The bond between a human and a dog is unique in the animal kingdom, as it may be based on mutual emulation - driven by equal parts intellectual comprehension and instinct in the human, and more by instinct in the canine. I imagine that each partner sees in it what his emotions, and his intellectual capabilities, let him see.
The human perceives the dog's total submission to the human alpha male (or female) as unconditional love and loyalty; for practical purposes, the animal is loving, loyal, protective, deferential etc. Unable as we are to communicate with the dog on a human-like plane, we assume that he perceives our provision of food and shelter (a kill and a den) as proper alpha leadership, our occasional application of corrections as correct alpha behaviour (keeping subordinate pack-members in line), and our affection towards him as alpha recognition of "good" or "proper" conduct by the subordinate. Stroking, patting, hugs and other human expressions of affection towards the dog are equivalent to the nuzzling, licking and pawing observed in canid packs. The dog returns our pats, rubs etc. with canid affection behaviours - which we enjoy accepting. (One may, however, draw the line at slobbery "kisses", or that wonderful bit of canine black humour - leaning on you and shaking when soaking wet, then glancing up to take in your startled expression.)
The submissive rollover, which stops a superior in the pack from pressing aggression, is intended to do the same if the superior is a human. This goes grievously wrong, and leads all to often to animal abuse, when the human misinterprets the dog's submissiveness as a sign of guilt or weakness and presses a "punishment". The concept of "punishment" has no real meaning to a dog; physical striking, forced roll-downs etc. will instil a generalised fear of humans rather than address a specific "misdeed" which exists as such only in the human mind. This fear leads to that most unfortunate of consequences - a dog who no longer trusts any human.
One can only correct an undesired behaviour in a dog by catching him in the act, and withdrawing reward or emulating an angry snarl via a harsh voice command. Dogs who perceive systematic inattention or emotional neglect on the part of their human pack-mates may seek to gain attention, and favour, by performing a behaviour which they perceive as a "neat trick" so as to earn the privilege of accompanying their humans on an outing (hunting foray), or of hanging out with them in the living-room (interacting with the pack). All too often, the humans misperceive such a behaviour as the dog "seeking revenge" for an unacceptable action on their part. What all too many dog "owners" utterly fail to comprehend is that "revenge" is as alien to the canine mind as "punishment". Ideally, only humans who are willing to learn to "think dog" should include a dog in their lives.
Either way, the canine/human relationship works, as it has for nearly 100,000 years. One does not think about it too much; on a purely emotional and visceral level, dog and human take comfort in each other's presence and company. Each partner translates his perceptions of the other as it best suits him; both seem to benefit thereby.
We can only conclude that 40,000 to 100,000 years of symbiotic evolution have truly made Canis familiaris into man's soul-brother.
Copyright © 2003 A. Farson. All rights reserved.