Games that adult/subadult wolves play. My will be done

Recently I began a thread of posts concerning the types of play I have observed in the IWC Exhibit Pack live stream camera feeds (North / South).

I will not repeat the introductory part and you can read the first two posts here – Games that adult/subadult wolves play. Social status dynamics game, Games that adult/subadult wolves play. Strategizing game.

I will, however, mention that the pack consists of 5 individuals:

• two brothers Axel and Grayson (born in 2016);
• Rieka (born in 2021);
• two brothers Caz and Blackstone (born in 2022).

Rieka is not related to any of the males.

Axel and Grayson are not related to Caz and Blackstone.

Axel and Grayson have partly raised all the three other wolves who joined them in different years as ca. 4 months old pups (in July).

Rieka was a yearling when Caz and Blackstone joined their pack.

The type of interaction (I consider it play but, more typically, it could be considered a social dominance interaction or merely invitation to play) I am about describe usually involves at least one dominant individual and at least one subordinate individual (although, mostly, there are several subordinates and sometimes also two dominants).

Within the framework of this interaction, the subordinate individual attempts to entice the dominant individual to play or to another type of friendly exchange (it is not always clear what the subsequent behaviour is to be expected and perhaps it is not of importance).

The dominant individual snaps and refuses the invitation.

The subordinate individual persists by repeating the same appeasing, enticing behaviour or by using another behaviour out of its arsenal.

Such exchanges seem rather simplistic and not much depth is ascribed to them.

I, however, view them in a somewhat different manner.

Firstly, (and I have stated this in several posts) I do not believe that the dominance-subordination systems in wolf (animal) societies reflect the same type of relationships, motifs and purposes that are observed in human societies.

Often scientists warn against the anthropomorphization of the animal but, curiously, only when the animal is assigned noble intent, gentle emotion, benevolent disposition etc.

Meanwhile, I have not seen much upset when we project our social motivations and states onto the animal societies.

I am not denouncing the existence of dominance and hierarchies.

I simply do not believe that dominance is unidirectional and that is manifests in a single form.

Namely, within a dominance interaction, I do not regard the individuals involved as dominant and submissive with respect to the actual influence they yield.

It is convenient enough to ascribe these terms ‘dominant’ and ‘subordinate’ to the individuals because they serve to reflect the relationship and they can help predict the outcomes of the exchange.

The ‘dominant’ individual is, indeed, one who will frequently command the situation, the subsequent activity or the resources.

The ‘subordinate’ individual is, indeed, one who will supposedly yield to the dominance of the other.

However, I do not believe that these outward manifestations represent all that is actually happening, nor I believe that we should interpret these roles, behaviours and outcomes from our human perspective (e.g., ‘it is better to get the commanding position and it is better to get control of the resources’).

This is a very complex issue that leads to discussions on evolution, survival, our inherent objectives as living beings etc.

In this post, I will not delve too deeply but I will state that I do not believe that the subordinate individuals have always been forced to give up or that the state of submission necessarily reflects a position of lack of power and dominance.

For example, if the interaction between the two individuals involves an attempt to entice one of the individuals (the ‘grumpy one’) to play, we would assume that this is a ‘win or lose’ type of a situation whereby the individual who invites the other either succeeds or does not succeed.

The ‘win or lose’ prescription with regard to the ‘grumpy’ individual is less apparent because why would this individual not want to play or to have a friendly interaction (unless the issue is that of great exhaustion, starvation, old age etc. which are not truly the issues in this pack).

My outlook is that true winning and losing occur very rarely and they refer to the individual winning or losing the contest with himself/herself, i.e., when the individual is forced to give up because they lack in physical or emotional endurance (I believe that these interactions also serve as exercise in persistence and individuals who are younger, less experienced, hormonally ‘upset’ etc. can lose to themselves because they cannot persist for as long as they wished to).

Ultimately, I believe that these are games which wolves play to battle out the will not of individuals but of different perspectives on life, of different needs, of different strategies.

