Society & Animals Journal of Human-Animal Studies
Volume 8, Number 1, 2000Managing the Stigma o Outlaw Breeds: A Case Study o Pit Bull OwnersHillary wining, Arnold Arluke, 1 and Gary Patronekus Center or Animals and Public PolicyEthnographic interviews were conducted with 28 pit bull “owners” to explore the sociological experience o having adog with a negative image. Results indicate that the vast majority o respondents elt that these dogs were stigmatizedbecause o their breed. Respondents made this conclusion because riends, amily, and strangers were apprehensive inthe presence o their dogs and because they made accusations about the breed’s viciousness and lack o predictability.In the ace o this stigma, respondents resorted to using a variety o interactional strategies to lessen the impact o this perception or prevent it rom occurring. Tese strategies included passing their dogs as breeds other than pit bulls,denying that their behavior is biologically determined, debunking adverse media coverage, using humor, emphasizing counter_stereotypical behavior, avoiding stereotypical equipment or accessories, taking preventive measures, orbecoming breed ambassadors.For the rst hal o this century, pit bulls enjoyed a positive image in America. During World War I, these dogs stoodor American courage and were eatured in a series o patriotic wartime posters. In the 1930s, a popular show called TeLittle Rascals, as well as the Our Gang comedy series, eatured a pit bull. And rom 1890 to 1948, pit bulls were very popular dogs to own because they were seen as “a good_natured watchdog and amily pet” (Jessup, 1995, p. 43).However, the image o pit bulls has suered in recent years. Te popular media commonly portrays pit bulls as demonicanimals - unpredictable and savage in their behavior toward humans. For example, the headline o an article in U.S.News and World Report (1987) proclaimed that pit bulls were “Te Most Dangerous in America.” Te article’s authorclaimed that “America’s baddest dog” was in a separate category rom shepherds, Dobermans, and Rottweilers becausethey cannot “chomp through a chain_link ence” like pit bulls. Cities passed ordinances that restricted or banned pitbulls, and the media kept the hysteria going by reporting every pit bull attack while minimizing those o other breeds.Te result is that pit bulls have come to be seen as an abomination or disturbance in the natural order - an unacceptablethreat to the perceived security and stability o the entire community and a violation o the almost sacred image o thedog as an amiable cultural hero (Serpell, 1995). In other words, they have become an outlaw or deviant breed. Feeding this negative portrayal o pit bulls have been depictions o their “owners” that threaten mainstream America. Mediareports o attacks by these dogs were invariably accompanied by value_laden descriptions o their owners as people whom “average citizens” might nd dangerous. According to Hearne (1991), these reports oen described pit bullowners as white thugs or poor urban blacks and Latinos who kept their dogs in dope dens and ed them raw meat tomake them as mean as possible.Tis negative image has implications or people who have pit bulls as companion animals. On the one hand, some people might be drawn to this breed in the hope o exploiting and perpetuating its vicious reputation. Such owners seekto use these dogs as status symbols o power and aggression and to reap the secondary benet o an intimidating persona.On the other hand, some people might see qualities in this breed that run contrary to its negative image and want toestablish “traditional” human_dog relationships with their pit bulls. Nevertheless, they “inherit,” and presumably have tocontend with, adverse public perceptions o their pets. Sociologically, this adverse perception can be considered a breedstigma where the animal itsel has a “spoiled” or tainted identity and where owners may experience a courtesy stigma asa consequence o their association with, and ownership o, pit bulls (Sigelman, Howell, Cornell, Cutright, and Dewey,1991).According to Goman (1963), humans experience stigma when they possess certain physical or mental traits thatresult in various negative consequences such as social exclusion, anxiety, alienation, loss o sel_esteem, discrimination,and social disenranchisement. In the ace o social disapproval or even ear, stigmatized individuals seek to manageor respond to these adverse perceptions by relying on interpersonal strategies that minimize, neutralize, or evade theirstigma - as, or example, do epileptics (Schneider & Conrad, 1980) and animal researchers (Arluke, 1991).
