Let’s begin with a little thought experiment. I’ll say a phrase and you pay attention to the images, thoughts, and feelings that occur to you. Don’t 
force, direct, or censor your thoughts. Just let what comes, come. By just allowing things to surface in our minds without interfering we can tap into societal messages that we have absorbed even if consciously we don’t agree with them. Okay, here we go. Repeat these words slowly to yourself: Pack of dogs………..
I tried this exercise with Ira and myself.
I immediately saw three dogs tearing a dead deer apart. They were growling at each other to protect their share. I recoiled at the image. Ira said, “Wolves come to mind. They’re chasing after something. Another animal. Maybe people. Fear. Menace. Danger.”
Just so you know, I didn’t share my thoughts with Ira. He read them for the first time when he previewed this post.
My awesome physical therapist (She’s keeping my right shoulder out from under the surgeon’s knife.) said this when I causally mentioned I was writing a blog post about the use of the word “pack” in reference to dogs: “Pack. It’s like the dogs are fighting with each other. They’re dangerous. And then I think, if that’s how someone sees dogs, how will that affect how they behave towards them?” Like I said, she’s awesome.
Ever since I read my pal, Edie Jarolim’s, post “Quick fixes & cover judging,” in which she pondered a positive celebrity trainer’s use of the term “pack,” I couldn’t unpack pack from my brain. It just kept prowling around in there.
Questions doggedly nipped at my thoughts: “What associations and connotations does the word pack evoke? Do they matter? If so, how?”
Thus, came my little thought experiment.
As for the results? I think they’re telling, despite my having an “n” of 3 only. Unless Ira, my PT, and I are living under a rock, we are not alone in our not-so-benign associations with pack as it applies to dogs.
Some of my favorite bloggers, trainers, and scholars use the term pack. But, honestly, I wish they didn’t. The term has been around for so long and it’s use so second nature that I think many of us use pack without considering how it might land in the minds of others, like a stone tossed into a pond, causing ripples of unintended mental connections such as those Ira, my PT, and I made.
Furthermore the word pack does not exist in isolation. It has siblings—namely “wolf”, “alpha” and “dominance.” Ira specifically made the wolf connection. I didn’t explicitly mention “alpha” or “dominance,” but both were implied in my image of the pack of dogs claiming and protecting their share of venison.
Pack, wolf, alpha and dominance are like interwoven threads in a medieval tapestry (pardon my metaphor mixing) depicting a familiar notorious narrative that goes something like this: Dogs are wolves. They live in packs. They naturally seek dominance over other pack members in order to attain and retain the coveted alpha, top-dog position. From a dog’s point of view, the people they live with are members of their pack who they also will try to dominate given half a chance because that is their nature. Training your dog entails making sure your dog sees you as the alpha-wolf. You should not hesitate to meet challenges to your supremacy with force.
Unlike the static, one-of-a-kind tapestries hanging on the walls of castles scattered throughout Europe, our needlework has special properties. It’s more Hogwarts than Versailles. It’s alive. It’s a self-replicating myth. All we have to do is mention, or merely allude to, just one of the threads in the needlework narrative, pack for example—and “POOF”! Magically the storyline of wolf-cum-dog leaps to life on the walls in the halls of people’s minds, whispering its twisted tale over and over again. It’s a story that, need I say, is retold like a favorite fairy tale to children at bedtime, week in and week out, ad nauseum, on TV by you-know-who and by his groupies and wannabes in cyberspace, and by misguided dog trainers around the country. A story repeated often enough, even if it’s made up, takes on the tenor of truth through repetition.
So what?
First, as I’ve said, the yarn that dogs are wolves on its face isn’t fact. “Dogs have an obligatory symbiotic relationship with humans,” according to Ray and Lorna Coppinger. Wolves don’t, and no amount of human handling of wolf pups will create adults that produce tame offspring. Wolves are wild. Dogs are tame and trainable. Dogs are not wolves.
