Download Conference Draft Paper - Inter

Meeting, Matching and Bonding:
A Communication Ethnography of an Animal Shelter
Sara Kaufman
Susan Poulsen
Priya Kapoor
Abstract
Scholarly inquiry into the presence and meaning of animals within human lives is an
emerging focus of study. After the work of Cary Wolfe (2009), Donna Haraway (2003)
and Clinton Sanders (2003), scholars have developed an interest in the interdisciplinary
field of Animal Studies, casting new light on the ways in which humans view, use and
interact with animals. However, the field of Communication has not closely examined the
ways we speak about animals, and the meanings of such speech. This study used Dell
Hymes (1962), Saville Troike (2003) and Clifford Geertz (1973) Ethnography of
Communication as a theoretical framework to understand the speech community within a
United States humane society.
Through analysis of a set of long interviews, in situ observations and shelter artifacts,
findings revealed a significant level of communication related to relationship building
and maintenance between humans and animals, with an overarching promotion of
bonding as a key focus. Shelter staff made efforts to bond with shelter animals, and
encouraged bonding between adopters and animals. Relationship language within the
shelter setting centered on relationship building and development, including the “dark
side” of relationships.
By using knowledge about individual animals, shelter workers attempted to evaluate
an appropriate fit between animal and adopter. In instances when relational bonding did
not occur, workers engaged in language of the “dark side.” For shelter workers, the
darker side of human-animal relationships presented itself as failed bonding in the form
of animal surrenders, violence, neglect and death. Traditionally, interpersonal
communication theory has focused solely on human-human relationships. The presence
and promotion of relationship language within an animal shelter setting invites further
inquiry into our often complicated and evolving relationships with animals.
Key Words
Communication, ethnography, culture, human-animal bond, sociolinguistics, animal
shelters, animal studies.
*****
1. Introduction
Whereas previous studies have looked at the culture of animal shelters through
sociological, psychological, and cultural studies (Furst, 2007; Serpell, 1986; Wolfe,
2009), this study directly addressed communication within the context of an animal
shelter in the US.
1
Understanding the way a cultural group utilizes communication within a community
can be a significant way to understand their culture, in this case communication related to
or about companion animals within the shelter context.
This study of shelter culture was motivated by an observation that living with companion
animals and adopting animals from shelters appeared to be a taken-for-granted facet of
US culture. Over 60 percent of households in the United States live with a companion
animal (Risley-Curtis et al., 2006). The term companion animal is distinguished from the
term “pet” to describe domesticated animals, namely dogs, cats, birds and other small
mammals that live with humans whose purpose is companionship rather than
entertainment or economic function. (Irving, 2004; Mondelli et al., 2004)
2. Research Purpose
The purpose of this study was to understand the culture-sharing group of people
working within an animal shelter using the Ethnography of Communication. The study
was qualitative and inductive, in that the study was attempting to understand both the
meaning and context of this cultures’ communication by examining their communicative
processes. Guiding research questions included: RQ1: What are the cultural
communication forms performed in the context of the humane society? RQ2: How do
shelter volunteers1 and staff communicate about companion animals? RQ3: What cultural
meanings are instantiated through communication in this context?
3. Literature
Within US culture, humane societies are a recent phenomenon within the last 150
years, found primarily in communities whose political and socioeconomic environments
have advanced beyond “marginal survival” (Arkow, 1985, p. 455). Animal protection, as
social movement, can be traced to the 19th century. Evidence of attitude change
regarding animal treatment is reflected in the number of protection agencies and
legislation against animal cruelty during this time period. (Arkow, 1999; Franklin, 1999;
Irving, 2004).
The US humane movement grew in strength after the Civil War (Arkow, 1999;
Mason, 2005) and the animal humane movement in the 1800s became a parent to the
child protection movement in both the US and Britain (Howard, 2009; Schultz, 1924).
Previous studies found that those who choose shelter work are drawn to it from a desire
to work with animals (Alger, 2003; Harbolt, 2003) and identify themselves as “animal
people” in a cultural community engaged in a “battle” against pet overpopulation
(Arluke, 1994). Shelters are experiencing a shifting of goals from primarily population
control to a focus on retaining animals in homes and behavioral education (Arkow,
1985). Since the early 20th century, the increased organization of shelters has allowed for
efforts toward preventing animal overpopulation and public awareness (Schultz, 1924).
