Last month we explored how nature puts the average human’s idea of purpose-driven to shame. This month we’re going to discuss how the process-oriented approach to animal problems is so deeply entrenched, we may not even realize we could approach these some other way.
To recap from last month, a purpose-driven or goal-oriented approach focuses on the result rather than how to achieve it. A process-oriented approach, on the other hand, focuses more on how the goal is achieved. Why do so many people focus on how the goal is achieved? Doesn’t everyone know that the end justifies the means? There are six reasons why people may take this approach.
- Although nature takes a purpose-driven amoral (not immoral) view, sometimes human moral considerations demand that the process used to achieve any goal adheres to certain moral or ethical standards. Most of us would not, for example, advocate putting animals through cosmetic surgery or giving them experimental drugs just so they could succeed in the show ring.
- The very nature of the scientific method that underlies veterinary medical and animal behavioral research is process-oriented. A researcher’s results only have meaning if that person adheres to a very strict set of rules while achieving this goal. Such emphasis on process ensures that others might conduct the same experiments and achieve the same results. Thus in the research realm, it is far more commendable to fulfill required process and not reach one’s goal than to reach one’s goal without fulfilling the required process.
- This same phenomenon occurs in some competitive animal events, too. A dog must not merely accomplish a certain task in an obedience or agility event. In order to earn points, the animal must accomplish that task by following a very specific process.
- Recently graduated veterinarians, behaviorists, or trainers may be process- rather than purpose-driven because they lack experience. If you only know one way to treat a medical or behavioral problem, that’s the only one you’ll use, regardless if it meets the needs of this particular animal and/or owner.
- A process-driven orientation superficially appears much more proactive because it enables us to jump right in and do something. Rather than taking the time to get a thorough history and conduct a thorough examination with the idea of determining exactly what tests are necessary, some veterinarians may conduct a myriad of tests with no goal in mind; they expect the tests to reveal the problem. They expect the process to reveal the purpose. Similarly, some trainers or behaviorists may forego getting a quality bond/behavioral history in favor of teaching the owner training techniques.
- If enough people support the process-oriented approach, it provides a socially acceptable escape from any responsibility related to the results. Within the realm of veterinary medicine, there are those people who are so dedicated to the process of vaccination or spaying and neutering that they are blind to any negative effects these may have on the animal. Within the realm of training, those using “positive” processes such as clicker or other treat-based approaches or “negative” ones that employ punishment of one sort or another may refuse to acknowledge any adverse effects their methods have on the animal. If any new data comes out questioning these processes, these people always find some reason to dismiss it. Although this sometimes may occur because some of the studies cited truly aren’t definitive, the same also could be said about those studies cited that support the processes these folks champion.
Even though sometimes a clear distinction between the process- and purpose orientations exists, other times it appears that both carry equal weight. As more people join the ranks of medical consumers (as opposed to accepting themselves as subordinates with no say in the medical process), they want to follow what they consider an acceptable process to achieve the desired goal. Many who embrace complementary forms of medicine fall into this category. It’s not enough to stop their pets’ itching; it must be done without using steroids or other chemicals with harmful side-effects. Nor is it enough to stop Spot or Fluff’s aggression: it must be done without punishment or the use of experimental drugs.
Surely no one denies that if any treatment for any kind of problem isn’t acceptable to the person who must provide it, it’s not going to work for the animal, if for no other reason than that the person probably won’t consistently implement it. Consequently in both veterinary medicine and training, and although we say the goal is to meet the animal’s needs in the most energy-efficient way possible, this is often secondary to providing a people-pleasing process. Nine times out of ten, if it’s a case of utilizing a process that will please human or animal, it’s the human needs that take precedence because it’s the human who pays the bill. When Ms Murphy says she can’t give her cat pills, Dr Mayhew prescribes a drug that comes in liquid form, even though it might not work as well. When Mr Cartwright claims he has no time to make the necessary changes to stop his dog’s aggression, the trainer recommends a shock collar or the veterinarian a psycho-active drug to comply with his demands for a quick-fix.
If we see fulfilling a certain process as the goal rather than meeting the animal’s needs, rather than working together, we and our pets can be working against each other. Because of that, in Part III we’ll discuss how to reconcile human and animal purposes so that any process we use enables both of us to reach our goals.
Last month we explored how nature puts the average human’s idea of purpose-driven to shame. This month we’re going to discuss how the process-oriented approach to animal problems is so deeply entrenched, we may not even realize we could approach these some other way.
To recap from last month, a purpose-driven or goal-oriented approach focuses on the result rather than how to achieve it. A process-oriented approach, on the other hand, focuses more on how the goal is achieved. Why do so many people focus on how the goal is achieved? Doesn’t everyone know that the end justifies the means? There are six reasons why people may take this approach.
Even though sometimes a clear distinction between the process- and purpose orientations exists, other times it appears that both carry equal weight. As more people join the ranks of medical consumers (as opposed to accepting themselves as subordinates with no say in the medical process), they want to follow what they consider an acceptable process to achieve the desired goal. Many who embrace complementary forms of medicine fall into this category. It’s not enough to stop their pets’ itching; it must be done without using steroids or other chemicals with harmful side-effects. Nor is it enough to stop Spot or Fluff’s aggression: it must be done without punishment or the use of experimental drugs.
Surely no one denies that if any treatment for any kind of problem isn’t acceptable to the person who must provide it, it’s not going to work for the animal, if for no other reason than that the person probably won’t consistently implement it. Consequently in both veterinary medicine and training, and although we say the goal is to meet the animal’s needs in the most energy-efficient way possible, this is often secondary to providing a people-pleasing process. Nine times out of ten, if it’s a case of utilizing a process that will please human or animal, it’s the human needs that take precedence because it’s the human who pays the bill. When Ms Murphy says she can’t give her cat pills, Dr Mayhew prescribes a drug that comes in liquid form, even though it might not work as well. When Mr Cartwright claims he has no time to make the necessary changes to stop his dog’s aggression, the trainer recommends a shock collar or the veterinarian a psycho-active drug to comply with his demands for a quick-fix.
If we see fulfilling a certain process as the goal rather than meeting the animal’s needs, rather than working together, we and our pets can be working against each other. Because of that, in Part III we’ll discuss how to reconcile human and animal purposes so that any process we use enables both of us to reach our goals.