Running Head: Backstage on the Front Page: Louisville Metro Animal Services

Backstage on the Front Page: Louisville Metro Animal Services Jennifer Blevins Sinski Sociology 320 University of Louisville

Backstage on the Front Page: Louisville Metro Animal Services Louisville Metro Animal Services (LMAS) received front page attention over the past year due to a series of personnel issues, facility problems and dereliction of the organizations basic duty to protect the nonhuman animals in its care. After two years of progressively worsening conditions at the shelter, Mayor Greg Fisher called for major changes to the

organization culminating finally in the recent hiring of a new shelter director. Hopefully, LMAS is now on the way to providing quality care for the nonhuman animals sheltered at the facility and will make significant progress reducing the current euthanasia rate of about 60% (English, 2009). While the headlines exposed the myriad of shocking problems of animal mistreatment at LMAS, animal treatment in general and the way we think about our companion animals has received new attention as well. Much sociological research has been published in the last 10 years and continues to be an area of focus especially in the area of symbolic interaction between human and nonhuman animals. Certainly the sociological theory of symbolic interactionism is useful for analyzing the ongoing problems facing the city of Louisvilles animal care and control services. Until recently, sociologists have been rather dismissive towards human-animal relationships due mainly to their acceptance of non-human animals as mindless, emotionless and selfless without the ability to use symbols (Sanders, 2003). George Herbert Mead identified language as the unique ability of humans and with that language we construct meaning; we are able to perform minded behavior; we are able to reflect, create and present our self. On the other hand, Mead felt that animals lacked the basic unit of symbolization, language. Therefore they could not take part in social interaction based on shared symbols. The animal does not think . . . In order that thought may exist there must be symbols, vocal gestures generally, which arouse in the individual himself the response which he is

Backstage on the Front Page: Louisville Metro Animal Services

calling out on the other, and such that from the point of view of that response he is able to direct his later conduct (Mead qtd at Sanders, 2003). More recently, some sociologists have questioned the assumption that language prevents symbolic communication for non-human animals.Symbolic Interactionists view humans as active constructors of their social world. For humans to interact symbolically they must be able to be able to perceive themselves in the role of the other. Additionally, the actor must also take into consideration how the other might perceive the actor and how the other might react to the actors choice of action (Alger, 1997). Mead outlines the self as the mature self arises when a generalized other is internalized so that the community exercises control over the conduct of its individuals . . the structure, then, on which the self is built is this response which is common to all, for one has to be a member of a community to be a self (Wallace, 1998). While Mead thought this process could only happen through a cognitive process, other symbolic interactionists held a less restrictive view of the process. Cooley describes the looking glass self, a process by which an actor imagines how the other might view and judge their appearance basing an emotional response on the imaginative conception. Cooleys looking glass self does not necessarily rely on language for the interchange. He provides the example of a six year old girl who in an evident and deliberate manner achieves and maintains attention from her caretaker successfully exerting social power (Alger, 1997). Other researchers suggest that infants have the ability to take the role of the other. This strong emotional bond that is triggered by the infant maintaining the gaze of a parent, manipulating the caregiver into providing for their needs and avoiding certain actions comes from a non-language process. Thus, it is possible to conceive of an understanding of self that can support a symbolic interactionist perspective without the presence of language that would apply to human and

Backstage on the Front Page: Louisville Metro Animal Services companion animal relationships. (Alger, 1997)(Sanders, 2003). Furthermore, Collins argued Mead ignores the emotional aspect of role-taking. Conceiving symbolic interaction as divided into two types of goals practical and social, Collins ascribes details of social goals to which Mead paid little attention. Actors generate social goals through relationships in social groups with a shared focus on solidarity symbols. The social group creates natural interaction rituals where two actors maintain focus on common action or object and both are aware of the shared focus. The shared emotions and interaction create the reality of a small group where each actor