Previous literature has examined the shelter from primarily a sociological view, with
the communication of groups whose jobs involve caring for companion animals less well
documented. Researchers have called for inquiry into the specific language and
communication of shelter workers (Harbolt, 2003).
2
4. Ethnography of Communication
Ethnography of Communication (EOC) was used as a descriptive theoretical
framework to guide this study of the shelter speech community in the context of its uses,
functions and patterns (Hymes, 1962). This study drew on the concept of culture as
identified by Geertz (1973). Cultural patterns of religion, philosophy and aesthetics
function as “blueprints” for sociological processes of a culture. Communication and
language in particular, are one of the major systems through which ideology is
transmitted, and meaning created. Therefore, looking at the processes, functions and
meanings of language within a culture is key to understanding the culture itself.
Within EOC, the social unit of a community is termed “speech community” and is
the unit of analysis (Hymes and Gumperz, 1972). This is a social rather than purely
linguistic term that acknowledges all forms of language including writing and nonverbal
communication (Saville-Troike, 2003). By looking at the language structures, a cultural
community can be understood through discourse, revealing what is important to the
community. This includes assumptions about the beliefs, values and rights accorded
individuals as well as providing the means to define and mark social and political
categories. (Saville-Troike, 2003). EOC data types include background information,
material artifacts, social organization or structure, communication forms, common
knowledge and assumptions about language use and beliefs, including positive or
negative views surrounding language use.
5. Research setting and analysis
The Oregon Humane Society (OHS) was established in 1868 as one of the first
humane organizations in the United States. Founded in 1880 by Dr. Thomas Lamb Eliot
after he witnessed the beating of a carriage horse, OHS was Oregon’s child and animal
protection organization from 1881 to 1933. OHS currently operates as a nonprofit
agency and is funded through voluntary private and public contributions. The
organization is presently located in Portland Oregon, in a primarily industrial
neighborhood.
Research took place over 9 months at OHS in settings where shelter volunteers and
staff had direct contact daily with animals2. Data collection included 40 hours of
participant observation, field notes focused on communication patterns, two key speech
events, material artifacts and documents, and eight face-to-face interviews with shelter
workers3. Using thematic analysis (Luborsky, 1994) and EOC analytic components, I
examined data that characterized the cultural scene, discursive patterns, including
frequently heard phrases and words, what constituted appropriate speech, common
knowledge of the speech community, euphemisms, and emergent critical speech events.
Interview data were triangulated (Patton, 2002) with fieldwork materials and key
artifacts.
6. Findings
Analysis of communication revealed a significant level of relationship
communication throughout the animal shelter portions of OHS. Findings revealed three
main communication forms: verbal, written and nonverbal. Prominent emergent themes
3
clustered around relationship building and maintenance. The presence of repeated
relationship building terms that support the overarching theme of relational bonding
suggest that a network of interrelated relationships occurred in the service of bonding
between shelter workers, animals and the public.
Relationship Building and Maintenance
A significant level of relationship building and maintenance communication
reflected in terms such as “Meeting,” “Getting to know,” “Matching,” “Spending time,”
“Get Acquainted” and “Bond” were frequently heard from staff. The overarching
promotion of bonding was a key focus. As a relational term, bond described an
“attachment” or “connection” between animal and human. Shelter staff and volunteers
made efforts to bond with shelter animals, and ensured as much as possible, bonding
between the public (adopters) and animals to prevent returns of animals.4
By using knowledge about individual animals, staff attempted to evaluate a potential
fit between an animal and adopter. “And, you have to be able to look at the dogs and the
people and you know, say this is going to work or this isn’t going to work.” (Volunteer
Worker D). “Meeting” and “getting to know” an animal were stressed in formal classes
at OHS, as well as emphasized by interview participants as a part of their everyday work.
Spending time with an animal as “A” explains:
You know, I love dogs and so just to be able to spend some time with a dog, take
out of his kennel, um interact with him and help him feel more comfortable, him
confident, relaxed um even if he just sleeps for a little bit…some of them don’t
sleep a lot…cause there’s other dogs barking and it’s a strange place and it’s kind
of scary. (Volunteer Worker A)
“Meeting” an animal was used in the context of both understanding the individual
traits of an animal, as well as a process that was encouraged by the shelter if a customer
appeared interested in an animal. The shelter had several rooms in both the cat and dog
areas specifically for the purpose of providing a quiet place for a potential adopter and an
animal to spend time together. The rooms were referred to as the Get Acquainted and
Meet and Greet rooms.
