Apart from show jumping horses and the sport pony, this notion of an 'equine habitus', has not been applied to ... Furthermore, riders who routinely train and compete with multiple horses have not been the ..... someone else. Rider's frequently ...
Achieving ‘partnership’: The relationship between horse and rider in the competition arena
Jacqueline Sandland
This thesis is submitted in partial fulfilment of the Honours degree of Bachelor of Psychology School of Psychology University of Adelaide October 2016
Word count: 10,110
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract……………………………………………………………………………………i Declaration………………………………………………………………………………..ii Acknowledgements……………………………………………………………...……….iii
CHAPTER 1: Introduction…………………………………………………...…………1 1.1 Overview………………………………………………………………………………1 1.2 Human-horse interaction………………………………………………………………1 1.3 ‘Partnership’...…………………………………………………………………………2 1.4 Interspecies sport………………………………………………………………………5 1.5 Eventing………………………………………………………………………………..6 1.6 Risk…………………………………………………………………………………….7 1.7 Aim of the present study……………………………………………………………….8
CHAPTER 2: Methodology……………………………….…………………………….10 2.1 Theoretical framework………………………………………………………………..10 2.2 Analytic approach……………………………………………………………………..11 2.3 Participants and recruitment…………………………………………………………..11 2.4 Ethics………………………………………………………………………………….12 2.5 Data collection…………………………………………………………………….…..12 2.6 Data analysis……………………………………………………………………..……13
CHAPTER 3: Analysis and Discussion…………………………………………...……14 3.1 Overview…………………………………………………………………………...…14 3.2 The Horse as Autonomous Agent…………………………………………………….14 3.2.1 Horse in control………………………………………………………….....15 3.2.1.1 Horse as rational decision maker……………………………...…15 3.2.1.2 Horse as disobedient decision maker…………...………………..19 3.2.2 Rider in control……………………………………………………………..21 3.2.2.1 Development of ‘natural abilities’………………………………..22 3.2.1.2 Rider as training negotiator………………………………………23 3.3 The Horse as Social Being…………………………………………………………....25
3.3.1 ‘Careful’ horses……………………………………………………………..25 3.3.2 Constructions of a ‘careful’ event horse………………………………….....26 3.3.2.1 ‘Careful’ as a negative attribute in horses………………………..26 3.3.2.2 ‘Careful’ as a positive attribute in horses………………………...30 3.3.3 ‘Careful’ vs ‘Brave’ vs ‘Heart’…………………………………………….. 31 3.3.4 Rider in control of dispositional attributes………………………………….36 3.4 Summary………………………………………………………………………………38
CHAPTER 4: Conclusion………………………………………………………………..40 4.1 Summary…………………………………………………………………………….....40 4.2 Implications…………………………………………………………………………....41 4.3 Limitations and future research……………………………....………………………..42 REFERENCES…………...………………………………………………………………44 APPENDICES……………………………………………………………………………45 Appendix: Semi-structured interview guide……………………………………....47
Abstract This study aims to explore the horse-rider relationship in elite-level eventing. Current literature suggests that the concept, ‘partnership’, is routinely used to describe a fundamental aspect of rider-horse compatibility, and that this concept is argued to need time to develop. Highly skilled riders who use multiple horses in competition may not have time to develop such ‘partnerships’, however, such combinations are often found to achieve significant competitive success. Fifteen semi-structured interviews were conducted to explore how elite-level eventing riders account for equestrian performance and how ‘partnership’ between horse and rider is routinely described in discussing achievement at this level. Discursive analysis was used to identify broad patterns in the data, as well as identifying routine linguistic practices and rhetorical organisation that recur in elite riders’ constructions of event horses. Event horses were routinely described in two ways: as autonomous, decision-making agent, and as social being, that displays specific dispositional attributes that contribute toward performance success. These constructions were applied to an ‘equine habitus’ framework (Gilbert & Gillett, 2011), to develop the notion of an ‘eventing habitus’. The study’s findings have practical application for riders and trainers in competitive environments as well as for other equestrian professionals (e.g. jockeys and stockmen) who are routinely required to ride unfamiliar horses in high-risk contexts.
i
Declaration This thesis contains no material which has been accepted for the award of any other degree or diploma in any University, and, to the best of my knowledge, this thesis contains no materials previously published except where due reference is made. I give consent to this copy of my thesis, when deposited in the University Library, being available for loan and photocopying.
