Thoughts on De-escalation and Learning From Dogs
The other day I came across a poster of “The Canine Ladder of Aggression.” The “ladder” is a helpful tool in assessing and understanding a dog’s reaction and behavior to perceived threats. Generally speaking, dogs just like people, prefer not to get into a confrontation. A dog will give off many signals before finally resorting to biting. In many ways, a dog is not trying to go up this “ladder” but actually give off signals to reduce the possibility of an aggressive confrontation.
Understanding how to read a dog is essential to keeping a human safe, and a dog from being potentially mislabeled as aggressive. As with many situations in life when dealing with living beings, reactions and their meaning aren’t always set in stone and need to be understood in the context of the situation. A dog that turns its body, sits and starts pawing could just as easily be a needy dog or one starting to show signs of stress. A dog that is rough housing and playing tug and is growling could be showing the signs of possessiveness or it could be a play growl.
Taken as a whole, the concept behind the “Ladder of Aggression” is structurally sound and shows the nature of a dog becoming more and more uncomfortable in a situation, finally to the point of feeling no other option but to bite. In other words, most dogs with at least some level of sociability, will not immediately choose to engage in its most aggressive option. Likewise, in a moderate to low stress environment humans will most likely try to minimize conflict, especially in a face to face setting. Inherently, there is little to no gain from rapidly jumping from moderate annoyance to “full on attack” mode.
“My solution to the problem would be … to bomb them back into the Stone Ages” – Curtis E. LeMay
Instead with humans, be it on an individual level or geo-political level, historically a more accurate description of our actions in dealing with confrontation would be the term “gradual escalation”. This was a term that became more popularized to describe the Vietnam War, but it can fit into many aspects of one’s personal interactions. The key difference between a canine ladder of aggression versus a human gradual escalation is that a dog is trying to minimize the possibility of confrontation.
When a person is engaging in gradual escalation, the term itself belies the concept of the desire to win by using aggression, as opposed to either defuse a situation or trying to understand another person’s point of view. It doesn’t take a doctoral thesis to see that when face to face interaction is removed and there is no barrier to escalation (basically every social media platform), gradual escalation quickly turns into rapid escalation.
“In dealing with others, be gentle and kind. In speech, be true … In action, be aware of the time and the season.” – Lao Tzu
Ask yourself today, what person(s) do you follow or admire those practices or engages instead in a concept of de-escalation? In a personal setting, which approach to conflict has historically led to a positive outcome, one of aggression, win at all costs, or one of reconciliation or de-escalation? Where are the favorable historical role models that are universally admired that consistently practiced the art of rapid escalation?
Perhaps the idea of attempting to deescalate a situation seems like pacifism, appeasement, or a quaint notion that is best left on the gentlemanly confines of a game of bridge. Yet it was Bruce Lee, no wilting violet, who was quoted as saying his style was, “The art of fighting without fighting.” One finds it hard to imagine Gandhi or Martin Luther King Jr. spending time trying to “crush their enemies” via twitter. The Sermon on the Mount did not include the line, “Blessed are the war makers.”
“Our anger and annoyance are more detrimental to us than the things themselves which anger or annoy us.” - Marcus Aurelius
Part of the human condition is the fact that there are times when conflict is inevitable. But that doesn’t mean conflict/aggression should be the default response. On a micro level, are we adding to that escalation with each witty meme or rant that appeals only to one ‘tribe’? Social commentary and posts tearing down other groups we don’t like just alienates more people and further divides us into groups. On a macro level are we now drawn to the leaders who work for a common goal or leaders who if they weren’t on our team, we certainly wouldn’t want them in our family as a father, mother, in-law or role model?
There is a now famous line in the movie The Social Dilemma, “If you’re not paying for the product, you are the product.” Yet we have free will. Social media is a tool, one that is often times used in manipulative ways, but only if we allow ourselves to be manipulated. Like any tool it can be used to create beautiful spaces or it can be used to destroy. The option is always that of the user.
In dog rescue, at the end of the day, it is the dogs that have a good temperament, the dogs that attempt to de-escalate a situation, the dogs that give off signals to avoid conflict, are almost always the ones that make it out of the shelter, survive and thrive. That strategy sounds like a solid one for humans to keep in mind today.