Recently I have curiously come across a couple of references in early scientific publications (Haber, G.C., 1977; Ballard, W.B. et al., 1991) where it has been implied that ‘weaker’ (highly subordinate, non-effective hunters) individuals might be tasked with pup-care during the pup-raising period in wolf families.
The study by Ballard, W.B. et al., 1991 also suggested that the two yearling females who attended the den the most were begging for food often from other pack members and that their strategy might have been that of staying near the den where food could be obtained more readily (from the more efficient hunters) than attempting to hunt on their own.
I do not agree with the statements and the attitudes expressed in these studies and I suspect that some of them stem from the sexist world view of labour division and the importance of some jobs over others (i.e., going out of the home to get food is considered a more dominant and a more challenging task than staying at home and babysitting).
Additionally, I believe that it makes sense for more efficient hunters to go hunting while the less efficient hunters stay behind babysitting which is also an energy-demanding task deserving some ‘payment’ in the form of food subsidies).
Moreover, there are many other cases where dominant individuals have spent a lot of time with pups and I believe that it is not truly the issue of dominance (or sex) but rather the issue of food abundance, aptitude, exhaustion, duration of hunting bouts and distance to prey etc.
However, these commentaries led me to contemplate the concept of ‘subordination’.
Often, in the studies of wild species, it is thought that dominance is the desired state and subordination is somewhat inevitable resulting from ‘weakness’.
Certainly, it is recognized that dominance hierarchies are necessary in order to form a functional, cohesive, cooperative society and thereby subordination is also a must – it is a behaviour that has to be learned and performed.
However, it is not clear whether subordination is a behaviour that must be accepted because dominance cannot be achieved by the specific individual or whether it could be a behaviour chosen by the specific individual because it befits their life goals.
The ultimate life objective in wolves is probably regarded as that of some day acquiring dominance (territory, breeding status) and proliferating their own genes.
Thus, inherently, dominance is deemed worthier than subordination because subordinate individuals normally do not procreate.
It is recognized that subordination, nevertheless, might be beneficial in those individuals who are perhaps unlikely to reproduce themselves and who can therefore invest in the genes of their siblings which are similar to their own genes.
Dominance is not truly a clear-cut hierarchy and subordination has a gradient.
The ‘weaker’ individuals supposedly tending to pups more often are regarded as subordinate not merely to the breeding wolves but also to other, more-dominant pack mates who are not the breeders.
It is known that subordination does not always translate into a destiny of never attaining the dream of becoming a parent, e.g., fate can play as great a role in one’s chances in life and, also, subordinate individuals who are friendly and who have learned to get along with others can use opportunities that others might not be able to use (for example, they might be better able at infiltrating existing packs later replacing a lost breeder etc.).
Still, curiously, while the human societies frequently praise meekness, patience, humility etc. and many cultures value the non-aggressive (aggression, in human societies, is often equaled with dominance and assertiveness) approach, it is not usually thought that wild animals might choose subordination as a life strategy; moreover, a life strategy that might lead to dominance and to fulfilling one’s objectives in life.
More specifically, it is not widely believed that wild animals might apply subordination as a type of character-building exercise which grants the individual with the skills that the individual values and considers potentially useful in meeting their goals.
As it makes sense for the best hunters to go hunting (even if they would make no poorer babysitters and even if they might actually wish to spend more time with the pups), it might also make sense for the best babysitters to babysit.
It is known that pups can be pestering, and many videos show pack adults taking flight from the mobbing pups.
It is even thought that adult wolves might be bringing home toys when they have no food deliveries in order to occupy the pups and to diver their rambunctious attentions from the hunting-worn providers (e.g., Ausband, D., 2021).
Like any younglings who are just learning the possibilities of their own bodies, pups can cause injury to adults, they can disregard the physical and psychological boundaries of the adults.
Therefore, if ‘weaker’ (more subordinate) individuals truly babysit more often, this phenomenon could be the result of their ability (and perhaps purposefully acquired ability) to tolerate the exuberance and the ‘inconsideration’ of the pups.
Those should be the individuals who do not snap back when someone scratches them, when someone bites their tail or their vulnerable ears or their nose, when someone demands to be playing constantly, when one has sudden frights, when one has fits of independence and wishes to wander off into danger etc.
As the more subordinate individuals, during ritualized pack interactions, learn to tolerate ‘abuse’ patiently, they might be not merely the best fit babysitters by character (due to being more submissive and weak by nature) but also by education.
What if wolves do not raise all of their children according to the same standards?
What if the subordinate individuals are not being raised to stay timid and to know their place but rather to grow into their own, unique strength which is that of being morally and emotionally strong, somewhat stoic and perhaps not taking themselves and the society too seriously?
Those are not traits that belong with ‘outcasts’.
Those are leadership traits that belong with a particular type of dominance.
