We have a dog. His name is Sam; Samuel Allen when he’s in trouble. He was named after the father of Ethan Allen … not the furniture company. The Vermont Revolutionary War hero. Thank you. Sam is a golden retriever. He is the third golden we’ve had. Our first was named Ethan (Allen), our second was named Zimri Allen (Ethan’s brother). Now we have Sam. Ethan Allen’s wife was named Fanny. LightHusband wants to get a female bassett hound and name her Fanny. I think that might make her neurotic.

When we got Zimri, we stumbled across a dog training book that became invaluable to us. It was written by a group of monks in upstate New York … the monks of New Skete: How To Be Your Dog’s Best Friend. Their theories of dog training are driven by dog psychiatry, an understanding of how dogs think and behave, what drives them and why they do the things they do. Once we understood that a primary driving force behind dog behavior is “the pack” and his place in the pack, we were able to train our dogs much more easily. Based on this, we learned that a disciplinary tool that can be used very effectively with dogs is exclusion. If you separate a dog from the pack and exclude him, he knows very quickly that he is being punished. So, for instance, unless a dog is very accustomed to life in a crate if you suddenly begin to put him in one overnight when he is used to sleeping in your bedroom, he will think he is being excluded from the pack cave (bedroom) and is being punished for something.

Sometime later we had children. Children are messy and difficult. But I observed to LightHusband one day that the methods that one uses on small children are not all that different than those one uses on a dog. That may sound distasteful. However, you must speak clearly, use simple one or two word phrases, don’t string together commands, etc. Now … obviously, children outgrow this sort of training at about age 3 or earlier. But one of the primary disciplinary tools that we continue to use, even now, is separation from the pack. After all … that’s what a grounding is. As in, “You’re grounded.” The child (now a teen) can’t have any connection with his/her pack (other teens) for the specified period of time. Or perhaps the parents merely seek to control the means of access by taking away a cell phone or phone privileges or something of that nature. In some manner, the teen is now excluded from the pack as a means of punishment.

We use exclusion from activities all the time in the adult world as a means of control. I received an e-mail from the hockey club. If dues are not up to date, players would be removed from practice … excluded from the team until the dues are caught up. It’s distasteful but considered the norm. People are cut from the team if they don’t measure up; can’t behave, etc. Think about it … how do things work in an office? There are teams and people are included on them based upon performance, ability to be a “team player,” etc. Or they are excluded … punished.

Those are the overt methods of using exclusion to gain acceptable behavior from people. What about the ways in which we use subversive methods of exclusion to “get someone to behave?” What do we do then? We use body language. We use facial expression. We use tone of voice. But we humans are just like dogs. We use pack behavior to let others know when they have made a misstep and need to get themselves back in line.

On the flip side, we use inclusion to reward people for good behavior. We invite them to parties and dinners and coffee. We phone them. We e-mail them. We “include” them in our social circles. We do this as long as they meet whatever standards we might have (and we all have them) for behavior. If people ever become threatening in any way, we begin to exclude them. Sometimes this is right and necessary. But what about when we just sort of don’t like what they’re doing, or they’re dirtier than we are? Or maybe they make us uncomfortable? What if they just speak more plainly than we are used to? Perhaps in their relationship the woman speaks more often than the man (or vice versa … whatever, it is something that is different than the group), then what?

Here’s the conundrum we are faced with. These problems are not officially problems. The behaviour is not out of bounds egregiously enough for the offender to be spoken to. Everyone simply hopes that s/he will notice that his or her behavior is not quite normal and they will straighten up and fly right. Sometimes that happens. Sometimes it doesn’t and people simply begin to drift away, thinking to themselves, “Yeah, So-and-so, I’m not so sure about him (or her).” The invites dry up and So-and-so begins to feel lonely. Sometimes someone will come along and kindly mention one or two things that s/he could do to help. Maybe things change, maybe they don’t. Often I think they do and suddenly So-and-so has discovered how to make friends and influence people.

Who is So-and-so? Why S/he is the new christian 1st Baptist just brought to Christ last week.

This is part of the August Synchroblog … the rest of the team’s thoughts may be found as follows:

Cobus van Wyngaard is contemplating Inclusivity within claims of heresy
Mike Bursell asks the question Inclusive or exclusive: you mean there’s a choice?”
Steve Hayes is blogging his thoughts “Christianity inclusive or exclusive?
It’s a family affair comes Jenelle D’Alessandro
John Smulo will be adding his thoughts
Erin Word share some thoughts on The Politics of love
Julie Clawson couldn’t resist adding her thoughts
As is Sam Norton.
Mike Bursell,muses on yet another synchro topic
Questions abound with David Fisher
And Sally shares her thoughts here

Til next month then