The relationship between humans and dogs is complex and enmeshed with socially-constructed expectations of the roles of dogs in society. This thesis draws on data I collected, using a mixed methods approach, to argue that entrenched beliefs of human exceptionalism: 1) define and foster expectations of dogs and dog behaviour; 2) shape a dominative and paternalistic relationship with dogs through various forms of control; and 3) pose challenges when determining a dog-indexed definition of consent. Beliefs of human exceptionalism are expressed through a caring-controlling paradox that is influenced by society’s norms and ideals, shaping expectations of companion dogs to behave in more “human-like” ways, while clearly delineating dogs as “definitely not human.” Using multiple methods, my research questions ask: What are the social constructions and expectations of the “ideal dog” and the “bad dog”? How do these social constructions and deep-rooted human exceptionalist ideals inform our day-to-day interactions with dogs? What are the roadblocks and barriers to considering canine consent and agency?

In the first part of my data collection I employed in-person interviews which allowed me to explore the complexities that affect human-dog interactions, including the difficulties of considering canine consent. Dogs were present for the interviews so that I was able to meet both relationship partners, canine and human. In the second part of my data collection I used a survey to gather data from a larger demographic, casting a wider net across Aotearoa New Zealand. Finally, a different set of participants completed weekly journals, writing in the first person from their dog’s perspective. Using these three methods enabled me to triangulate the data for a more holistic approach.

The data from my interviews demonstrate that there is a shared belief that good dogs are loyal, friendly and obedient. Conversely, bad dogs are aggressive, disobedient, and motivated by their external environment, which may be interpreted as “disloyal.” Framing dogs as “good” and “bad” impacts how people interpret their behaviours and ascribe them emotional states and subjective experiences. For example, dogs may very well experience feelings of guilt; however, when assumptions of this kind are not based on a deep understanding of dogs’ abilities, people may assume dogs have a moral compass, which may result in harsh repercussions in the form of punishment based on an assumption of dogs knowing "right" from "wrong." Projections of morality may impede peoples’ ability to fully consider or even imagine consent for their dogs. Often, people only consider their dog’s own volition when it matches their own. Because dogs are dependent on humans in many ways, it is difficult for people to appreciate that their dogs are capable of making meaningful independent choices. These biases are partially the result of anthropomorphic projections but are also strengthened by the dominance humans have over dogs and their general lack of knowledge of canine behaviour. This power imbalance fosters myths about inter-species dominance structures that lead to potential inaccuracies about the most humane and meaningful ways to teach dogs important social and life skills.

Understanding how our expectations limit our knowledge of dogs and how we apply that knowledge can improve the wellbeing of dogs in human care. Changing the way that we perceive dogs as a species and shifting the current oppressive paradigm to one that is considerate of their point of view is imperative. Improving our understanding of how dogs use and process information and the emotional effects of such interactions can create a more compassionate environment through encouraging humane training, increasing choices and respecting dogs’ rights to consent and autonomy. Reconstructing how consent is expressed and applied to dogs is necessary to create a more mutual and just relationship with dogs.