Furthermore, wolves don’t live in packs—a term originally used to refer to captive, unrelated wolves who were forced to live together, and thought to compete aggressively with each other for dominance and alpha leadership of the pack. Wolf researcher, David Mech, the originator of the term “alpha,” rues the day he coined the word. Wolves living naturally in the wild live together mostly in nuclear family groups typically consisting of a breeding pair and offspring. So even if you want to stick with the dogs-are-wolves canard, technically you still gotta give up “pack.” “Family” would be more accurate.
Second, we are likely to perceive our dogs as adversaries with whom we’re locked in a power struggle for the coveted role of the alpha when we peer at them through the distorted lens of our tall tale. Give our dogs a piece of kibble and they’ll take the whole bag. Not only does this view rationalize inflicting pain and instilling fear in our dogs in the name of gaining dominance over them, it’s reductionistic. Fido is reactive towards other dogs? You’re not alpha enough. Spot poops on your bed when left in the house for hours on end? He’s dominating you, and, well, you’re not alpha enough. (Do You Suffer from Alpha Anxiety?)
Our relationships with our dogs are multi-faceted and complex. How much sense would it make to reduce every difficulty you encountered with your young child to your not being dominant enough? Not much. In fact, you might be thinking that your authoritarianism is a big part of the problem. That doesn’t mean you let your child run wild. Establishing rules, boundaries, and limits, being consistent, feeling empathy, and expressing understanding are integral to being a good parent. It’s not so different with our dogs.
Third, pack activates notions of dogs as dangerous. Ira, my PT, and I all came up with ominous images of threatening dogs in response to thinking about “pack of dogs.” Dogs are suffering enough as it is because so many people are so ignorant of normal dog behavior that a dog who offers an appropriate warning growl when provoked beyond measure is labeled “aggressive.” That’s potentially the mark of death. I’m not suggesting that if “pack” was expunged from any and all references to dogs that that would in and of itself eliminate such overreactions. But, I do think we can all do our part to not activate the dogs-are-wolves storyline that predisposes people to see menace where it isn’t.
Last night I eagerly dove into the new November/December 2010 issue of The Bark where I found a review of a book entitled A Pack of Dogs. It’s an anthology of essays about dogs by famous writers including Virginia Woolf and F. Scott Fitzgerald. It sounds like a good read. Publishers decide on book titles banking on their marketing cache. Apparently the folks at Merrell Publishers think “pack” in the title sells books about dogs. Unfortunately, they’re probably right. Just hop on over to Amazon.com and search “pack dogs.” Still, I wonder. How would the book have sold if it were titled A Family of Dogs?
Love this physical therapist angle, and the great roundup to relevant articles that “pack”/”alpha” is a myth. When I was a newbie dog owner it was all about being the “pack leader” fed by popular opinions, but luckily it was Kenzo himself that quickly proved it wrong and showed me the way 🙂
Hope a lot of people will find this article and scratch themselves behind their ears is the pack is the way the go.
Thank you for commenting. Your Kenzo is one sharp dog in so many ways. Really, if we just listened to our dogs, as you did, they will tell us what they need and how to be in relationship with them.
[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Deborah Flick, Rod Burkert and Kenzo, Kim Clune. Kim Clune said: Checking out: Is ‘Pack’ a Four-Letter Word? http://bit.ly/dhqb9Q (via @boulderdog1) […]
Great post, Deborah. I went on a bit of a rant about this same thing earlier in the week. :o)
Thanks, Roxanne. I must have missed your post. I’ll come on over to your blog to check it out. It can’t be said too ofter—send “pack” packing!
Well my imagery for a pack of dogs wasn’t quite as violent as yours (though I am a pacifist so it figures.) In my mind’s eye, I saw a group of 4 or 5 dogs walking together down a dusty city street on a hot day.
But you’re right that the word “pack” has taken on a new life in our current society.
I like when you refer to our relationships with our dogs as multi-faceted and complex. The word “relationship” is key. Even people using positive training techniques focus an awful lot on “fixing bad behavior” instead of building a bond and relationship with a dog. And like Kenzo’s person commented above, it’s often the dog who can teach us–if we’re just willing to learn.
