pack behaviour
I bought a book or two at the library book sale on dog behavior. Seeing as dogs are the only children I am likely to have, I would like to understand them better, I guess. In chapter 1, I came across this passage:
"Some researchers think that the dog pack is controlled not from the top but from within, possibly by middle-ranking females. This arrangement is termed a subordinance hierarchy. Certainly this type of organization occurs in other groups of animals, such as primates. In the early days, when scientists were first studying primate ethology, they would direct their attention to the most florid member of the group, that is, the largest and most vocal of the males, which appeared to be leading the group. More careful observation by recent researchers shows that although the apparently dominant male might make a lot of fuss and noise in attempting to lead the group, he would always glance furtively over his shoulder for acknowledgment by the real decision-makers of the group, the middle-ranking females. If thwarted by them in an attempt to initiate an action, the male would then inspect his fingernails or suddenly pay great attention to an imaginary flea while rapidly reorganizing his thoughts to come up with some better, more widely acceptable suggestion, rather than lose face. Finally, when his direction coincided with their inclination, the whole group would act, seemingly as a result of his initiative. The male would credit himself with having thought of the plan, thus preserving his self-respect, and the females would get their own way. Some think the canine pack may be organized something like this..."
I found this fascinating for a couple of different concepts: the idea of having to save face, and the idea of the females allowing the male to think he was in charge, while covertly guiding his actions in leading the group.
One of the major things I find missing in our culture is the lack of understanding of the importance of allowing people to save face when they either make a mistake, or are somehow overmastered. We all not only have this primal awareness of the need to not be ostracized from the pack, to keep our place in it secure, but we also have these enormously fragile homo sapien egos on top of it. So many confrontational situations are eased so quickly by allowing someone a way to back down without losing face. But so many of us in the West have no idea how to do that - we are taught to believe that the only way to treat such a situation is to escalate the violence until one person succeeds in beating down the other, either metaphorically or literally. It may be a short term win, but it is most definitely a long term loss, because the person who is beaten down does not forget the pain and the humiliation associated with that loss. They either turn it inward and destroy themselves, or they wait for their moment and turn it outward, destroying others.
It manifests in milder situations as well. I think about the times I was late to a meeting, through circumstances beyond my control (accident on the El, traffic jam, child getting sick right before you head out the door for work, or whatever). If I am not given a chance to explain why I was late, I will spend the entire meeting squirming in my shame, and trying to find some way to work into the flow of the meeting an explanation for my tardiness. I am useless for the rest of the meeting, and mildly disruptive. I just want people to understand that it wasn't my fault! If, on the other hand, my boss or whoever is running the meeting, stops the meeting for a moment when I rush in, gives me a chance to give a quick summary of why I am late, and then offers a little sympathy as absolution, then I am engaged and eager to contribute to the actual work of the meeting, rather than stewing about my own emotional situation.
The other thing that pinged my radar was the idea of allowing the dominant male to seem to lead, while really the mid-level females are the ones approving or disproving his attempts to initiate action. This is certainly a popular method of gender interaction in humans as well - all you have to do is look at a magazine rack to see a multitude of articles advising and training women on how to manipulate men while allowing them to think they are in charge. When a group of people are denied direct access to power for random reasons (gender, religion, race) they will out of necessity sharpen their ability to influence covertly, as it is the only control they can exert over their own destinies.
And this paradigm can work. I know many a Southern woman who runs her household and her relationship with a man with a "velvet glove" approach, where the man gets to bluster and appear to be the undisputed king of his castle, but should she ever disapprove of his actions, he hears about it and makes the necessary changes. Preferably without any of their friends knowing whose idea it was, of course! I also find that this principle seems to work pretty well in Latino culture, from what little I know about it. [Warning: gross generalization ahead!] I know some darn strong-willed Latinas, and they are respected by the men in their lives, but they also have an understood set of rules about the respect they give to their men, and what behaviors are approved of and which aren't. It seems to work for them - they don't feel less than, because they feel they are secretly in charge. They don't feel themselves as lacking power.
And yet.
Anytime you have a group of people who can only control by influence, there is the very real chance that those who truly do have the power, in name and in deed, can ignore that influence. In essence, the dominant male can choose to not look over his shoulder for confirmation, before initiating action. When that happens, if there is a sufficiently strong network of the mid-level females in place, what will happen is the group will not follow his action, and he will be hung out to dry. He may even lose his dominant status for his obvious faux pas.
However, if the mid-level females are not united, not communicating, believe the hype about Mr. Man being in charge, or have been taught to mistrust each other even more than they mistrust the dominant male; then they will follow wherever he leads, and he no longer feels the need to look over his shoulder for approval. And remembering that "absolute power corrupts absolutely," this entire group of primates is in for some hard times, and may very well not survive. (Yeah, I kinda turned that into a metaphor).
Because of this, I find it impossible to acquiesce to a system that allows one group to think they are powerful, and to act unchallenged in public, despite their availability to influence in private. I just can't trust that ceding the power to someone will guarantee that they will share it covertly. So I don't get along with men who are used to that kind of concession from women. I'm sure they find me rude and denigrating, unnecessarily confrontational, and I find them to be annoying, egotistical popinjays who waste my time yammering on constantly about themselves, and who require way more ego-stroking than I am willing to give unearned.
And this is just on a casual, social level. I have even more trouble when I need to work with a man who is brought up in that paradigm. Luckily, I am good at allowing such men ways to save face when I disagree publicly with them, or refuse to cede them power unless they have earned it. Or at least, I am when I make the effort. Sometimes, I'm just too damn grumpy and tired!
