Dog In The Manger
The phrase “dog in the manger” describes someone who selfishly prevents others from using or enjoying something, even though they have no use for it themselves. It embodies a spiteful, obstructive attitude rooted in a desire to deny others what one cannot or will not utilize.
Origin of “Dog In The Manger”
The origins of this evocative phrase trace back to ancient times. While frequently attributed to Aesop’s fables—and indeed a fable illustrates the concept—the expression as we know it solidified in the 16th century. The first documented appearance in English literature is found in William Bullein’s 1564 work, A Dialogue Against the Fever Pestilence. Bullein described the behavior as being “like a cruel dog lying in a manger, neither eating the hay itself nor allowing the horse to feed from it.” A “maunger” was a trough or feeding bin for horses. The image is powerfully simple: a dog lying in a hay rack, unable to eat hay, yet aggressively preventing a horse from accessing it. This visual perfectly encapsulates the core meaning of the phrase—possessive obstruction.
Analysis: The Literary and Psychological Significance
Beyond the Fable
Aesop’s fable presents a straightforward narrative of a dog preventing an ox from eating hay. However, the phrase’s enduring power lies in its metaphorical reach. It is not merely about physical resources; “dog in the manger” speaks to broader human behaviors—the denial of opportunity, the obstruction of progress, and the satisfaction derived from another’s frustration. It highlights a particular type of selfishness—one motivated not by need, but by a desire to control and deny. This makes it a potent theme for exploring complex characters and social dynamics in literature.
Psychological Underpinnings
From a psychological perspective, the “dog in the manger” behavior can be linked to feelings of insecurity, resentment, and a lack of self‑worth. The individual may feel powerless in their own life, so they exert control by limiting others. It can also stem from a desire for recognition or attention—even negative attention is preferable to being ignored. The act of denying something to another becomes a perverse form of asserting dominance or importance.
Literary Applications
Writers frequently employ the “dog in the manger” trope to create compelling conflicts and reveal character flaws. A character exhibiting this behavior might be a jealous rival, a controlling parent, or a spiteful politician. The phrase allows authors to quickly convey a complex set of motivations and behaviors, creating a vivid and memorable portrait of selfishness and obstruction.
Examples in Literature
Example #1: Aesop’s Fable (Illustrative)
While not a complex literary work, the original fable remains a cornerstone for understanding the phrase. The dog, incapable of enjoying hay, actively prevents the hungry ox from feeding. This simple narrative serves as the foundational illustration of the selfish, obstructive behavior at the heart of the phrase.
Example #2: Eche Ononukwe, The Dog In The Manger (Poetic Interpretation)
Standing like an iroko tree
on that high, high hill,
peeping through to spy on that monst’r,
sucking and tearing blood and flesh
like a hungry and angry lion,
eating to glory himself for the lost battle
Ononukwe’s poem uses the metaphor of the “dog in the manger” to depict a figure who revels in the misfortune of others. The image of the “hungry and angry lion” highlights the destructive power of envy and the satisfaction derived from witnessing another’s failure. The character does not partake in any constructive activity but finds “glory” in the “lost battle” of another—a clear embodiment of the phrase’s spiteful essence.
Example #3: Ben Belitt, Dog in The Manger (Modern Interpretation)
There, lives the crazed unkillable
Gift of her vigilance, the creaturely
Feat that tightens the line of her jawbone,
While her fangs in their tortoise-shell
Markings draw me into her skull
In a shine of bitumen,
And we know ourselves frightened. We are stopped.
Belitt’s poem presents a more nuanced interpretation, associating the “dog in the manger” with a primal, possessive instinct—represented by the vigilant, fearsome dog. The imagery evokes a sense of being trapped and controlled, highlighting the oppressive nature of this behavior. The poem explores the psychological impact of encountering someone who refuses to share or allow access, creating a chilling portrayal of possessiveness.
Example #4: Skyclad, A Dog in the Manger (Lyrical Application)
2 A.M. a southbound junction, innocence takes flight
Common sense has lost all function, stranded in the night.
The albatross has flown the nest – he’s breaking family ties
His alcoholic father was too drunk to know or care
The rod not spared had spoiled this child – his only son and heir.
Skyclad’s lyrics employ the “dog in the manger” metaphor to depict a cycle of dysfunctional behavior. The lines suggest a father’s inability to provide guidance or support has led to a son’s destructive choices. The son, embodying the “dog in the manger,” refuses to allow happiness or opportunity, perpetuating a pattern of negativity and self‑sabotage. It highlights how past trauma can lead to a possessive and obstructive attitude.
Examples in Everyday Language
The phrase extends beyond literary analysis and is frequently used in everyday conversation to describe someone exhibiting spiteful behavior.
- “Sandy is a real dog in the manger—he won’t use the conference room himself, but he refuses to let anyone else book it.”
- “Despite claiming to be a minimalist, Ronnie acts like a dog in the manger, hoarding possessions he doesn’t even need.”
- “After the political upheaval, Jason adopted the attitude of a dog in the manger, blocking any attempts at compromise.”
- “Sam’s recent behavior is unlike him—it’s as if he’s become a dog in the manger, refusing to cooperate with anyone.”
- “Charlie is a dog in the manger when it comes to knowledge—he won’t share what he knows, even if it would benefit the team.”
The enduring power of “dog in the manger” lies in its concise and evocative depiction of a particularly frustrating and destructive human behavior. From ancient fables to contemporary literature and everyday conversation, this phrase continues to resonate because it captures a universal truth about the complexities of human motivation and the corrosive effects of selfishness.