holds moral obligations to the other. Ultimately, the interaction becomes ritualized and a simple object can become a symbol for the group members. Again language does not necessarily need to be present in Collins theory in order for the symbolic interaction to take place (Alger, 1997). So in essence we now have the possibility to conceive of symbolic interaction between human caregiver and non-human animal companion. Sanders studied the human animal friendship noting that people often described their relationships with the companion animal as a friendship or special or close friends. Caretakers understood and sustained the relationship with shared routines activities and time spent in companionship. Many owners included pets in ritual holiday celebrations buying them presents for birthdays and Christmas. During play sessions, both animal and person adjusted their efforts in order to sustain play. For example, a dog mouths the owner in play of a bite but does not apply full pressure while human allows dog time to find the hidden object. In other words, the dog and human must essentially understand the role of the other in order to sustain the role play (Sanders, 1999). Continuing in the symbolic interactionist view, it is not only the canine identity that is the center of focus. Nonhuman possessions reflect on the identity of the owner. Goffman expresses human behavior in terms of dramaturgy. The actor is play-acting on stage managing ones

Backstage on the Front Page: Louisville Metro Animal Services identity through setting, props and a personal front (Wallace, 1998). Berry describes our

companion animals as having a social meaning that provides information to others. By owning a strong bully breed dog, the owner expresses his desire to be viewed as a strong, alpha male (Berry, 2008). Clinton Sanders posits that the human-non-human animal couple interaction provide social information to others. He maintains that performing together the human and animal companion form a active unit engaged in the ongoing fostering of cooperative social action both with the dyad and with those outside (1999). If the dog is misbehaving in public, the owners may be viewed as irresponsible or faulty. The actors self worth is questioned. The owner even goes to the length of providing excuses for the companion animals behavior. This public performance is quite similar to that of the parent-child in similar situations (Sanders, 1999). Similarly studies have been done on shelter works, people relinquishing their pets at shelters, and veterinarians responsible for euthanizing companion animals. Frommer and Arluke (1999) found that shelter workers and surrenderers used blame-displacing strategies to deal with the guilt over euthanasia or its possibility. Both groups bound by concern for the companion animals and the possibility of euthanasia utilized strategies to avoid accepting blame for their deaths. Both blamed euthanasia on the victim, other individuals or to society in general. Sanders (1995) found that veterinarians ascribed more stress to the euthanasia when a triadic longterm relationship was in place. The companion animal has developed a personhood by the owner who responds to the doctors questioning of the animal as if he or she were speaking for said animal. In contrast, if the vet held no relationship with the animal to be euthanized then many times they used humor or making jokes about having to perform the doctor death routine. Additionally, when the owner wished to be present at the time of death then many vets

Backstage on the Front Page: Louisville Metro Animal Services

experienced additional stress performing a task that did not always result in an aesthetic death. Goffman describes a back region an area where the actor does not need to maintain their impression management and can relax (Wallace, 1998). Certainly, making the actions of euthanasia public could result in stress for both the Vet and the client. Returning to the current situation at LMAS, the newer sociological research on human and companion animal symbolic interactionism can be utilized to understand some of the problems experienced by shelter workers, volunteers and surrenderers. Beginning in 2009, LMAS faced accusations from volunteers that dogs of certain breeds were being sold for higher adoptions fees without waiting the mandatory time for owners to retrieve their lost pets. The Director Dr. Gilles Meloche contracted with an east end location to provide higher valued pets for adoption at prices of $350.00 or more. The funds received for these pets was not properly accounted for. Louisville Metro Council member Kelly Downard stated as a result of a legal request for information, there is an allegation being made of significant financial mismanagement (English, 2009). Meloche understood that humans desire some particular breeds of dogs as a way of impression management and were willing to pay more for these dogs. These expensive dogs can provide information about the social status of their human caretaker (Berry, 2008). Later that year, flood waters engulfed LMAS Manslick Road headquarters killing 10 kittens and one puppy that were drowned in their cages. In front of the Metro Governments Oversight and Accountability Committee, then LMAS Director Dr. Gilles Meloche touted the quick response despite his admission that the shelter had no emergency action plan in place. Shelter workers disagreed and described the scene as utter chaos and there was no plan and no one was in charge (English, 2009). Ultimately Dr. Meloche resigned his position after