I believe that individuals do not win or lose, they simply represent each their own ‘way of life’ and they ‘yield’ in agreement that, currently, for their society, the best outlook is that represented by their opponent.

These two outlooks are as follows:

• one of serious determination, sense of responsibility, purpose and order which is crucial for survival and for optimal group management;
• one of playful, friendly, chill attitude with fewer rules and conditions (apart from those that are needed to provide safety and a sense of appropriate according to wolf social etiquette) which is also crucial for survival but in a different manner – it helps to relax, to bond, to loosen up, to expand one’s identity beyond the immediate chores (hunting, defense etc.).

I believe that these outlooks also represent what could be viewed as traditionalism vs. liberalism.

It is vital for animals to follow instincts, traditions and other types of rules, mechanisms, prescribed behaviours because such modus operandi is often inherited from generations of their ancestors who strove very hard to create the ‘perfect form’ adapted for survival within the niche of the species, not upsetting the environmental balance.

This mode of operation is the reason why animals benefit their environment and do not destroy it (unless it is already disturbed).

In fact, this perspective is enacted by both parties because the subordinate, too, carries out ritualized behaviours and specified tactiques (that can be individualized but that are still mainly usable by every wolf and have been used many times before by many generations) in order to alter the pack’s mood to one of frivolity.

The ‘grumpy’ individual sort of embodies the attitude of preservation of strength, investing in the most significant activities, respecting stricter rules and perhaps somewhat restricting individual aspirations and expressions because these must be in accord with those of the group, population, species, home range, global environment.

The other outlook could be described as that of allowing for creativity, chance, certain forgetfulness of duty into the family life.

This outlook is not rebellious, nor it is impudent but it invites the ‘dominant’ individual to deviate from their role as father/mother, leader, provider, manager of strategies etc. and to give in to their individual personality and individual expression.

Such perspective and behaviour is not needed merely for relaxation and bonding.

It is how species continue to adapt to the changes and to the unique conditions in which they find themselves.

While one has to practice the ancient, wise ways, they also live during a particular time, in a particular place, with a particular group of individuals and their creative, individualized responses are vital in ensuring that their life is also good, pleasant and perhaps even bettered through inventing new methods.

Creativity, flexibility, ability to quickly adapt can be important also in ‘more serious’ contexts such as hunting, defense etc.

Playfulness can lead to modes of cognition and emotional control that can ensure proper responses to dangerous situations but that can also allow the individuals to invent strategies that can improve the life of their dynamically changing group in their particular home.

It is easily seen how these two perspectives should not outcompete one another and how both are needed, and how an individual representing one perspective or the other does not win or lose if they yield to the other’s perspective.

Of course, such interpretation requires for assuming that the two (or more) individuals involved in the play (or pre-play although, frequently, this game does not lead into a play sequence) are not vying for their individual will although I am not going to change the name of this game because I do not think that wolves (animals) differentiate between their personal will and the will of their group, even their species.

The objective in this game is perhaps not to achieve the will (individual will or a more abstract will) but to attempt to achieve it, to materialize it, to bid it against the other type of will, to strengthen, sharpen both.

In a more down-to-earth sense, these games might serve to alter the social dynamics within the group.

In wild families, they could help for the kids to show the adults that they are mature enough (that they have enough willpower and emotional persistence of their own) to let the adults loosen up and to be playful.

For example, it is possible that in wolf families, just like in human families, pups need a regime, a routine, certain fixed orders which are, in fact, not as easily achieved when the lifestyle is rather unpredictable and based on prey behaviour.

Thus, the parents (other adults) might use the cues by pups given in such playful contexts to determine the level of maturity of their offspring and whether the offspring could be able to deal with less predictable circumstances (which require for creativity, for flexibility).

For example, if the pup is very happy to soon yield to the adult’s authority because it gives the pup a sense of security, the adult might understand that the pup is still too young to venture into situations where the adult might not be able to exert control to a degree that the adult can exert in homesite conditions.

