Following Dictates

By Dr. Gareth Morgan-Jones

On occasion, usually as a result of some strong sentiment or other being expressed, reader reactions are summarily received, more often than not in the form of e-mails, other times verbally, in person. Oftentimes these missives and communications come as no surprise and are, fortunately, almost always affirmative and supportive, hence most satisfying, in their tone and content. Such has been the case with last month’s essay published in The Canine Chronicle, in which the impact that individuality has on a judges’ methodology was discussed. Specifically, how much latitude can a person reasonably and responsibly take during the course of the merit-determining process and how the dictates contained within breed standards are appropriately accommodated. We sometimes promote the notion, seemingly out of mindless habit, that these instruments, which, as had been said previously a number of times, essentially have an anchoring role, are open to interpretation. But are they really, and, if so, to what extent, after all of the repeated efforts which have been made over the years, by successive generations of revisionists, to serially enhance and improve their level of particularization? In some instances the degree of detail can even be deemed excessive but yet there is still room for interpretation: how come? Are we dealing with reality here or with superficial, imprecise, convoluted, derivative thinking? Are the meanings of words this abstruse, difficult to comprehend, and recondite? Or do we use this notion as a sort of cop-out, or pretext, in order to justify indulgence in individually held preferences and opinions? When we set about so-called interpreting, what exactly are we doing? Good question! The use of this word ‘interpretation’ implies that we are in the business of construing, of conceiving in the light of individual belief, of attempting to understand the meaning of something. That we are aiming to discern and/or explain the sense or intention of that which is authoritative. Is this really what’s happening or are we just employing it loosely to try and explain what we might be up to and justify a certain agenda?

Let us put some of these thoughts in context by considering the remarks of a recent respondent. There will be some editing, for purpose of conciseness, and paraphrasing involved here and the breed being referred to will be masked. The communication reads as follows. “Your article ‘Individuality’ was excellent. I am a so-and-so (breed specified) breeder-judge and we are going through a club crisis. The vast majority of owners and club members want to honor the breed standard. Our standard is very specific on the tail: ‘Tail docked short, close to body, leaving only one or two vertebrae”. But we are encountering judges who ‘interpret’ the standard as they wish or maybe as it fits their friends needs. I am also a judge of so-and-so (three other breeds specified) and make sure every time I get an assignment that I study those standards very carefully and judge accordingly. Thank you for writing ‘Above all, judge to the standards’. I have asked owners and breeder-judges to read your article.” Interesting and pertinent commentary to say the least. The most obvious thing to say here, of course, is that this particular, quoted, standard dictate, this specific requirement, is not really open to interpretation. There are no shades of gray here. In passing let it be said that the same can actually be said of much of the content of most standards. Although descriptions can admittedly be less than entirely precise, the wiggle room is minor in most cases. There is no ambivalence whatsoever here, no ambiguity in the wording. There is no possibility of being understood in two or more possible senses or ways. But yet a situation arises where following the dictate is apparently not something that everyone who judges this breed is reportedly prepared to do. Which brings us back to role which standards play as a mainstay and their fundamental, pivotal importance as the written instruments whose primary purpose is to anchor breeds.

This is a subject which I have written about on a number of previous occasions but it surely bears another revisit. There are, perhaps surprisingly, some incongruities and inconsistencies in our approach to standards and there exist some disconnects between how we view and how we apply them. They are not viewed in quite the same way by everyone. On the one hand we make a big deal out them but on the other they are sometimes, to various extents, disregarded by both breeders and judges. How do we go about reconciling this sometime-existing divide? Although they are designed as a foundation, as verbal documentations of those features which typify, if not actually amounting to a blueprint, when we talk about them we still think interpretation. Again, how come? So how should we view them? They are meant primarily as highly accurate descriptions of respective breed characteristics, including detailed morphology, as well as behavioral and movement peculiarities. One of the problems, of course, originates from the fact that they still remain very uneven in terms of degree of content and preciseness of detail. This stems in part from the fact that many are derivative in the sense that they lack originality. Many have checkered histories and have been repeatedly doctored. Some contain pure figments of the imagination such as those absurdly inaccurate and fanciful shoulder-angulation specifications. As I have discussed before, there has also existed a certain philosophical difference among the Fancy as to what degree of detail a standard should ideally contain. Should it be so-called open, allowing for a good measure of variation, or should it be so intensely particularizing as to preclude any deviation from a tightly prescribed form? To which camp in this regard do you belong? There are those who believe that those old, spare, but yet succinct standards, marked by brief, close-fitting, compact expression without wasted words, have served breeds well over the years. Some are still in use today, having survived the test of time and changing tastes. But then there are those who view them as having been highly inadequate.

Although standards are often viewed as being somehow inviolable or even, in a sense, sacrosanct, in reality, historically, they have been nothing of the sort. This is not exactly how things have worked out, whether we like to admit it or not. Many have, over the years, for one reason or another been altered, edited, augmented. In many cases they can be viewed as dynamic instruments, having been, in many instances, repeatedly modified as breeds have been developed and perfected. The two processes have, in numerous cases, actually gone more or less hand in hand and complemented each other. A good thing say some, not so say others. The arguments on both sides are perfectly well known and need not be entered into here. There are certainly two distinct surfaces to this particular coin. Here is a very basic question which has been asked before however. Should standards necessarily be altered and revised to accommodate evident breed changes or should this, on principle, be assiduously avoided because it essentially contradicts and ultimately compromises the anchoring function? There are, of course, other dimensions and factors which may readily come into play. In the case of a matter such as tail docking, which has the potential to polarize and engender perfectly-justified, virulent reactions, quite obviously the stakes are very high. In many breeds, standard revisions have had much, if not more, to do with accommodating changes in morphology as they do with attempts at improving and enhancing description. When all is said and done, however, there is surely a certain obligation and responsibility on the part of breeders and judges to abide by and follow the dictates contained in standards. Otherwise, what’s the point of even having them? Did I hear someone say: ‘place the offending exhibits at the end of the line’? Unless and until a change is adopted the status quo must surely prevail. There has to be some control. By unilaterally deciding to do otherwise a certain central, intended purpose is obviously defeated.

There are many who firmly believe that the less we habitually tamper with and modify standards the better off we are. There always exists the danger, in some peoples’ minds, of weakening and changing for the worse when the ostensible purpose might well have been just the very opposite. It can certainly be argued that there is a point of diminishing returns in all of this. There is also the distinct possibility of a purpose not even being achieveable. When an instrument becomes so cumbersome as to be unusable, a problem arises. It has to be recognized that certain parameters, those inevitable variables, cannot always be precisely defined. Nor can they be prevented from occurring. This, after all, is in the very nature of things. Hence there will always be need for those qualifying adjectives. And of course that’s where the interpretation bit has room to kick in. Nothing particularly wrong with this within a certain disciplined context! But let us not apply the concept unreasonably, outside a legitimate boundary, and use it to justify all sorts of personal idiosyncracies and individualizing peculiarities!

Short URL: http://caninechronicle.com/?p=40403

Posted by ralbee on Dec 27 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.