![]()
FOUR
Motivations and characteristics of owners
A key question for me as I began investigating the phenomenon of status dogs was why is this occurring? What motivates young men to obtain aggressive dogs, or to obtain a placid puppy and train it to be deliberately aggressive? This chapter considers the motivations of owners by first establishing a typology of motivations. Second, it draws on sociological and criminological theories to help us understand why some people feel the need to boost their status and why dogs may fit this purpose â for example, for use as gang dogs (dogs used by one or more gang members exclusively within the context of the gang or weapons dogs. Finally, it considers the characteristics of owners and the general influence of cultural imagery.
Chapter Five sets out the extensive primary research that underpins these arguments, but suffice to say for the moment that extensive interviews permitted identification of some common groupings. Analysis of these interviews permitted construction of a broad typology of motivations for ownership of aggressive breeds (working dogs, for example, farm dogs, were not included). The typology of motivations for ownership is shown in Table 4.1. The motivational details of those owning dogs as pets or family companions are not further investigated here and the focus is rather on the motivations for owning status dogs.
What this typology tells us is that owners acquire and use aggressive breeds for a variety of reasons. This suggests a spectrum of ownership, where owners use dogs for different functional purposes in different situations (even among those using dogs to convey status).
A motivational spectrum suggests the operation of different social domains or social fields; for example, using a dog to acquire status is probably more relevant to gang-affiliated young men than to a family of five in a leafy suburb. So just what are these different social domains/fields and why and how is status achieved or acquired? These issues are examined before establishing how and why aggressive dogs fit into this picture, by employing the theoretical perspectives of French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu (1986; 1991).
Table 4.1: Typology of motivations for ownership of aggressive or illegal dogs
Different social fields
Bourdieu developed a theory of practice by considering the relationships formed between individuals and society (Bourdieu, 1990). He argued that social groups or domains (fields) sit in a broad social landscape where relative positions are a function of class and power. Social groupings, be they gangs, artists or academics, seek social distinction from other groupings while simultaneously striving to develop their identity by opposing other social groups. Within each social grouping or field, participants (actors) struggle to achieve distinction and access scarce resources. In this sense, the field becomes âa structured arena of social conflictâ (Bourdieu and Wacquant, 1992). In the social field of a deprived urban neighbourhood, employment opportunities may be limited and low educational attainment may hinder advancement. Thus many local residents may struggle to acquire scarce economic capital.
Bourdieuâs theoretical perspective also considers the types of capital available within social fields. In social fields, knowledge, goods and services are acquired by participants seeking to âaccumulate and monopolise different kinds of capitalâ (Swartz, 1997: 117). In the social field of the urban street gang, the struggle is over money, respect, reputation and status, (Harding, 2012). Such resources are limited and constitute their own form of unevenly distributed capital. Within any field, actors who are lower down the hierarchy struggle to reach the top, for example, poor families trying to achieve financial independence or young gang members aspiring to be the gang leader.
By applying the concept of different social fields to the above typology, it becomes clear that debates about irresponsible use of aggressive bull breeds has in fact been about different social fields. In other words, the public debate has wrongly conflated different social groupings with different social values and norms and bound them together into one homogenous group. Clearly, this misrepresents how dogs fit into different social fields/groupings. It is thus possible to identify three different social fields pertinent to the debate about status dogs and why people own them:
- average families (with pet/companion dogs);
- young people (with status dogs);
- gangs (with status dogs used for criminal activity).
We can see that there are three different social groups of owners rather than one, and that each group operates differently, with different motivations for their relationship with aggressive dogs. This concept is important, as it allows us to move the argument forward, and in this case, to narrow the focus of study to young people.
This finding also helps put into context the public debate about the Staffordshire bull terrier (SBT), and how it is viewed by some as an aggressive status dog and by others as a sociable family pet.1 The former accusation is met with a chorus of angry riposte by a majority claiming to be the responsible owners of a much-loved domesticated pet. What is clear is that these angry responses emanate from a different social field, namely one where dogs are not used to convey status.
How a dog is used within a social field is determined by the function the dog can bring to the social field and the motivation of the owner. In the social field of a mature middle-aged couple, that function is most likely to be companionship. The social norms operating within this social field dictate the social values â the ability to share oneâs home with a companion animal is emblematic of a tolerant caring household. Different values and social norms operate in different social fields. In one, the SBT is a well-socialised family member; in another, itâs an aggressive, poorly socialised dog where the owners purposefully increase its musculature to make it appear bigger and fiercer. The function of the dog thus changes depending on both social field and ownerâs requirements. In the second example, the motivation is to use the dog as a utility vehicle for acquiring status. Although ordinary family homes can also mistreat dogs or fail to socialise them responsibly, the dogs themselves are seldom used to convey status per se. In this sense, then, it is possible for an SBT to be either a sociable domesticated pet or a beefed-up aggressive status dog, depending on the social field and the motivations of the owner.