Pamela, thanks so much for sharing your mind’s eye view of ‘pack.’ Actually, I’m sure I was influenced by a recent event in Boulder where a dog walking with her person was seen by an open space ranger sniffing a dead dear. The ranger filed a report that the dog had killed the dear and was eating it. Keep in mind that the ‘dog killing the deer’ was conjecture on the ranger’s part. He saw no such thing. Tests later proved the deer had died of wasting disease. I think this is a good example of my third point, that we have a distorted view of ‘dangerous dogs’ already residing in our heads that gets activated like when the nut-case, in my opinion, ranger leaped to the conclusion that the dog viciously attacked the deer and killed it.
And, yes, relationship is all!
What a thoughtful and interesting post Deborah. Language is powerful and words hold a plethora of images in them. I’m re-reading the Coppingers’ book, Serpell’s book and Miklosi’s book right now (canine ehtology over load) but not many dog owners will wade through these texts. I thought the producers of the recent episode of Nova titled Dogs Decoded did a nice job of debunking the dogs are wolves image. I hope many people view it… and stop using the word “pack” of course.
Christine, thank you! I’m so bummed that I missed NOVA’s Dogs Decoded. And, just now on Saturday night I found your comment in my spam filter! So sorry.
Thanks for the shout out! Terrific analysis. I knew that the idea of pack was irritating in its conflation of dogs with wolves, but you take it to its logical (or should I say illogical) conclusion in a very incisive way, i.e., by pinpointing the danger aspect of the association.
One thing that struck me: Do you remember the article in the New York Times a while back, where someone suggested that Cesar Milan’s methods might usefully be applied to children? That’s pretty scary, the notion that “pack” might overtake “family” in human relationships too rather than the other way around.
Maybe it’s our polarized society, but there’s no question that power and domination are sexier than harmony and peace. Yikes.
Anyway thanks for a very thought-provoking post.
Hey, Edie. Thanks so much for your comment and inspiration. And, yes I do remember that article in the NYT. It was just about a year ago and I railed about it in this post: Bonfire of the Insanities: Dumbinance Strikes Again http://www.boulderdog.net/2009/11/24/bonfire-of-the-insanities-dumbinance-strikes-again/
That NYT’s article was just nuts!
I’m with you. I have a hard time saying that I live with a ‘pack’ of dogs, and so I don’t. Words like; team, bunch, group, gang, are used instead. Some words have been poisoned. Took a course on capturing feral dogs and the instructor talked about needing to ‘dominate’ the dog, I knew what he meant and I believe he used the word correctly for that application, I still bristled when he said it though.
I bristle too at language like dominant and pack and so on. Maybe that’s a legacy from my years of feminist activism as well as being a diversity trainer/consultant. Language matters.
I will preface this comment by saying I might be a little sensitive after reading Roxanne’s post earlier this week, which also mentioned “pack” as a word she could do without.
To participate in the thought experiment, when I think of the word “pack” I imagined a family of dogs. What term will we use to refer to a group of dogs? Though I think of my dogs as family, the word “family” definitely has a human connotation.
I think we may be taking our judgments about words a little too far. There are some words in the English language I would agree should never be spoken. The “n” word comes to mind immediately. By casting out the word “pack” are we putting it on the same level? I just think there are bigger fish to fry.
I’m with you in the sense that I wouldn’t put pack in the same category as the ‘n’ word at all. My concern is not the word, per se, but what it calls to mind for so many people—I think. Without a large sample it’s hard to say. Perhaps reading Roxanne’s post influenced your associations with ‘pack,’ or perhaps not. There’s no way to know for sure. But, it could just be that pack doesn’t carry negative connotations for you. Interestingly when I did the thought experiment with Ira and myself I included “family of dogs” and “group of dogs”. For both of us, those phrases brought to mind things quite different from pack.
Well, beer comes i packs too. And so do abdominal muscles – six pack is a very good thing.
What I’m saying is that the word pack is just a word. Human invention. So is the connotation that it may or may not carry.