Jacqueline Sandland October, 2016
ii
Acknowledgements I would like to thank my supervisor, Amanda Le Couteur, for her amazing support and guidance throughout the year, and her enthusiasm to take on this project. I would also like to thank my ever-supporting family, particularly my mother, who kept me fed and happy during stressful times. Also, thank you to my friends who kept checking up on me throughout the writing of this thesis. Their continued support and ability to make me laugh all year, was a big help. Lastly, I need to thank my horse, Carlo, who gave me the inspiration to take this project on, and gave me a good distraction when I needed time away from it.
iii
CHAPTER 1 Introduction 1.1 Overview This study explores how event riders account for elite-level equestrian performance and how ‘partnership’ between horse and rider is routinely made sense in discussion of achievement at this level. A discursive analytic approach was used to examine how riders constructed an event horse. Two dominant themes were identified in the analysis of constructions of event horses: the horse as autonomous agent, and the horse as social being. The first chapter outlines the relevant research literature relating to human-horse relationships and interspecies sport. Chapter 2 describes the theoretical framework, as well as the methodological and analytical procedures used. Chapter 3 details the analysis and discussion of extracts from the data set, consistent with the findings from constructions of an event horse. In chapter 4, a summary of findings from the present study, as well as limitations and potential implications are presented. 1.2 Human-horse interaction The study of animals in psychological research has often been in the context of understanding human behaviour (Amiot & Bastian, 2015). One focus of research using animals more generally has been on the testing of models for human disease (Birke, 2009). Amiot and Bastian (2015) argued that a strong movement towards the recognition of animal rights over the last forty years has inspired a shift in research focus towards relationships of interdependence that exists between animals and humans in various circumstances. Post structuralist researchers have been critical of the history of human superiority over animals (see, e.g., Birke, 2009), and the ethical and moral dilemmas involved in the use of animals in research has been a topic of increased attention (Thompson & Nesci, 2014).
1
The focus of psychological research is now shifting toward investigation of the subjective experiences of animals, and the nature of their interaction with human beings (Irvine, 2004; Sanders, 2003). Silverman (1997) called for examination of the everyday activities and experiences of social actors to replace the traditional reductionist use of anthropocentric scientific explanations, in the context of human-animal relationships with the goal of achieving greater understanding of human-animal relationships. The interaction between humans and horses has a long history. In assisting humans in agriculture, transport and industry through to associations of wealth and elite status, humans and horses involved with people in various ways (Coulter, 2014). Despite this history, the study of interaction between humans and horses has been minimal, until recently with the emergence of equine social studies as a distinct field of inquiry. Horses are used very differently in western society today compared to how they were used a century ago. The focus for humans is now on their use of horses for leisure, in competition, or as companions (Latimer & Birke, 2009). Human-horse interaction is a unique type of relationship due to the fact that horses are considered livestock, yet in most western cultures, are not considered meat for consumption (Thompson, 2011). Furthermore they are often referred to as pets, and are described as sharing deep, enduring bonds with people (Birke, 2009; Thompson, 2011). Great power and influence has also been attributed to horses, both anecdotally and throughout literature and films. However, due to financial, space, or personal reasons, horses are routinely replaced or sold on by their owners, in a way that is dissimilar to other pets such as dogs and cats, which are usually retained for the lifespan of the animal (Thompson, 2011). 1.3 ‘Partnership’ Most equine social studies, to date, have involved ethnographic research that investigates the relationship between horse and rider. Many of these studies have often not
2
made use of rigorous, systematic methods of analysis, however. Wipper (2000) for example, used observation and field notes in a study on the ‘partnership’ between horse and rider in eventing. She concluded that successful ‘partnerships’ are related to the time the pair spend together and are built on a multifaceted flow of interaction. This study focussed on the development of a successful partnership in the context of one horse and rider relationship, but did not consider the development of unsuccessful partnerships. In another study, Game (2001) acknowledged horse-rider relationships as embodied experiences, using observations from her own experience with her horse. She related the act of riding to the mythical centaur, a metaphor commonly used among horse-rider relationship literature (Game, 2001; Thompson, 2011). The centaur has the upper body of a human and the lower body of a horse, and is typically used to symbolise the achievement of ‘harmony’ between horse and rider. The centaur figure represents the mythical and spiritual coming together of both species and Game describes moments of riding as “when a horse moves freely, balanced, with cadence and lightness, it feels like floating and flying” (Game, 2001, p. 3). Human-horse relationships have been described in a variety of ways, ranging from authoritarian, where the rider makes all the decisions, through to egalitarian, where the relationship is constructed as a complex set of negotiations between horse and rider (Brandt, 2004; Wipper, 2000). Brandt (2004) conducted a study on the communication development between horse and female riders. Observation was used as a method of data collection, in conjunction with interviews, with riders who participated in hunting and jumping. She described the communication process between horse and rider as dynamic and cyclical, in which both species engage in a valuable relationship, based on shared meanings, forming an unspoken ‘language’. She concluded that horses are described as emotional, intelligent
3
beings with distinct personalities, yet further investigation of these processes is needed (Brandt, 2004). Birke and Hockenhull (2015) conducted a mixed-methods study with a sample of leisure riders, examining whether length of time spent together affects horse-rider performance. Under observation, riders led familiar and unfamiliar horses, unmounted, through an assigned obstacle course task. On completion of this task, unfamiliar horse-rider partners reported being less trusting, less relaxed and less coordinated, while observers of this study described the familiar pairings showing mutual attention, ‘rapport’ and a sense of ‘moving together’. Wipper (2000) also reported that lack of ‘rapport’ leads to poor performances in event horses, although her study did not provide evidence of this finding. Birke and Hockenhull’s (2015) study was limited in that the skills required to complete the unmounted obstacle course were difficult to apply in other settings, such as competitive equestrian activities. Despite this limitation, they concluded that time spent together does improve performance, but they appealed for the need for further investigation into the understanding of how partnerships are built by humans and animals. Maurstad, Davis and Cowles (2013) argued that human-animal studies illuminate subtle nuances within interspecies relationships. Their research focus was on the practical experience of working with horses, using a sample from a wide variety of riding styles. They reported that many experienced riders described not fully understanding their horse and having to occasionally engage in guesswork when trying to ‘read’ the animal. The researchers found that riders differed in the bond they have with their horses across different riding styles, resulting in difficulties in reaching conclusions about riders that conform to specific styles of riding. Due to the variability of the sample, this research could be further developed with a more thorough investigation into the relationship between horse and rider
4
within specific disciplines. This could be particularly fruitful when attempting to reduce element of risks involved in horse riding activities. 1.4 Interspecies sport The role of the horse in western society has changed dramatically in recent years, shifting from being an animal used in agriculture and work settings, to one that is predominantly used by humans for leisure, recreation and sporting pursuits (Birke, 2009). Interspecies sports are unique because not only do they involve a relationship with another being, which is similar to sports such as paired ice skating and doubles tennis, but they also involve a partnership between human and animal; a combination of two athletes and personalities, physical skills and minds. Although interspecies sports include examples such as sled-dog racing, camel racing and dog-agility competitions, equestrian is one of the more dominant forms of interspecies sport (Thompson & Nesci, 2014). With the increased use of horses as participants in equestrian sports, horses are increasingly being purpose bred to meet the