Individuals undertake these steps to manage their stigma as a part o the dramaturgy o everyday lie whereby peopleseek to present a certain image o themselves, especially in terms o the small, unremarkable interactions that comprisea substantial part o routine social behavior. According to urner (1998), “...individuals deliberately ‘give’ andinadvertently ‘give o’ signs that provide others with inormation about how to respond” (p. 394). Although someinormation that people communicate is inadvertent, much o it is deliberate and careully orchestrated. Given thedegree to which our social reality hinges on people’s unspoken agreement to uphold common expectations about publicconduct, the ailure to do so results in a sense o uneasiness. In this regard, people not only maintain and promote socialinteractions through their presentation o sel but also seek to repair damaged or disrupted relationships.Dramaturgical sociologists have noted that impression management can involve a “team” o actors who collaborateto create particular perceptions o themselves (Goman,1959), and a handul o recent studies suggest that team presentations o sel can extend across species lines, such that humans who are responsible or particular animals mayseek to control or inuence how other people perceive their animals and them (e.g., Cantwell, 1992). For instance,Sanders (1990) notes that companion animals and their owners oen unction as teams in public settings when ownersre_establish social equilibrium by accounting or their dogs’ actions aer they misbehave. Although Sanders’ “excusing tactics” reer to specic incidents o canine disobedience, they also are relevant to the ways that pit bull owners respondto their anticipation o negative perceptions o their dogs. Pit bull owners may seek to manage impressions o their dogsi they discover that their dogs, or the breed as a whole, are viewed in an unavorable light and i they care about thisnegative image.
Method
Ethnographic interviews were conducted with pit bull owners to explore how they experience and manage breed stigma.Names o pit bull owners were obtained rom two shelters in large eastern Massachusetts cities. Te orty most recent pit bull adopters rom each shelter were sent a letter describing this study. O this group, a total o 28 owners wereinterviewed. Except or one pilot interview, all participants had adopted a pit bull within the past year and a hal. Teylived in cities and suburbs throughout the central and northeast part o the state as well as in southern New Hampshire.Te vast majority o respondents were Caucasian, between the ages o 20 and 50. Both blue and white collar proessions were represented, although the ormer were more common than the latter. Te types o households ranged rom singleadults to couples and amilies.Te interviews were semi_structured and usually lasted about 45 minutes. Te questions ocused on participants’ previous experience with pit bulls, their decision to adopt this kind o dog, reactions rom strangers, amily, and riends,and the way in which this breed’s stigma aected dog ownership. On the whole, the vast majority o respondentsappeared to be comortable and orthcoming during the interviews.
Results
Results indicate that the nature o this stigma usually revolved around accusations o the breed’s viciousness and lack o predictability. Although a ew owners spoke with nonchalance about the breed’s negative public reputation, the majorityo respondents expressed concern and rustration about this stigma. In the ace o such stigma, respondents used one ormore excusing or accounting tactics. Tese strategies included passing their dogs as breeds other than pit bulls, denying that their behavior is biologically determined, debunking adverse media coverage, using humor, emphasizing counter_stereotypical behavior, avoiding stereotypical equipment or accessories, taking preventive measures, or becoming breedambassadors.
