Managing the Stigma of Outlaw Breeds: A Case Study of Pit Bull Owners

Ethnographic interviews were conducted with 28 pit bull aownerso to explore the sociological experience of having a dog with a negative image. Results indicate that the vast majority of respondents felt that these dogs were stigmatized because of their breed. Respondents made this conclusion because friends, family, and strangers were apprehensive in the presence of their dogs and because they made accusations about the breed’s viciousness and lack of predictability. In the face of this stigma, respondents resorted to using a variety of interactional strategies to lessen the impact of this perception or prevent it from occurring. These strategies included passing their dogs as breeds other than pit bulls, denying that their behavior is biologically determined, debunking adverse media coverage, using humor, emphasizing counter-stereotypical behavior, avoiding stereotypical equipment or accessories, taking preventive measures, or becoming breed ambassadors. For the Žrst half of this century, pit bulls enjoyed a positive image in America. During World War I, these dogs stood for American courage and were featured in a series of patriotic wartime posters. In the 1930s, a popular show called The Little Rascals, as well as the Our Gang comedy series, featured a pit bull. And from 1890 to 1948, pit bulls were very popular dogs to own because they were seen as “a good-natured watchdog and family pet” (Jessup, 1995, p. 43). However, the image of pit bulls has suffered in recent years. The popular media commonly portrays pit bulls as demonic animals unpredictable and savage in their behavior toward humans. For example, the headline of an article in U.S. News and World Report (1987) proclaimed that pit bulls were “The Most Dangerous in America.” The article’s author claimed that “America’s baddest dog” was in a separate category from shepherds, Dobermans, and Rottweilers because they cannot “chomp through a chain-link fence” like pit bulls. Cities passed ordinances that restricted or banned pit bulls, and the media kept the hysteria going by reporting every pit bull attack while minimizing those of other breeds. The result is that pit bulls have come to be seen as an abomination or disturbance in the natural order an unacceptable threat to the perceived security and stability of the entire community and a violation of the almost sacred image of the dog as an amiable cultural hero (Serpell, 1995). In other words, they have become an outlaw or deviant breed. Feeding this negative portrayal of pit bulls have been depictions of their “owners” that threaten mainstream America. Media reports of attacks by these dogs were invariably accompanied by value-laden descriptions of their owners as people whom “average citizens” might Žnd dangerous. According to Hearne (1991), these reports often described pit bull owners as white thugs or poor urban blacks and Latinos who kept their dogs in dope dens and fed them raw meat to make them as mean as possible. This negative image has implications for people who have pit bulls as companion animals. On the one hand, some people might be drawn to this breed in the hope of exploiting and perpetuating its vicious reputation. Such owners seek to use these dogs as status symbols of power and aggression and to reap the secondary beneŽt of an intimidating persona. On the other hand, 2 · Hillary Twining, Arnold Arluke, and Gary Patronek some people might see qualities in this breed that run contrary to its negative image and want to establish “traditional” human-dog relationships with their pit bulls. Nevertheless, they “inherit,” and presumably have to contend with, adverse public perceptions of their pets. Sociologically, this adverse perception can be considered a breed stigma where the animal itself has a “spoiled” or tainted identity and where owners may experience a courtesy stigma as a consequence of their association with, and ownership of, pit bulls (Sigelman, Howell, Cornell, Cutright, and Dewey, 1991). According to Goffman (1963), humans experience stigma when they possess certain physical or mental traits that result in various negative consequences such as social exclusion, anxiety, alienation, loss of self-esteem, discrimination, and social disenfranchisement. In the face of social disapproval or even fear, stigmatized individuals seek to manage or respond to these adverse perceptions by relying on interpersonal strategies that minimize, neutralize, or evade their stigma as, for example, do epileptics (Schneider & Conrad, 1980) and animal researchers (Arluke, 1991). Individuals undertake these steps to manage their stigma as a part of the dramaturgy of everyday life whereby people seek to present a certain image of themselves, especially in terms of the small, unremarkable interactions that comprise a substantial part of routine social behavior. According to Turner (1998), “. . . individuals deliberately ‘give’ and inadvertently ‘give off’ signs that provide others with information about how to respond” (p. 394). Although some information that people communicate is inadvertent, much of it is deliberate and carefully orchestrated. Given the degree to which our social reality hinges on people’s unspoken agreement to uphold common expectations about public conduct, the failure to do so results in a sense of uneasiness. In this regard, people not only maintain and promote social interactions through their presentation of self but also seek to repair damaged or disrupted relationships. Dramaturgical sociologists have noted that impression management can involve a “team” of actors who collaborate to create particular perceptions of themselves (Goffman, 1959), and a handful of recent studies suggest that team presentations of self can extend across species lines, such that humans who are responsible for particular animals may seek to control or inuence how other people perceive their animals and them (e.g., Cantwell, 1992). For Managing the Stigma of Outlaw Breeds · 3 instance, Sanders (1990) notes that companion animals and their owners often function as teams in public settings when owners re-establish social equilibrium by accounting for their dogs’ actions after they misbehave. Although Sanders’ “excusing tactics” refer to speciŽc incidents of canine disobedience, they also are relevant to the ways that pit bull owners respond to their anticipation of negative perceptions of their dogs. Pit bull owners may seek to manage impressions of their dogs if they discover that their dogs, or the breed as a whole, are viewed in an unfavorable light and if they care about this negative image.