needs and requirements of equestrian disciplines (Gilbert & Gillett, 2011). Gilbert and Gillett (2011) proposed the concept of ‘equine habitus’, a framework that considers desirable social and cultural attributes that are required for equestrian disciplines. The notion of ‘equine habitus’, was developed from Bordieau’s concept of ‘habitus’ that describes “a set of internalised and embodied dispositions that structure one’s own sense of self (perception, taste, character) and direct and organise social action” (as cited in Gilbert & Gillett, 2011). In the context of an ‘equine habitus’, they suggest that for a horse to perform successfully, it is constructed by riders as requiring a set of internalised and embodied dispositions that position the animal as a social agent. They argued that by conforming to these dispositions, a horse can excel in equestrian sports, therefore increasing its value as a desired participant in events with other agents, such as human beings. Their study looked at the development of the sport pony and how it has been
5
bred with an emphasis on having a suitable temperament for establishing relationships with children and small adults. The sport pony is a small statured, adaptable horse, which has resulted in its desirability for use in a variety of equestrian settings. A fundamental tenet of the ‘equine habitus’ concept is ‘cultural capital’. Haraway’s (2008) notion of ‘encounter value’, developed through her relationships with agility dogs, was reconfigured for horses by Gilbert and Gillett (2011) to fit with the concept of ‘cultural capital’. The notion refers to manifestations of the horse as a social agent, and includes attributions such as character, personality and behavioural demeanor. The concept aims to characterise the needs and requirements of the horse as a social being that is bred for specific purposes. It places emphasis on the desired attributes that riders and trainers hold relevant for such animals. Thompson and Birke (2014) applied the ‘equine habitus’ framework to amateur show jumpers in an attempt to develop the concept of a ‘show jumping habitus’. The study was a preliminary consideration of the usefulness of the ‘equine habitus’ concept. This study found show jumping riders constructed horses as active, willing, agents, but fell short in delivering a descriptive discursive analysis of how the horse was constructed in this way Apart from show jumping horses and the sport pony, this notion of an ‘equine habitus’, has not been applied to other types of horse. In particular, it is not clear whether the requirements for a competitive, event horse are likely to differ. Event horses have to be supremely strong and fit in order to complete a competition successfully. They also have to compete in three different phases of competition; thus differentiating these types of horses from the requirements for a sport pony and a show jumping horse. 1.5 Eventing Eventing is a three-phase competition that is sometimes described as a triathlon for horses. It’s origins are military: the performance of officers and horses were routinely tested 6
in various situations that may be required of them in battle, or when comparisons of training standards were made between cavalries from different countries (Fédération Equestre International, 2016). Eventing has been an Olympic sport since 1912, but remained a prerogative of cavalry officers until World War Two. Since then, eventing has grown in popularity, initially as male civilians began to participate, and then becoming one of the few sports in which both sexes compete on equal terms with the inclusion of female competitors at the 1962 Olympics (Wipper, 2000). Modern day eventing demands considerable experience of horse and rider and is regarded as the ultimate test of all round horsemanship. The first phase involves dressage, where horse and rider must complete a sequence of movements, on flat ground, in an enclosed arena. The same combination then completes the cross-country phase, which involves a set of fixed obstacles in open paddocks, through water and over ditches, where the horse’s fitness is tested. Agility of the horse is also required, as the cross-country courses are increasingly becoming more technically demanding on the horse. Finally, fitness is required again, as the horse and rider team completes a show jumping course. The combination jumps a track of obstacles that, if not executed correctly, can incur penalty points to the overall tally. It’s the ultimate test of fitness, ability and training between horse and rider. The winner is the combination with the lowest penalty score ((Fédération Equestre International, 2016). 1.6 Risk The cross-country element of eventing is considered the most dangerous phase (O’Brien, 2016). Undesirable outcomes from sprained limbs through to death of both horse and rider can occur during this phase. Paix (1999) estimated that the cross-country phase of an event is more than seventy times more dangerous than general horse riding; three times more at risk than a motorcycle rider and six times more at risk than a racing-car driver. A
