In this paper, I examine the way humans interact with domestic companion animals, with a focus on ‘positive reward-based training’ methods,
Amelia Lewis (Author) (2021)
Abstract
In this paper, I examine the way humans interact with domestic companion animals, with a focus on 'positive reward-based training' methods, particularly for dogs. From a biosemiotic perspective, I discuss the role of animal training in today's society and examine what binary reward- based reinforcement schedules communicate, semiotically. I also examine the extent to which reward-based training methods promote better welfare, when compared to the more traditional methods which rely on aversive stimuli and punishment, if and when they are relied upon excessively. I conclude that when used as the primary means of communication, they have the potential to be detrimental to animal welfare, because the underlying social signal is control and resource dominance. As an alternative view to behaviourist-based learning theory and conditioning, I outline how enactivist theories of cognition support a semiotic approach to interspecific human-animal communication. I therefore propose a move toward a dynamic semiosis and mutual understanding based upon Peirce's phenomenology, resulting in a more balanced merging of Umwelten. The aim is to create rich and more complex semiospheres around humans and domestic animals, which allow for individual agency and autonomy.
Conclusion
Whilst undeniably, basic training using lures and rewards is necessary, the focus on "positive reward-based' training paradigms when interacting with domestic animal species gives little, if any, room for more complex communication or signaling to take place. Moreover, they reduce individuals of other species to little more than automata, responding to binary inputs. In these circumstances, how can the animal's human companion, or the animals themselves, achieve a true bond and interspecific relationship? The most logically unsound argument commonly proposed to support these paradigms is that because physical force is not used, they are 'humane' and 'kinder'. However, the comparisons with coercive control and psychological manipulation are striking. A more innate, complex, and dynamic interspecific means of communication should not be supplanted by repetitive conditioning and 'commands', which are fast becoming a widespread misapplication of a genuine, but misunderstood and overutilized, biological principle. Nor is it possible to quantify and 'proscribe' communication, as though it were a simple recipe which can be reduced to pre-determined steps. Thus, positive reward- based training has a place as a technique in animal management, but it is not without risks, and it should be understood as what it is; manipulation and coercion (with threat of loss of resources or social interaction) focused on maintaining control. Substantive arguments that as a training technique, it is preferable to fear-based methods and physically aggressive practices, do not alter this statement. As a means of communication, it should not be relied upon as the primary modality, and consideration should be given to more appropriate interactions alongside methods such as 'clicker training', which should not be used without vocal or tactile communication and guidance from the trainer, as described by Fugazza and Miklósi (2015). Perhaps, in moving away from "The Five Freedoms' model of animal welfare, toward a quality-of-life based assessment scale which emphasizes positive welfare rather than the absence of poor welfare (Mellor, 2016), we should begin to change our thinking about how we interact and communicate with domestic and captive animals. This may ultimately lead toward an acceptance that training is not the most enlightened way of communicating with other species, alongside an accompanying paradigm shift toward complex dynamic semiosis, mutual understanding, 'Total Umwelten', and ultimately, a more balanced semiosphere.
Glossary:
