A Matter of Interpretation
It Is sometimes said that judges of the purebred dog in conformation competition have a duty and obligation to individually interpret breed standards and to effectively apply their conceptualization and understanding thereof in the process of reaching decisions as to respective merit. But what exactly do we mean by this type interpretation and what are the extents and limitations of such? What does it really involve and how is it applied? Within what parameters is this practiced and what degree of precision is at play? There is obviously a central element of applying the meaning of words present but then there comes the less-definitive and somewhat imprecise matter of construing; the gleaning of a sense of something or conceiving in the light of individual belief, taste or judgment. Explanatory information is, in sense, translated, often rather loosely, into an evaluation of reality. The notion that a standard is, in essence, a sort of blueprint does the rounds but it is actually far less than this in terms of exactitude, however long-winded and tortuously-worded it might be. These verbal compositions of man’s mental creation, most of them highly derivative and of uneven quality, have an important function to fulfill but yet they are still surely open to interpretation, some perhaps more so than others. Or are they? An interesting state of affairs, to say the least!
Over the years concerted efforts have, of course, been made to tighten the imaginative reins, so to speak, and to make standards less open to interpretation by ever increasing the particularizations contained therein.
But they are still, however, by the very nature of things, instruments that allow for that which is conceived in the individual mind. So how should we view standards? It goes without saying that they are meant primarily to be accurately descriptive of respective breed morphologies, whilst surely allowing for the phenomenon of naturally occurring variation. Added to this there is usually some information contained within them on the temperament and movement characteristics, which typify the individual entities. Insofar as their use is concerned, and I’m stating the very obvious here, the fundamental function, which they fulfill, beyond their basic descriptive role, is anchoring breeds, in the short, as well as the long term. That is surely why, when we ever set out to change them, for whatever purpose, great care has to be taken lest this object be defeated by compromising the mooring. There can be little doubt that those original, open, concise, clean, spare, succinct standards which we still, perhaps remarkably, have for some of the older breeds even today, have stood us in very good stead indeed; they have surely weathered the test of time. So why, one might well ask, are there not more of them still in use? Were they really that inadequate? Have they been more open to interpretation? Is it not possible to be brief but yet be comprehensive? But what of the rest, those we have repeatedly and extensively tampered with over the years and are still in the process of being doctored, for whatever reason? Are the breeds any better off and in more superior, not to say uniform shape, than they might otherwise have been because of having these long-winded, highly verbose, pleonastic, overly-particularized standards? Are they better served? When do we reach the more-than-enough-words stage? When do we reach the point of diminishing returns in all of this? It is abundantly clear that there are those among us who hold the firm belief that the more detailed a standard is the more effective it fulfills its multiple functions, in part because it reduces the room for interpretation. But is this necessarily really true? Is there a sort of disconnect here between reality and some abstract notion?
There are some basic truths that we have to consider in this context. The first is that the breeds came first and the standards followed, not the other way around. Man did not initially write a standard and then go about the business of breeding a dog from scratch to exactly match it. Some entities have, of course, been recreated but their form had to have preexisted before a description thereof could be accurately fashioned. So you have the original breeds and you have the original standards. Then there has followed the development part of the story and this is where the waters get quite badly muddied and the subject gets complicated. This is where some of the diversity of opinion concerning standards originates and this is where the dichotomies in quality and validity of same stem from. Although standards are often viewed as being somehow sacrosanct, as being inviolable, they are, of course, nothing of the sort, at least historically speaking. Nevertheless, it is not unreasonable to argue that they should be regarded as being above and beyond alteration unless there is some very good reason, such as gross inaccuracy or dire inadequacy, for such action. Here is a very basic question. Should standards be constantly revised and altered in response to breed changes or should this be stringently resisted and avoided because, in essence, the anchoring mission is thereby automatically compromised? In many breeds, of course, this has happened and successive revisions have as much, if not more, to do with accommodating change in morphology as they do with attempting more adequate description. Have there been instances where things have happened in reverse, where someone’s notion of a perfected and ideal form has come first and has been incorporated in a standard before it has actually existed in reality? Have there indeed been cases where rewording standards in one respect or other has led to subsequent changes in the breeds themselves? Perhaps so, perhaps not. This is not the sort of thing that is readily provable; it surely belongs in the speculative sphere of things. Some standards, particularly those of one or two of our more recently recognized breeds with which I am familiar, appear even fanciful because few, if any, of the exhibits at our shows come within reasonable distance of matching the dictates contained in their descriptions. This, incidentally, makes it rather hard on judges and you get widely differing opinions! These are all rather fascinating questions and any meaningful dialogue concerning standards has to take them into account.
So where are we with all of this? In a muddle or is there some rhyme or reason as to how we collectively view and apply standards? You hear all this erudite talk of the responsibility of breeders to breed to the standards and the obligation of judges to adjudicate by them. Some of this almost appears to be an abstraction, divorced from reality. But just how far are these ideals being met? Again, is there some disconnect between what is being idealized and the state of things in actuality? And while we are on this subject, how successful have we really been in making the standards the best they can be in terms of utility? The record is highly uneven, which perhaps also accounts, in part, for the fact that there apparently exists this incessant tendency to think improvement and a conviction that we can do better. Making them longer doesn’t necessarily do it. On the contrary, in some respects, those excessively worded descriptions are more burdensome than they are constructive and useful. Seems like we want to improve breeds and improve standards without end. We arrive at this frame of mind without giving adequate consideration to certain restrictive factors. There is the limitation of language usage for a start. There are so many examples of repeated attempts at refining descriptions but, in fact, nothing much is being achieved that was not already there. At a certain stage it becomes a superfluous exercise. We are still using words like ‘somewhat’ and ‘slightly’ to qualify because there is no alternative way of conveying a meaning beyond numerical specification as, for example, in the case of length versus height. When we say “somewhat” it translates into “in some measure” or “to some extent”. The question then becomes “how much”? Slightly means in small amount, but the quantification is inherently imprecise.
The message here, it seems to me, and I know there are some who will disagree on this, even vehemently, is that the less often we tamper with standards the better off we probably are. I am using the operative word in the last sentence purposefully. Changing or adding words oftentimes, even though the reasoning behind such action may be perfectly legitimate, may not achieve, perhaps surprisingly, an intended purpose or have the desired affect. Although this sounds defeatist, there is, I believe, a measure of realism here. We liken standards to blueprints, something that they cannot possibly be in a complete, strict sense. I am aware, of course, of fanciers out there who are concerned that their breeds are inexorably drifting away from their original forms and are convinced that the one sure way to counter this undesirable trend is to strengthen the wordage and, thereby, hopefully enhance the anchoring role. This may or may not work but a much better way of assuring the maintenance of breed type in all its aspects is to properly educate successive generations of breeders. The problem is that when changing standards becomes a habitual activity in the culture of the sport it opens the door to misuse with the end result of breed integrity being potentially adversely impacted. So how do you view this matter of whether or not to change a standard or leave well enough alone? How much room should there be for interpretation?
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Gareth Morgan-Jones holds a Doctor of Philosophy degree from the University of Nottingham, England, and a Doctor of Science degree from his alma mater, the University of Wales. Recently retired, he carries the title of Distinguished University Professor Emeritus at Auburn University, where he was a member of the faculty for thirty-eight years. He is approved by the AKC to judge Best in Show, the Hound and Toy Groups, six Sporting breeds, and Pembroke Welsh Corgis. He can be reached at morgangj@charter.net.
Short URL: http://caninechronicle.com/?p=1846
Posted by admin
on Mar 13 2013. Filed under Current Articles, Editorial, Featured.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
Comments are closed