Breed Stigma
According to many respondents, when they and their pit bulls encountered strangers, direct allegations o viciousness were rare. More common, they claimed, was a sense that strangers were earul or apprehensive. Most respondents, orexample, could recall situations in which people on the street tried to avoid their dogs, either by walking around them orby crossing the street. One owner who lives just outside Boston in a city with a prominent pit bull population said,
In the morning when I walk [my dog], sometimes I cross paths...and as I’m coming out [there is] this lady walking herlittle - I don’t know what it is; it’s a Schnauzer or Lhasa Apso or something. I could be in my driveway and she’s alreadytrying to avoid the dog.For another respondent, this avoidance was expressed more directly. Recounting a situation in which a delivery manreused to come to the house, he said,My dogs were out in the ront yard and the guy would not come near the house. He parked up the street, called me romthe cell phone. [He said], “You have two dogs in your yard, two pit bulls; I’m not coming in there.”Tis desire to avoid pit bulls altogether was occasionally expressed by amily members as well. Several respondents hadrelatives who did not want to visit them because o their dogs. For one owner, it took positive reports about his pit bullrom siblings beore his stepmother would consider a visit. In another case, the respondent’s ather agreed to visit but didnot want to stay in his house with the dog.He was supposed to come visit and stay with us, and he wouldn’t stay with us because [our dog] was a pit bull. Notbecause he’s araid o dogs, because he has a dog, but basically just because she was a pit bull, he was dead against it.Te presence o children oen heightened people’s caution around pit bulls. One owner, although amiliar withoccasional avoidance rom strangers, was struck by the dramatic reaction o two parents as she and her leashed pit bull walked by their children on a busy road:I saw these people; they were walking on Route 9 and I was coming up by the pond there. Te two adults were next tothe pond side o the sidewalk and their children [were] hal on the road, hal on the sidewalk...Tey’re letting their kids practically play in trac - they see me coming with the dog and they immediately push their children to the side o theroad sheltering them rom the dog.For this respondent, the parents’ reaction to her pit bull seemed ironic in light o the comparative risk o letting theirchildren walk so close to a busy road.Concern or children requently prompted people to voice more specic ears about pit bulls. One owner’s relativerelated a story in which a riend’s daughter was bitten on the ace by the amily’s pit bull when she accidentally steppedon the dog. For a young couple with a newborn, concern about their pit bull rom riends and amily had been airlylow_key (“Is the dog going to be okay”?), but or another respondent, the reaction was much more pronounced: “When[my daughter] was rst born, everyone said, ‘You’ve got to be careul. Tat dog is going to eat her; he’s going to kill her;he’s going to bite her.’”Although concerns about saety around pit bulls were most pronounced with children, adults oen harbored the sameears. Several respondents were sel_employed contractors or salespeople who spent most o the day in their truckstraveling between clients, and they oen brought their pit bulls with them. One o these respondents related theollowing story:One o my customers didn’t know that I had my dog who...would sleep down on the oor [o my truck]. And this guygot in to move my truck in ront o his garage and...slammed the door shut, and [my dog] sprung up o the oor, leaptonto the seat, and prepared to give him a big, old kiss. And [the customer] urinated! Te guy was so scared that hemessed himsel.Although the element o surprise certainly contributed to this man’s reaction, it is possible that the dog’s breed was also aactor in his split_second reaction.Some owners described situations in which people approached them and asked i their pit bulls were riendly.Although this type o inquiry indicated an acknowledgment that there are good pit bulls, it nonetheless communicatedexpectations about the way in which most pit bulls behave. When one respondent told a woman who was petting hisdog that the dog was a pit bull, she quickly began to retreat. He pointed out that his dog was still the same riendlyanimal she had just seen, and the woman acknowledged his point but made it clear that his pit bull was an exception tothe rule. She commented, “I’m really glad I got to meet a pit bull because I hadn’t ever met one, and it’s a great learning experience or me that there is at least one nice one out there.”Other questions and comments challenged respondents’ sense o trust in their pit bulls. One owner’s neighbor said,“Do you really trust that dog? Aren’t you worried that she’s going to attack someone?” Questions about a dog’strustworthiness could be particularly vexing or respondents because such comments seemed to presume that the
Search History:
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
p.
Managing the Stigma of Outlaw Breeds: A Case Study of Pit Bull Owners
Managing the Stigma of Outlaw Breeds: A Case Study of Pit Bull Owners, by Hillary Twining, Arnold Arluke, Gary Patronek, Tufts Center for Animals and Public Policy, Society & Animals Journal of Human-Animal Studies, Vol. 8…
(More)
1.1K
Reads
1
Readcasts
1
Embed Views