As the pups mature into yearlings, the message sent to the parents/adults through such interactions could be indicative of the level of equality (and thereby responsibility) that the maturing individual is ready to undertake.

Parents/older siblings and pups become more of colleagues, friends.

In this captive pack, the subordinates inviting the dominants to play might attempt to alter the pack dynamics in a similar way.

I think that in captive packs it is very difficult to achieve natural social order because I believe that in wolves such order is rooted in kinship structures as well as in daily routines that enforce these structures.

Without much of parental-type investment, without provisioning, leading defense etc., the pack might not experience natural situations within which the pack members easily establish their roles and positions.

I do not wish to state that the subordinates in such packs are more inclined to undermine authority.

I simply think that it is more difficult for them to get a… physical grasp on this authority not because they do not want to but because the authority has not evolved naturally, it is not properly founded upon daily interactions that wild wolves in their families experience since they are born.

The physical enforcement of authority that some authors have reported in captive packs and that have led to assumptions that captive packs are more violent than natural families, might be the result of the lack of physical experiences that wild wolves receive in their families whereby the parent/adult feeds them, carries them, even whereby the pups mob the adults for food in the most boisterous manner (which shows how submissive behaviours can be dominant in many ways because the poor adults can achieve nothing with their snarls and growls and must often take flight from the mobbing pups despite the fact that, in no instance, pups deviate from ‘subordinate’ behavioural expressions and the flight is achieved through very vigorous acts of ‘submission’).

Wolves might need this physical experience that do not inform of overpowering (as we sometime assume) but that inform of care.

As pups, individuals might not need ‘violent’ manifestations of care demonstrated by adults because pups are fragile and they can feel how fiercely they are cared for, provided for, protected through how their tummies burst after nursing/feeding, through how radiatingly warm their mommy is, through how difficult it is to even move their dad’s or brother’s tail, through the grooming activities during which the mother dismisses any protests by the pup and licks it clean sometimes quite forcibly (without causing pain, of course).

These physical experiences inform the individual, at a young age, what it means to be dominated, to be taken care of and who those adults are who expressed these behaviours toward them.

Some of the more ‘violent’ expressions of dominance in non-related packs could be the result of lack of such experiences at a young age.

The individuals might need to suffer a bite or a physical assault of low intensity in order to feel the force of leadership not because leadership is violent but because caring is fierce, almost painfully fierce.

They might need to be contested in ways in which family wolves do not need to be simply to arrive at a physical understanding just how strongly, intensely prepared the leader is to take care of them.

Thus, in the captive IWC pack, the relationships could be somewhat confusing and perhaps these individuals are more wary to overstep boundaries.

I have noticed that the unrelated individuals seem to be more cautious and slightly more physically distant in their interactions than related individuals which I ascribe to timidity although the fact that most wolves who meet outside of their packs (unless they are looking for mates) could be a threat, is also of importance.

Dominance (in its customary form of serious order, established, somewhat rigid roles and behaviours) might be important in this captive group so that the group felt safe and consolidated.

However, the order itself cannot ensure their social security, either, because inflexible following of the ‘ancient ways’ predicts that Rieka should choose a mate and other wolves would be likely to ‘disperse’ (which they cannot achieve, of course, but which they might feel is in order because of how wolf families have functioned for millions of years).

Alliances of unrelated wolves are usually short-lived and their duration lasts until the pack is established and perhaps the first litter is born (1 – 2 years).

Thus, it is as important for this pack to get a grasp on their own individual willpower, emotional states, attitudes and adaptability in order to feel safe in the social conditions in which they live (because it is obvious they care deeply for one another and they do not want for their strange pack to break up, nor they want to cease regarding it as a family unit despite the fact that it is a family of friends).

Thereby, the game I have attempted to describe is a very complex social and psychological interaction whereby, through play, the individuals are seeking to ensure the stability of their society.

This stability is not ensured through establishing a strict, rigid hierarchy as such.

The game serves to unite the individuals in their common will to stay together – a state which requests both for traditional roles (because they want to remain a family which they… in some ways, are not) as well as for flexibility, innovation, individual will (because their family must conform to its own will and not to the will of generations of wolves before them in their natural environment).