Interpersonal Communication Theory
The relationship network among shelter workers, animals, and the public appears to
follow Mark Knapp’s (1992) model of interaction stages in relationships characterized by
different patterns of communication. The model, initially developed to explain human
interpersonal relationship development, maintenance and decline includes 10 sub-steps; 6
of which this study was able to examine. The model includes The Coming Together
phase, which includes steps of initiating, experimenting, and intensifying. Integration and
bonding follow. The second stage of the model is the Coming Apart stage, which
includes the termination step. The majority of steps identified within shelter
communication fell into Knapp’s relationship development, or “coming together” stage.
The findings of this study do not speak to the entire macro stage of “coming apart,” but
the process, and the final step of relationship termination.
4
In the initiating step of relationship development, communicators are attempting to
show that they are pleasant and likable. One volunteer worker used the metaphor of a
dance to describe this step: “I love that little dance that you do at first with a dog, to let
them read you and you read them” (Volunteer Worker B)
Duck (1985) also describes relationship development as a process and those getting
to know one another seek to “match” themselves with others on the basis of a range of
factors including physical appearance, attitude and nonverbal information. At the same
time, individuals are attempting to reduce uncertainty to gain information of mood or
interest toward themselves. This includes careful observation of the other including
exchanging greetings. In shelter literature it has been noted that there is some difficulty
“reading” the personality or behavior of an animal within the shelter setting, as both
animals and people may not act exactly as they would at home (Irving, 2004; Alger &
Alger 2003).
Shelter workers appeared to engage in reducing this uncertainty for members of the
public in several ways. For example, “kennel cards” were displayed on the kennel of each
shelter animal. These often included perceived likes or dislikes or behavior traits of the
animal. Volunteers working in the cattery were encouraged to “sit” with cats in the clear
glass colony rooms, which were visible to the public, either grooming them or
“socializing” with them. These behaviors perhaps modeled the way the shelter animal
might act with a potential adopter:
This creates a favorable impression for the public, as they may walk by and see
a dog interacting with someone they then can see that scene in their home, thus
potentially making that dog adoptable. (Field note, September 2010)
In the experimenting step (2nd), communicators gain further information about the
other individual. The shelter appeared to facilitate both steps of initiating and
experimenting between potential adopters and shelter animals by encouraging them to
visit the “Get Acquainted” and “Meet and Greet” rooms in the shelter. This appeared
to allow potential adopters space to engage in “sizing up” or the attempt to obtain new
information about others while reducing uncertainties (Knapp, 1992). In addition,
adopters may be searching for potential similarities (Knapp, 1992). Within shelter
literature, this step appeared to take place as potential adopters spent time with an
animal before adoption, as well as an activity that was encouraged by shelter workers.
A customer is looking at a cat in the colony room next to us and ____ asks,
“Would you like to meet her? If you want you can come into the room and talk to
her to see what she’s like.” (Field note, October 2010)
During Intensifying step (3rd), there is active participation within the relationship,
such as direct expressions of commitment or terms of endearment. In relation to the
public, a volunteer worker who assisted in an adoption of a shelter dog demonstrated the
intensifying step:
5
This guy came in and met ___ two or three times, fell in love with ___, ___ fell in
love with him and on Christmas Eve last year…___ got adopted, snow was up to
here, we were closing early, he comes in and adopts this dog on Christmas Eve.
(Volunteer Worker D)
Bonding is described as a relationship step in terms of an extension of integrating, or
a commitment to the relationship (Knapp, 1984), or intimacy based on “complex
behavioral interdependence” (Trenholm & Jensen, 1996, p. 334). The latter steps of
bonding and integrating appear to be similar to the adoption of an animal and integration
of the animal into the individual’s home. Shelter workers who had adopted shelter
animals described this step in their own experiences:
And ___ was the one, he came in um, and then he got adopted by a family with
children and then he was returned because he wasn’t good with children. So I
adopted him...I really liked him. He’s a hugger, so when he gets nervous he’ll
come up to a person and climb up and snuggle. And that doesn’t happen very
often with cats so it’s hard not to fall in love. And he got adopted, that was great,
but when he got returned he was mine. My cat. (Staff 3)
As noted earlier, during my nine months at OHS, I was unable to address the
relational decline, or the coming apart steps of Knapp’s model, as de-escalation steps
were not mentioned by shelter workers within interviews. However, workers did touch
upon final “termination” step of relational decline.
