|
"Dogmen: The
Rationalization of Deviance"
Authors of original
article: Craig J. Forsyth and Rhonda D. Evans
Originally published in Society & Animals
Volume 6, Number 3*
People of all walks of life who share
their homes with dogs, enjoy interacting with others' companion
dogs, or just think of dogs as "man's best friend" would find it
impossible to comprehend dog fighting-the practice of training
dogs to fight with other dogs, placing dogs together to fight, and
finding amusement in watching them tear each other to pieces. Yet
dog fighting takes place, and for that to happen, human beings
must do all of those things.
Craig Forsyth and Rhonda Evans, sociologists at the University of
Southwestern Louisiana, conducted research aimed at revealing how
individuals become and remain capable of fighting and breeding pit
bull terriers and otherwise taking part in the dog fighting
enterprise. They interviewed participants and SPCA officials, law
enforcement officers, and veterinarians. They also attended many
dogfights.
After describing heartrending and gruesome details of dogfights,
the authors describe how "dogmen" seek to justify their activities
which are reprehensible to most people and unlawful in most
states.
"We're not hurting anybody and the dogs love to fight, so what's
the harm?" is a typical answer to the questions the authors put to
the dogmen. They also criticize those who condemn dog fighting:
"Those SPCA fanatics aren't worried about people. They are worried
about dogs. Go figure it out." They also invoke the "sport's" long
history and supposed cultural significance, implying that they are
maintaining an important tradition. Thus, dogmen portray
themselves as good guys, in part by performing such a supposedly
valuable service and in part by making others out to be inferior
to them. In response, animal protectionists offer documentation of
the suffering and cruelty involved.
In these ways, dogmen enable themselves to continue by avoiding
the fact that dog fighting is clearly a socially deviant activity.
Rather than relish the activity's illicitness, as those engaged in
some other criminal activities do, dogmen reframe themselves and
dog fighting so as to become, in their own minds, conventionally
moral individuals.
This article helps to explain why outlawing dog fighting and
enforcing the law is usually the method of choice for ensuring
that it does not take place. A relatively small group of persons
prepared to undertake such astonishing mental acrobatics to
rationalize such a cruel activity is unlikely to be reached by
ordinary educational programs.
*Available
from Psychologists for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, P.O.
Box 1297, Washington Grove, MD 20880-1297; 301-963-4751
To order Journal
of Applied Animal Welfare Science or Society & Animals,
go to our secure online
ordering page
You
can Search the online issues of Society & Animals, as well
as the entire Society & Animals Forum (formerly PSYETA)
website,
for topics and keywords of your interest:
|