Backstage on the Front Page: Louisville Metro Animal Services allegations of sexual harassment of staff members came to light. Even though metro council

government questioned Meloche about his actions, he steadfastly remained in character speaking delivering the lines as though he was a competent manager who led his subordinates in a time of crises despite the contradictory message he actually delivered. In an effort to avoid loss of selfesteem and social stigma, he attempted to hide and deny his wrong doing. Ultimately, his audience did not believe his delivery and he was asked to leave employment. Some of the cracks in Meloches impression management may be attributed to the stress of maintaining a positive front while running backstage an organization responsible for euthanizing over 60% of the animals in his care. In addition to associating nonhuman animals in a positive reflection of the identity of the human, they can also be stigma-objects which are associated with embarrassement, the socially unacceptable, or the marginal (Berry, 2008). Additionally, Meloche held no triadic relationships with the owners and companion animals who was responsible for euthanizing. He was able to view the animals in his care as objects rather than personhood (Sanders, 1995). Again the director experiences a fundamental divide between the public and the private creating problematic self-esteem issues. After Meloches resignation, Mayor Abramson promotes then Assistant Director Wayne Zelinsky to interim director. Mr. Zelinsky resigned several months later after city leaders learned of his side business, an internet pornography website (Burgos, 2011). Again we see a fracture between the private backstage and the public frontstage performance with the interim director. Given that actors seek to define themselves and to have others define them in a culturally favorable way, it is no wonder that the actor develops strategies to avoid social disapproval (Wallace, 1998). Jackie Gulbe, second in command at Louisville Metro Services, was the final organizational leader at LMAS to resign. Wave 3 news obtained access to an internal memo

Backstage on the Front Page: Louisville Metro Animal Services

describing how Gulbe and a male companion entered the shelter on May 30 with a suitcase. The bag was dropped about two feet from the floor and when the shelter employee opened the zipped case, she found an elderly beagle inside, quite obviously suffering from heat stress. When interviewed by the reporter, she replied to the question, why? You know its an incident that really has nothing to do with anything. The dog is fine, the dog went home, so I dont know why this is really a topic for discussion (English, 2009). Given that part of Gulbes responsibility in the agency was educating the public on proper animal caretaking, her response makes little to no sense. In an effort to avoid public censure performing a job that requires her on one hand teach people to develop the human-animal bond and on the other euthanize 60% of the entering companion animals dropped off at the shelter, Gulbe simply denied the event mattered. For Gulbe to acknowledge her treatment of the elderly beagle would require her to acknowledge the treatment of the many other animals euthanized there and she must then accept the negative feelings reflected to her that impacts her self-esteem. Goffman describes the results of an acting faux paus so bad that the backstage becomes visible on the front stage. In situations where coordination and concealment are vital, a whole range of minor unanticipated hitches loose the quality of correctability and become fateful (Wallace, 1998).With so many public performances failing to meet audiences expectations, inevitably social pressure to examine the reasons for problems at the shelter increased rapidly. This pressure added to voices of many shelter volunteers who had been complaining for two years now turned the tides. The newly elected Mayor Greg Fischer called for a committee of local leaders to review the LMAS and they returned a scathing 31 page document. The review declared that LMAS was ineffective at caring for animals, euthanizes them at an unacceptable rate and has subjected employees to management by fear for the past several years (Klepa,

Backstage on the Front Page: Louisville Metro Animal Services 2011). They also noted that the Manslick Road facility should be abandoned as swiftly as possible due to the air quality from lack of ventilation and inadequate heating and cooling spread disease easily between animals. They also critiqued the fact that the former Mayor Jerry Abramson funded the building of a new adoption center but did not address replacing the Manslick Road facility (Klepa, 2011). So in essence the stage on which the public viewed the performance the displaying of adoptable animals was improved while the facility that sheltered pets in need, injured pets, unadoptable pets remained the same. Metro Councilwoman Tina Ward Pugh stated that it was disappointing that the main facilities where surgeries, animal quarantine and about three fourths of the animals are held was left untouched (Klepa,