To me a pack means a group that works together and takes care of each other, though hierarchy would be important for such group to function properly.
Some individuals might be more ambitious than others; same is true for us humans too.
That said, I agree that some words describe dog-human relationship inaccurately and carry negative meaning.
Try as I may, I can’t wrap my head around this idea of “pack”, at least when referring to my two resident dogs, Jane and Jazz, and foster dog, Aaron. Rather, I see Jane as the “governess” in most situations…. always letting adolescent Aaron know when it’s time to “knock it off…”…. most often in a way that is firm but not aggressive. And, Aaron responds to her quite well… sometimes better than the way he responds to me. I really think the word “family” works…I know it freaks some folks out, but I like the word “parent.” It works for me.
I’m with you on family and parent. They work just fine for me, but, as you said, some people feel put off by them. I love ‘governess.’ Great image!
Great post! I do think that it is imortant for people in the know to re-train themeselves to say group instead of pack when referring to dogs. A pack refers to a structured hierarchy or even a nuclear family- and that just isn’t how it works with dogs. I am currently working on a presentation on dominance, ethology, and evolution of dogs. From what my literature search has presented so far, it looks like the social structure of dogs is very plastic and easily changable to the environment, specifically the distribution and quality of resources.
Can you have a dominance-based relationship with your canine “pack”? Sure if you really want it to be that way. But I’m not sure why anyone would want it that way.
I myself have a group of 3 dogs- I am their care giver, their rock, their safety. They know they can count on me. They do what I ask because I make it the most reinforcing thing for them to do. My dogs look up to me as the bearer of all things good- they even look to me if my husband asks them to do something “only if it’s OK with mommy!” I don’t dominate my dogs and yet, most of the time, they decide to follow me.
Crystal Saling, CPDT-KA, KPA CTP
Thank you for your thoughtful comment and kind words. I resonate with your description of your relationship with your dogs.
In fairness, I refer to my pack as a Herd, but I don’t get an instant negative connotation to the word pack. Maybe I am in the minority in that, but I have positive thoughts to pack and think family. Think of all of the positive uses – a Cub Scout Pack as a great example.
More importantly, though, we sometimes allow perfectly good words to be taken over by those who provide negative connotations to them. Perhaps if more of us used the phrase pack in a positive way, then it would regain its acceptance as a word. As a writer said about another word whose meaning has become tainted because it sounds like an a horribly offensive slang term (despite no etymological connection to the slang term), “So even if only to annoy the ignorant and pedantic watchdogs of correctness, this word should, I think, be used frequently.”
Just my two cents, but I am proud of my peaceful, fun-loving pack.
Thank you for your thoughtful comment and sharing your associations with pack. You are not alone as you can tell from some of the other comments to this post. I found your association with pack to Cub Scouts interesting. I don’t have kids and I know nothing about Cub Scouts. I was a Girl Scout though and we were a troop. Gosh. I haven’t thought about that in ages! LOL. I find myself reflecting you your comment “used the phrase pack in a positive way.” The thing with language, as I see it, is that most meaning making takes shape in the mind of the beholder. So even if one intends to use pack in a positive way (whatever that means to them) those intentions can be totally lost on the person receiving the message because they already have in their minds associations with the word pack—perhaps the ones that I described in my post—wolf, alpha, dominance and the narrative that links them. But all is not lost, in my opinion. Word/meaning reclamation efforts have their place and function. But, to accomplish the task, at least in my experience, it usually means (depending on your audience) making the use of the word, in this case pack, a teachable moment in which we explicitly unpack the negative, misguided connotations and explicitly state our (positive) associations. Basically, what I think happens when we do this is we’re offering people a “different narrative” or context or framework in which to understand the word. This is important to me since, in my view, words never exist in isolation. That said, sometimes, to paraphrase Freud, a word is just a word. But, I don’t think pack in the context of dogs is ‘just’ a word. One thing more. When I hear some people, such as yourself and other respected positive, reward-based trainers and dog people use the word pack, I cringe but I don’t worry about how the dogs in your and the other’s care are being treated. Quite the contrary. I know those pups are in good hands. My point is that I want to do my part to deflate the dog-wolf-pack-alpha-dominance ‘narrative,’ which I do believe is prevalent in our society, because I think it hurts dogs and our relationships with them. One way to take the air out of that balloon, and only one (let’s not forget teachable moments as another), is to not use language that perpetuates it, and, in it’s place, use language that creates and develops a new ‘positive, reward-based narrative’. I’m working on this one. 🙂 BTW, I’m dying to know, what’s the word with the tainted meaning? Oops. I think I just figured it out. Thanks again for commenting.