All right - enough musing for now. Must get back to work!
"Some researchers think that the dog pack is controlled not from the top but from within, possibly by middle-ranking females. This arrangement is termed a subordinance hierarchy. Certainly this type of organization occurs in other groups of animals, such as primates. In the early days, when scientists were first studying primate ethology, they would direct their attention to the most florid member of the group, that is, the largest and most vocal of the males, which appeared to be leading the group. More careful observation by recent researchers shows that although the apparently dominant male might make a lot of fuss and noise in attempting to lead the group, he would always glance furtively over his shoulder for acknowledgment by the real decision-makers of the group, the middle-ranking females. If thwarted by them in an attempt to initiate an action, the male would then inspect his fingernails or suddenly pay great attention to an imaginary flea while rapidly reorganizing his thoughts to come up with some better, more widely acceptable suggestion, rather than lose face. Finally, when his direction coincided with their inclination, the whole group would act, seemingly as a result of his initiative. The male would credit himself with having thought of the plan, thus preserving his self-respect, and the females would get their own way. Some think the canine pack may be organized something like this..."
I found this fascinating for a couple of different concepts: the idea of having to save face, and the idea of the females allowing the male to think he was in charge, while covertly guiding his actions in leading the group.
One of the major things I find missing in our culture is the lack of understanding of the importance of allowing people to save face when they either make a mistake, or are somehow overmastered. We all not only have this primal awareness of the need to not be ostracized from the pack, to keep our place in it secure, but we also have these enormously fragile homo sapien egos on top of it. So many confrontational situations are eased so quickly by allowing someone a way to back down without losing face. But so many of us in the West have no idea how to do that - we are taught to believe that the only way to treat such a situation is to escalate the violence until one person succeeds in beating down the other, either metaphorically or literally. It may be a short term win, but it is most definitely a long term loss, because the person who is beaten down does not forget the pain and the humiliation associated with that loss. They either turn it inward and destroy themselves, or they wait for their moment and turn it outward, destroying others.
It manifests in milder situations as well. I think about the times I was late to a meeting, through circumstances beyond my control (accident on the El, traffic jam, child getting sick right before you head out the door for work, or whatever). If I am not given a chance to explain why I was late, I will spend the entire meeting squirming in my shame, and trying to find some way to work into the flow of the meeting an explanation for my tardiness. I am useless for the rest of the meeting, and mildly disruptive. I just want people to understand that it wasn't my fault! If, on the other hand, my boss or whoever is running the meeting, stops the meeting for a moment when I rush in, gives me a chance to give a quick summary of why I am late, and then offers a little sympathy as absolution, then I am engaged and eager to contribute to the actual work of the meeting, rather than stewing about my own emotional situation.
The other thing that pinged my radar was the idea of allowing the dominant male to seem to lead, while really the mid-level females are the ones approving or disproving his attempts to initiate action. This is certainly a popular method of gender interaction in humans as well - all you have to do is look at a magazine rack to see a multitude of articles advising and training women on how to manipulate men while allowing them to think they are in charge. When a group of people are denied direct access to power for random reasons (gender, religion, race) they will out of necessity sharpen their ability to influence covertly, as it is the only control they can exert over their own destinies.
And this paradigm can work. I know many a Southern woman who runs her household and her relationship with a man with a "velvet glove" approach, where the man gets to bluster and appear to be the undisputed king of his castle, but should she ever disapprove of his actions, he hears about it and makes the necessary changes. Preferably without any of their friends knowing whose idea it was, of course! I also find that this principle seems to work pretty well in Latino culture, from what little I know about it. [Warning: gross generalization ahead!] I know some darn strong-willed Latinas, and they are respected by the men in their lives, but they also have an understood set of rules about the respect they give to their men, and what behaviors are approved of and which aren't. It seems to work for them - they don't feel less than, because they feel they are secretly in charge. They don't feel themselves as lacking power.
And yet.
Anytime you have a group of people who can only control by influence, there is the very real chance that those who truly do have the power, in name and in deed, can ignore that influence. In essence, the dominant male can choose to not look over his shoulder for confirmation, before initiating action. When that happens, if there is a sufficiently strong network of the mid-level females in place, what will happen is the group will not follow his action, and he will be hung out to dry. He may even lose his dominant status for his obvious faux pas.
However, if the mid-level females are not united, not communicating, believe the hype about Mr. Man being in charge, or have been taught to mistrust each other even more than they mistrust the dominant male; then they will follow wherever he leads, and he no longer feels the need to look over his shoulder for approval. And remembering that "absolute power corrupts absolutely," this entire group of primates is in for some hard times, and may very well not survive. (Yeah, I kinda turned that into a metaphor).
Because of this, I find it impossible to acquiesce to a system that allows one group to think they are powerful, and to act unchallenged in public, despite their availability to influence in private. I just can't trust that ceding the power to someone will guarantee that they will share it covertly. So I don't get along with men who are used to that kind of concession from women. I'm sure they find me rude and denigrating, unnecessarily confrontational, and I find them to be annoying, egotistical popinjays who waste my time yammering on constantly about themselves, and who require way more ego-stroking than I am willing to give unearned.
And this is just on a casual, social level. I have even more trouble when I need to work with a man who is brought up in that paradigm. Luckily, I am good at allowing such men ways to save face when I disagree publicly with them, or refuse to cede them power unless they have earned it. Or at least, I am when I make the effort. Sometimes, I'm just too damn grumpy and tired!
All right - enough musing for now. Must get back to work!