2011). The facility where the backstage work of euthanizing animals occurs remained untouched. As Goffman described in the backstage actors did not have to work at impression management. The actor drops his front and no longer must speak lines. While this paper addresses only a small portion of the going problems with Louisville Metro Animal Services, much more analysis should be done. For instance, why did the Mayor decide to outsource the service, solicit bids and then decide to ignore the one and only bid from No Kill Louisville? Why did the Mayor then decide to return to a previous list of candidates that he had referred to as inadequate just a month before? Why did the Mayor decide to conduct the interviewing and hiring of 26 year old Justin Scully without input from the Metro Council? Why did he decide to drop the requirement of a college degree from the job description? Why did he ignore input from the volunteer staff at the shelter? Why did he first declare that Louisville should look towards the No Kill model, then more recently declare the idea of No Kill naive? With the understanding of symbolic interaction between humans and their non-human animals growing, declaring a policy naive that seeks to adopt or foster animals

Backstage on the Front Page: Louisville Metro Animal Services that are healthy and happy rather than euthanizing them due to outdated philosophies that view

10

animals as mindless and a nonperson seems at the very least, uninformed. Sociologist must continue to explore the fine line between humans and non-humans and relationships between us, as well as animal-animal interactions.

Backstage on the Front Page: Louisville Metro Animal Services

11

Alger, J. &. (1997). Beyond Mead: Sybolic Interaction between Humans and Felines. Society and Animals, 5(1), 65-81. Berry, B. (2008). Interactionism and Animal Aesthetics: A Theory of Reflected Social Power. Society and Animals, 16, 75-89. Burgos, M. (2011, May 12). Major changes for Louisville Metro Animal Services. Courier Journal. English, L. (2009, April 21 21). Allegations of money mismanagement made against Louisville Metro Animal Services. Retrieved July 28, 2011, from Wave 3 news: www.wave3.com Flynn, C. (2000). Battered Women and their Animal Comanions: Symbolic Interaction Between Human and Nonhuman Animals. Society and Animals, 8(2), 99-105. Flynn, C. (2001). Acknowledging the "Zoological Connection": A Sociological Analysis of Animal Cruelty. Society & Animals, 9(1), 82-93. Frommer, S. &. (1999). Loving Them To Death: Blame-Displacing Strategies of Animal Shelter Workers and Surrenderers. Society and Animals, 7(1), 1-15. Garner, R. (1995). The Politics of Animal protection: A Research Agenda. Society and Animals, 3(1), 4360. Greenebaum, J. (2004). It's a Dog's Life: Elevating Status from Pet to "Fur Baby" at Yappy Hour. Society & Animals, 12:2, 118-132. Irvine, L. (2004). A model of Animal Selfhood: Expanding Interactionist Possibilities. Symbolic Interaction, 27(1), 2-21. Klepa, D. (2011, May 13). City seeks nonprofit to run animal unit: Fischer wants "total turnaround" in wake of scathing review. Courier Journal. Nibert, D. (1994). Animal Rights and Human Social Issues. Society and Animals, 2(3), 115-265. Sanders, C. (1995). Killing with Kindness: Veterinary Euthanasia and the Social Contruction of Personhood. Sociological Focus, 10(2), 195-212. Sanders, C. (1999). Excusing Tactics: Social Resonses to The Public Misbehavior of Companion Animals. Anthrozoos, IV(2). Sanders, C. (2003). Actions Speak Louder than Words: Close Relationships between Humans and Nonhuman Animals. Symbolic Interaction, 26(3), 405-426. Wallace, R. &. (1998). Contemporary Sociological Theory. Upper Saddle River: Simon & Schuster.