Great post Deborah. Honestly, the first thing that came to mind was CM. How is that for telling? While I agree with Amy and Jana, pack” is just a word, I also agree with you. Sadly, a simple word has come to mean more and not necessarily in a good way. That’s just my opinion.
However, I do not cringe with the word “pack”, I cringe when I hear it said in conjunction with “leader”.
I have two dogs of my own and always have a guest or two staying with us. Funny that I have never thought about it much, but I don’t think I refer to them as anything-not pack, herd, etc. Odd. I never thought about it before.
I don’t think you’re alone about the CM connection with pack. I go there also. And, I agree, add leader to pack and it’s even more loaded. Then there’s the alpha leader of the pack. Oy. Thank you for your comment. Everyone’s point of view interesting and informative. Lots of food for thought.
I’m glad you brought this up – I too have had the word “pack” as a perjorative walking around in my head since Edie Jarolim’s post. I agree that words and their associations really matter – can you ever unring a bell?
Just like all the other words to be eschewed whether they target race, gender, or nationality, “pack” is a word imbued with stereotypes, even if the first associations are not negative, the categorizations inside “pack” will lead to hierarchy, alpha behaviors and long misrepresented wolf pack behavior. All that misinformation perpetuated from one word. Yet if we let the word pack fall into use only by those who practice dominance we relinquish the opportunity to re-educate how theory about wolves lives was wrong, which led to wrong thinking about how to train dogs. I think this is a point that must be made to keep the process going of replacing dominance theory with positive training theory until it finally becomes “common” knowledge.
Yes, I agree, dominance theory, or as I have referred to it, dumbinance theory, needs to be rooted out. The challenge, as I see it anyway, is the creation of a new narrative, a positive, reward-based story-line about dogs. And, that narrative needs to be “sticky” like the popular ‘dog is wolf’ narrative is sticky–very sticky. In other words, the ‘new’ narrative, in order to shift our collective mind (I really don’t like that term, but it’s all I can think of at this moment of feeling rushed not to miss a movie at the Denver Staz Film Festival. LOL!), needs to be ‘sticky’ in the sense that it strikes an nerve, that is sounds ‘right,’ and therefore sticks in our minds and is replicated in our communications–personal, virtual, and via all avenues of media. Of course, many voices from all corners debunking the wolf-alpha-dominance-pack story over and over and replacing it with facts, as best we know them, helps. I missed NOVA’s Dogs Decoded last Tuesday, but from what Christine Hibbard said in an earlier comment, that program did a pretty good job of upending wolf mythology about dogs.
Well I hope you got to the movie on time:)) Thought the duminance reference very funny!
I has missed the first half, but thanks to Mary Doane who offered the link I watched it online: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/nature/dogs-decoded.html
I think it was around this time last year that Hare, who is in this film, was in the news with his Duke studies on dogs if I’m recalling this correctly and the unique set of social skills dogs have developed through their association with us. Enjoy it – and thanks for this discussion!
Thank you for the link! 🙂
I like the concept of pack. I’ve heard of many dysfunctional families, but never a dysfunctional pack. To me the pack is a primordial concept that allows creature to live in harmony for the benefit of all. I love my family, but we have differences. When i am with my dogs, I feel at peace.
Cub scouts work in packs, little boys working together.
[…] Is “Pack” A Four-Letter Word? Deborah Flick, Boulder Dog […]