This research study identified different motivations for ownership of status dogs depending on the social field of the owner. This is best illustrated visually as a spectrum. Figure 4.2 merges discussions on social fields with that of motivational categories.
Figure 4.2: Spectrum of status dogs and social fields
The figure indicates the four motivational categories identified through the research study and maps these against the three relevant social fields indicating the approximate size and coverage of each category. The visual representation seeks to illustrate that:
- fewer young people owning a status dog are motivated by fashion trends than by entrepreneurial factors (making money from breeding/dog fighting and criminal activities);
- breeding is split into professional breeding for the value of the stock and commercial breeding for gain;
- owners using dogs for domestic protection form a similar proportion to that of owners of status dogs. This group, which is largely or disproportionately female, is split across two social fields, average families and young people;
- owners who are motivated by image, identity and personal status form the largest proportion of status dog owners and are found overwhelmingly (though not exclusively) in the social fields of young people and gang-affiliated young people.
Cultural influences are felt most across the social fields for young people and gang-affiliated young people, and less so for average families.
This process represents a first attempt to map these broad categories of motivation to the social groups involved. Naturally, there will be exceptions regarding personal relationships with dogs. The boundaries of the social fields, as with all social fields, are not fixed, but dependent on relationships (Bourdieu, 1987). The motivations of fashion, entrepreneurship and protection are all manifest functions (Parsons, 1937). This differs from image and identity enhancement, which is a latent function.
Brand values
Each group, regardless of their motivation, chooses a status dog because of the strong brand and reputational values associated with large aggressive bull breeds. Each dog comes with its own reputational branding. In the case of bull breeds, this is a reputation that is widely recognised (although it can be stereotypical or generalised). This reputation then corresponds to its commercial brand values or unique selling points. For bull breeds these are aggression, stamina, loyalty, trust, viciousness, âgamenessâ, âuncontrollabilityâ and so on. Young men buy into these brand values, which they then seek to adopt to fit their own personalities, or they craft their own personality around these values.
It is these brand values that make bull breeds and mastiffs the âdogs of choiceâ as status dogs. They fulfil the function required of the social field, namely providing strong brand and reputational values that boost the ownerâs image, conveying and enhancing status. Breed characteristics, qualities and attributes are central in this function, for example pitbulls are reputedly aggressive, loyal and trusting. These qualities are equally attractive to owners.
The malleability of pitbulls, which permits owners to stamp their imprint on the dogâs character and mould its temperament, is equally attractive. For many, it is this unique brand value that makes the pitbull the perfect fit for their function; for a young man, it is a dog with a fearsome reputation for aggression (whether or not justified) that he then uses to convey a similar reputation for himself.
These brand values of status dogs are used by owners to match the functional requirements that underpin the reason or motivation for obtaining the dog. Whatever the motivational reasons for having the dog, the owner expects the dog to perform these functional requirements in its role. Failure to perform this duty effectively may lead to the dog being abandoned or traded up. Table 4.2 illustrates functional requirements in relation to motivations.
Table 4.2: Functional requirements for status dogs
Motivations for owning a status dog
The chapter now examines each of the typologies relating to status dogs:
- entrepreneurship
- protection
- fashion
- image and identity.
The motivation or impetus for owning a status dog varies depending on the ownerâs functional requirements, and the dogâs attributes and manifest/latent function; as well as on the intended perceptional outcome sought by the owner, the social advantage or actual/perceived benefit for the owner, and the level of reputational deficit of the owner.
The type of dog chosen will depend on the reputation of the breed and the ability of the breed to match these requirements. In short, it must be the right dog for the right purpose.
It should also be noted that the first three elements of the typology relate to the dog and its reputational values. The use of a dog to boost the image and identity of the owner relates to the reputational deficit experienced by the owner and this is most likely a latent function of ownership, that is, owners will not say they obtained their dog to boost their image, but will offer others functional motivations. The overarching backdrop to much of this is, of course, cultural influences. The chapter concludes with a summary of how status dogs are viewed within the cultural landscape and the influence this has on young people.
Entrepreneurship
This category may be split into a number of different elements:
- income generation from breeding, either professional breeding to create professional stock or back-street breeding for profit;
- dog fighting (professional circuit);
- use of dogs in crime.
Breeding
A key form of entrepreneurial motivation is using the dog to generate income from breeding. RSPCA officials advise that two distinct groups operate â professional breeders and âhome-grown breedersâ. While space prohibits detailed discussion of professional breeders, it is useful to give an overview by way of distinguishing the characteristics of professional breeding from non-professional breeding.
Professional breeders are motivated by developing professional breeding stock, sourcing and building pedigree bloodlines and focusing on the quality, health and history of the animals. They will not breed dogs without documentation of pedigree (working papers) and are hugely knowledgeable about the breeds. The ancestry and wellbeing of the dog is para...
