - even another species.
This is what a dog centred care approach is all about.
Andrew Hale Dog Centred Care