The future parents and pack leaders would need confidence and certain level of aggression, initiative etc. as much as they would need patience, ability to tolerate, ability to endure and so on.
Dominance might be achieved in several ways, and one of those ways could be through strengthening the skills and traits that are reinforced through active subordination.
I believe that those are these traits which are deemed worthy in wolves to trust someone with babysitting (and perhaps also with ensuring the general pack cohesion) and not the subordinate position itself which renders the individual ‘useless for other jobs’.
For example, female wolf 42 was not a subordinate wolf to any other wolf in her family but her alpha sister 40 (read her story in the books by Rick McIntyre, ‘The Rise of Wolf 8’ and ‘The Reign of Wolf 21’).
However, she was extremely patient and she was very tolerant of her hardcore sister and she was also one of the main caretakers of the pups and a confidant of other individuals in the pack.
Coincidentally, female 42 rose to be the next alpha in the Druid Pack.
It is perhaps difficult to imagine that parents and educators might use the strategy of inducing subordination in order to make their protégé excel in life.
It is also difficult to imagine that someone (apart from Jesus who also somewhat scorned his fate at a certain point in his life story) might purposefully choose to be subordinate because that is where they view their strength lies and the traits, skills as well as the mindset resulting from accepting subordination are what matters to them.
I believe, however, that the subordinate individuals might be dominant within their own context – they might have achieved mastery at subordination and this mastery is later recognized by their pack through trusting them with their most precious investment, the pups.
Both skill sets are needed in a society that wishes to achieve peace, stability and prosperity.
Within the context of true caretaking, we need both those who are patient, who can handle some ‘abuse and humiliation’ (which is mostly unintended), who do not take themselves too seriously and do not try to overexert their influence but rather try to follow the moods and needs of others as well as those who are prepared to introduce justice, order and who perhaps are willing to give up some of the affability that comes with not being in charge and being ‘one of the social equals’.
Some wolf individuals have achieved both.
For example, wolf 21 came to be an alpha through confidence, assertion, leadership, superior hunting and fighting skills (but also through ability to understand the other, to play a fool, to let the others shine at his expense).
His second mate female 42 came to be an alpha through amazing patience, forgiveness, friendliness, caretaking (but she was also a good hunter and fighter and she certainly had self-respect and obviously also a dream to be leader and a mother).
Perhaps if we learn dominance, it can someday lead to subordination, and vice versa.
If we practise subordination, it might someday lead to dominance.
Thus, the individuals in wolf families who are subordinate, are not being ‘bullied’ into ever greater subordination.
Perhaps they might someday overcome their timidness simply through this exposure to the ‘chaffing’ by family (allies) who wish them their best.
Or perhaps someday they might have accumulated such strength of character that no overcoming would be needed.
And they might certainly be recognized by their family for the skills and traits they have developed as they might be the ones who get to have the best and most demanding jobs of all in the pack – the taking care of the pups.
***
A sidenote – if individuals partake in the raising of their siblings which promotes the dispersion of genes similar to those of their own (and which can supplement the genes reproduced later by any babysitters who become dominant individuals and parents), it might be interesting to consider the difference between genome and gene expression.
For example, while these subordinate individuals cannot influence the genome of their siblings, they can influence which genes become expressed through behavioural and trait adaptations.
Their siblings might someday produce young of their own that will carry their genes (and those genes would be, once more, similar to the babysitter’s genes) and, based on the upbringing and conditioning they received in their natal family, they would, once again, reinforce some genes over others.
Ultimately, it could happen that, indirectly, the babysitters also have a chance at modifying which genes become prevalent and actively engaged in the population through social selection of their expression and the formation of heritable culture.
***
Also, I would like to note that submission in wolf packs is often not separated from assertiveness and it is not always clear who is the assertive one in dominance-submission displays (e.g., this video by International Wolf Center).
References
Ausband, David. (2021). Wolf Use of Humanmade Objects During Pup-rearing. Animal Behavior and Cognition. 8. 405-414. 10.26451/abc.08.03.06.2021.
Ballard, W. B., L. A. Ayres, C. L. Gardner, and J. W. Foster. 1991. Den site activity patterns of Gray Wolves, Canis lupus, in southcentral Alaska. Canadian Field-Naturalist 105 (4): 497-504
Haber, G. C. (1977). Socio-ecological dynamics of wolves and prey in a subarctic ecosystem (T). University of British Columbia. Retrieved from https://open.library.ubc.ca/collections/ubctheses/831/items/1.0094168
McIntyre, R., & Bekoff, M. (2020). The Reign of Wolf 21: The Saga of Yellowstone’s Legendary Druid Pack . Greystone Books.
McIntyre, R., & Redford, R. (2019). Rise of Wolf 8: Witnessing the Triumph of Yellowstone’s Underdog. Vancouver, British Columbia, Greystone Books.
Notes by Ieva 