It is a promise on behalf of the older individuals (dominants) that they still want to fulfill the role of parent figures for these young adults.

It is a promise on behalf of the younger individuals (subordinates) that they are okay with submitting themselves to this leadership.

Giving up their individual will, by the subordinates, is, in fact, a win because what they want is to live in this family group of friends and their ability to yield despite their physical maturity, hormonal state and millions of years of evolution dictating their behaviour, is probably a greater act of individual willpower than if they did not yield and overpowered their dominants enticing them to their will.

This game is about resolving everyone’s social anxieties and it is about a common win.

Regardless of the outcome, everyone wins because they get to stay together, through tradition and innovation, and their anxieties are quelled.

However, I also think that the younger individuals must entice the dominants to loosen up and to participate in the game as themselves and not as their social roles, because otherwise the strain is too great on the dominants and they become alienated from the pack.

These wolves must be able to find their playful way along the edge between becoming too equal (so that their pretend family dissolves because the offspring should be looking toward independence) and alienating the dominants into regressing to a parental role which would resemble that observed between perhaps parents and young pups and not parents and yearlings.

After all, the youths in this captive pack do not want to be completely pup-like and they must wish to establish a family of friends and not a family in which they are some sort of Peter Pan characters who never grow up and never get to enjoy mature psychological states as well as mature relationships with their elders and superiors.

The game seems simple – it is about enticing the dominants to a playful interaction while the dominants, seemingly, are not eager to play and respond with low levels of hostility.

From such viewpoint, the game is weird.

Why would the dominant not wish to play (apart from situations when their age requests that they rest or achieve some other personal tasks that younger wolves might not experience as having)?

Why would the subordinate persist to keep inviting if they are snapped at, growled at and, eventually, attain no satisfactory result? (Especially, if they can play with each other and there are three of them.)

The goal of this game is to bid order against a fun chaos, tradition against individuality, security that comes from order against security that comes from affiliation and bonding.

The goal is for everyone to forget of their social anxieties and to give to merriment.

For example, during such interactions, Rieka frequently tends to sneak up from behind and to nip at Axel’s or Grayson’s tail/bottom (a strategy she also applies during Strategy game).

It is adorable, and I cannot force myself to believe that Axel and Grayson do not find it adorable, either.

However, there is a social risk concealed within finding it adorable rather than overcoming one’s personal attitude and maintaining order and proper conduct (which hardly involves nipping someone on their butt).

It is an individualized strategy that Rieka has developed and the fact that she has developed this strategy implies that she has developed an individuality, she is grown up, she no longer follows routines and ritualized behaviours.

I think that while pups might need routines in order to become used to the workings of wolves and wolf societies, Rieka is also using a routine (albeit an individualized one) in order to habituate her elders to the fact that it is okay to draw her out of the pool of non-individuals and to perceive her as an adorable individual, that nothing socially bad will happen just because she has matured.

These individualized behaviours by Rieka, I believe, are also routines and she is demonstrating that they can keep having routines but those would be routines that are not based on family structures wherein some individuals are overly mature and others are immature.

She is showing that routines, traditions, roles can be invented and re-invented.

And when Axel and/or Grayson is finally cheered out of their necessity to follow the old routines, everyone is happy because they get to have fun together.

However, they can be as happy if Axel and Grayson overcome their individual will by remaining patriarchs – much needed roles for these young wolves who did not get to grow up with a father and a mother.

‘My will be done’ is rather ‘our will be done’ but every individual also can choose between two roles that they can have in their family of friends – the traditional role and the innovative role.

They play against their own anxieties but they also play as contemporary wolves against evolution, they play as traditional wolves against individualistic, creative wolves, they play as mature wolves against the proper pathway of pursuing maturity.

It is an astounding game.

But they are, at all times, individuals both within their traditional and their personalized role.

Thus, it is everybody’s will which is always done, it is simply a matter of the role within which the individual prevails.