Dark Side of Relationships
The “Dark Side” of human relating can include social interactions that are difficult,
problematic or distressing (Spitzberg and Cupach, 1998). Some features of the dark side
include conflict, dissatisfaction, violence and dissolution. The majority of the relationship
language observed in the shelter tended to be positive. However, some shelter staff
described the “darker” side of human-animal relationships that typically clustered into 3
types. The first were owner-released where animals were “surrendered” to the shelter,
and second were animals that had been adopted out from the shelter and then returned
back (both types sometimes perceived by shelter workers as “broken bonds”). The third
type was violence, neglect and euthanasia.
As Spitzberg & Cupach (1998, p. xiv) note “harming those who have little power to
protect themselves from harm is another source of darkness.” From the perspective of
shelter workers, the “termination” step of Knapp’s model, which includes aspects of the
dark side of relating, e.g. giving up an animal, was experienced as essentially negative
and perceived some of them as “broken bonds” between humans and animals. Shelter
workers described the emotional toll of confronting the negative aspects of animal-human
interactions.
We have to see a very dark side, and because we also know that there’s a
connection between animal violence leading to eventually domestic violence, we
know that there’s some very scary people out there because of where we see
6
them start this process that may lead them to violence to fellow human beings.
(Staff 1)
OHS did not euthanize animals for space reasons, only for ill health or significant
behavior issues. Some shelter workers cited this as a positive for the shelter.
… the good thing about me coming to OHS is that euthanasia is not taken
lightly by this organization. I’ve never seen a place with such low numbers. So
I like that. (Staff 1)
However when euthanasia did occur, it appeared to affect some shelter workers.
And I was waiting for someone to assist me, and I was telling him to sit and lay
down he was doing all of this, and so I got a little bit attached. You know? Just
in that brief moment and so afterwards I got really emotional because I didn’t
know this dog. But I just had that brief attachment to him and it made it…really
difficult. So sometimes that can be really difficult, really painful for, for me.
(Staff 3)
7. Conclusion
Human-Animal Studies (HAS), or Animal Studies is a growing interdisciplinary
field that explores the relations between humans and non-humans drawing upon a wide
range of fields including, but not limited to sociology, philosophy, history, literature and
science. Our lives are connected to animals in many different ways. We eat them, and use
their products, view them in zoos, refer to them in metaphors (DeMello, 2012) and, in the
case of this study, share our homes and lives with them.
Within the study of interpersonal relationships in particular, scholarship has
generally focused on human-human relationships with a resulting research gap of how,
and if the presence of animals affects human communication, and the meanings of such
speech. In looking at the shelter through an analysis of animal shelter communication, the
findings of this study revealed a significant level of relationship communication.
Relationship terms, types and processes appeared to support an animal-centric culture
within this humane society. For those concerned with the ways we relate to and about
animals, the question of what constitutes meaning for communicators has the potential to
be investigated further.
As US society becomes increasingly linked both regionally and globally,
understanding how to tackle larger issues of communicable diseases and population
health can be linked to ensuring both human and animal health. Companion animal
overpopulation, control and welfare are issues faced not only within the speech
community studied here but wherever in the world animals live alongside humans.
Understanding the communication of groups who rescue and shelter animals may lend
additional insight to the meaning and value placed on the animals in their care, and
possibly insight into these larger issues.
7
Notes
1 Shelter volunteers are also described as “volunteer workers” in this study.
2 One of the limitations of this study is that it was focused on one area of the humane
society. I did not conduct interviews, or include observation notes of specific public
activities or discourse. As the public and community is an integral part of the humane
society, this was a limitation as I was not able discover the public’s understanding of
shelter animals and the shelter itself.
3 Although each interview participant was initially identified by a pseudonym, I assigned
a notation system corresponding to each participant to further protect confidentially.