7
common cause of serious injury and fatality in eventing is from rotational falls. A rotational fall occurs when the horse hits a fence with its front legs or chest, and subsequently somersaults over a jump. The jump provides a pivot point from which the rider is then forced forward to the ground with continued momentum as the horse abruptly stops and occasionally lands on the rider (O’Brien, 2016). Thompson and Nesci (2014) highlighted how technical interventions, such as the use of frangible pins, are becoming more commonly used when building cross-country obstacles. These pins are designed to break on impact, attempting to stop rotational falls from occurring. Riders also wear body protecting inflatable vests, to soften the impact if they fall from their horse. Although technical interventions are effective, developing an understanding of what is required from both horse and rider for achieving success, may have the potential for reducing these sorts of accidents from happening. Studies that can inform riders to make appropriate decisions about training and working with horses, may encourage a better understanding of how human-horse relationships are developed in the context of eventing, and may be an important step in lowering the amount of risk associated with this sport. 1.7 Aim of the present study There have been recent calls for the need for greater attention, in research, to the social construction of the human-animal relationship, especially in the context of interspecies sport (Thompson & Nesci, 2014). There is a growing body of work that attempts to understand the relationship between horse and rider, but many of these studies do not make use of rigorous, systematic methods of analysis. However, some attempts have been made to investigate the competitive relationship between horse and rider (Thompson & Birke, 2014; Wipper, 2000) but have fallen short of detailed descriptive analysis.
8
Currently, there are no studies that focus on the discursive construction of horse and rider in elite-level eventing. Furthermore, riders who routinely train and compete with multiple horses have not been the subject of a study in relation to competitive performance. Riders who routinely get on and off a variety of horses, often do so in a high-risk context. Highly skilled riders who ride multiple horses may not have time to develop the relationship with their mounts that much of the literature suggests is essential for success and to minimise risk, yet this is routine practice for elite-level event riders. The present study aims to explore how riders account for elite-level equestrian eventing performance and how ‘partnership’ between horse and rider is routinely described in discussion of achievement at this level.
9
Chapter 2 Methodology Theoretical framework The theoretical framework underpinning the present study is social constructionism, a critical framework that treats language as constructing different versions of the world. Potter and Wetherell (1987) describe ‘construction’ as the process of accounts, which are selected from pre-existing linguistic resources, which speakers can draw upon. Speakers draw on different resources, depending on the context of the account, but this is not a deliberate process of choice by the speaker. Social constructionist researchers argue that accounts construct reality and the perspective is based on the process of interactions between events and people. Social constructionists argue that there is no underlying ‘truth’ in the world, and that what social researchers have access to are varying accounts that produce differing versions of reality. By contrast, researchers who take a realist approach, view language as providing valid descriptions of events, objects and actions in the world (Potter & Wetherell, 1987). The aim of social constructionism is not to treat descriptions as pathways to the nature of phenomena, but as interactional functioning that can be examined to shed light on such phenomena. Essentially, this framework examines how talk is used to construct and account for various categories that participants deem as meaningful (Edwards, 1997). In the context of horse-rider relationships, the social constructionist framework assists understanding of the descriptions routinely used by elite event riders in their talk about their horses. This study examines the routine linguistic practices and rhetorical organisation used by elite event riders in discussions of event horses in the context of performance success.