Shelter staff interview participants are identified in this study as numbers 1-3 and shelter
volunteers, letters A-E.
4 Analysis also revealed discourse in reference to shelter staff and volunteer workers
forming bonds with each other. For the sake of space, these findings will not be
addressed in this paper.
Bibliography
Arkow, Phil. "The evolution of animal welfare as a human welfare concern." Child
abuse, domestic violence, and animal abuse: Linking the circles of compassion for
prevention and intervention (1999): 19-37.
Arkow, Phil. "The humane society and the human-companion animal bond. Reflections
on the broken bond." The Veterinary Clinics of North America. Small Animal
Practice 15, no. 2 (1985): 455-466.
Arluke, Arnold. "Coping with euthanasia: a case study of shelter culture." Journal of the
American Veterinary Medical Association 198, no. 7 (1991): 1176-1180.
Arluke, Arnold. Managing emotions in an animal shelter. Animals and human society.
New York: Routledge, 1994.
DeMello, Margo. Animals and Society: An Introduction to Human-Animal Studies.
Columbia University Press. 2012.
Duck, Steve. "Stratagems, spoils, and a serpent’s tooth: On the delights and dilemmas of
personal relationships." The dark side of interpersonal communication (1994): 324.
Duck, Steve. ”Social and Personal Relationships’ in Knapp, M. & Miller G. (Eds.)
Handbook of Interpersonal Communication. Beverly Hills: Sage, 1985.
Furst, Gennifer. "Without words to get in the way: Symbolic interaction in prison-based
animal programs." Qualitative Sociology Review 3, no. 1 (2007).
8
Geertz, Clifford. The interpretation of cultures: Selected essays. Vol. 5019. Basic books,
1973.
Haraway, Donna Jeanne. The companion species manifesto: Dogs, people, and
significant otherness. Vol. 1. Chicago: Prickly Paradigm Press, 2003.
Harbolt, Tami L. Bridging the bond: the cultural construction of the shelter pet. Purdue
University Press, 2009.
Hymes, Dell H., and John Joseph Gumperz, eds. Directions in sociolinguistics: the
ethnography of communication. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1972.
Hymes, Dell. (1974). Foundations in Sociolinguistics: An Ethnographic
Approach. F Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press Inc. 1974.
Hymes, Dell. "The ethnography of speaking." Anthropology and human behavior 13, no.
53 (1962): 11-74.
Irvine, Leslie. If you tame me: Understanding our connection with animals. Temple
University Press, 2008.
Irvine, Leslie. "Animal problems/people skills: Emotional and interactional strategies in
humane education." Society & Animals 10, no. 1 (2002): 63-91.
Luborsky, Mark R. "The identification and analysis of themes and patterns." (1994).
Mason, Jennifer. Civilized Creatures: Urban Animals, Sentimental Culture, and
American Literature, 1850–1900. JHU Press, 2005.
Oregon Humane Society (2008). Retrieved April 28, 2010 www.oregonhumane.org
Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods 3rd Edition.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Sanders, Clinton R. "UNDERSTANDING DOGS Caretakers' Attributions of Mindedness
in Canine-Human Relationships." Journal of contemporary ethnography 22, no. 2
(1993): 205-226.
Saville-Troike, Muriel. "The Ethnography of Communication: An Introduction”
(Language in Society)." (2003).
Schultz, William. The Humane Movement in the United States, 1910
1922. New York: Columbia University Press. 1924.
Serpell, James A. "Creatures of the unconscious: Companion animals as mediators."
Companion animals and us: Exploring the relationship between people and pets
(2000): 108-124.
9
Serpell, James A. "Working out the beast: An alternative history of western
humaneness." Child abuse, domestic violence and animal abuse: Linking the circles
of compassion for prevention and intervention (1999): 38-49.
Serpell, J. "In the company of animals." In the company of animals. (1986).
Spitzberg, Brian H., and William R. Cupach. "The dark side of close relationships."
(1998).
Jensen, Arthur, and Sarah Trenholm. Interpersonal Communication Wadsworth: Belmont
1996
Wolfe, Cary. "Human, All Too Human:" Animal Studies" and the Humanities." pmla
124, no. 2 (2009): 564-575.
10