10
2.2 Analytic approach The present study uses discourse analysis to investigate the interview data. Guided by the work of Potter and Wetherell (1987) analysis focuses on the action orientation of language, and the interactional business that is performed through specific descriptions or accounts. It is recognised that accounts will be produced in highly context-specific ways to accomplish a variety of actions. Discourse analysis operates on the basis of three key theoretical concepts: function, variation and construction. Function refers to the way language is used to accomplish tasks, such as blaming, persuading and requesting. The function of the discourse can be context-specific – that is, function may vary depending on the context (Potter & Wetherell, 1987). Variation refers to the concept that accounts vary according to function, (e.g., presenting someone in a favourable light on a particular occasion). The concept of construction refers to the way language is used to construct versions of the world. Construction is not viewed as an intentional or deliberate process; it is acknowledged that a person may not be aware of the way their account is ‘worked up’. In short, discourse analysis does not aim to discover what people think, but is one possible pathway to people’s actions, beliefs and events (Potter & Wetherell, 1987). 2.3 Participants and recruitment The sample comprised of 15 elite-level equestrian eventing riders resident in South Australia. Three of the participants were Olympians, who collectively held 3 gold and 1 silver medals. Participant’s ages ranged from 21 to 60 years. For inclusion in the study, interviewees were required to be past or present competitors who had ridden at two-starlevel eventing, or above. Two-star is an internationally recognised level of competition
11
where a horse-rider combination must be considerably experienced to qualify and compete at. Participants were also required to have ridden multiple horses over their eventing career. Riders were recruited via email and telephone using purposive sampling technique. Specifically, criterion sampling was used, which involves the researcher searching for cases where participants need to meet specific criteria, as outlined above (Palys, 2008). 2.4 Ethics The University of Adelaide, Human Research Ethics Committee, gave ethics approval for this research. Participants were provided with an information sheet outlining details of the research, and written informed consent was received prior to commencement of the interviews. Participants were individually assigned an individual code to assure anonymity in taking part in the research. The option of viewing their associated transcript was offered. 2.5 Data collection In-depth, semi-structured interviews were used in the present study. Face-to-face interviews were conducted with 14 participants and 1 interview was conducted over the telephone. An interview guide consisting of open-ended questions was developed to facilitate discussions about the relationship between horse and rider while competing in elite-level eventing. Participants were guided through the questions, although the flow and order varied depending on the direction taken by the participant. The interviews lasted between 20 and 80 minutes. Interviews were audio recorded and transcribed using a simplified version of Jefferson transcription (Potter & Wetherell, 1987).
12
2.6 Data analysis Data were analysed using discursive analysis, as outlined by Potter and Wetherell (1987) and Braun and Clarke (2013). Data were worked through intially to identify instances of descriptions of how riders accounted for elite-level equestrian performance in eventing, and how the relationship between horse and rider was routinely described in discussion of achievement at this level. Recurring descriptive patterns were then identified throughout the data and a file of relevant extracts was created. These files were then read and re-read to determine collective relevant constructions of the horse in relation to the following research question, which was formulated on the basis of a literature review.
How do riders construct the event horse?
Data Extracts highlighting these constructions have been produced in the report to support the analysis, as well as a focus on the actions performed by the dominant constructions. Extracts used in the analysis are represented with ‘I’ for interviewer and ‘R’ for rider.
13
CHAPTER 3 Analysis and Discussion Overview The focus of the present study is on routine linguistic practices and rhetorical organisation that recur in elite riders’ constructions of event horses in discussions of performance success. Analysis is organised into two sections, corresponding to two dominant types of constructions of the event horse that were identified across the corpus:
The horse as autonomous agent
The horse as social being
The two constructions of the event horse contribute to developing an understanding of desired internalised and embodied dispositions required by riders. By drawing on the work of Gilbert and Gillett (2011), this study aims to develop further insight into the attributes that are routinely described by elite riders as necessary to the formation of a successful performance relationship of horse and rider, as one key element, the notion of an ‘eventing habitus’. 3.2 The Horse as Autonomous Agent The first part of the ‘eventing habitus’ analysis focuses on the constructions of an event horse as autonomous agent. Throughout the present corpus, riders routinely constructed event horses as active, decision-making agents. This was produced in two ways: positioning the horse in control, as a rational decision-maker, and positioning the rider in control, where the relationship was based on mutual interactions. The section that follows details patterns identified in elite riders constructions of the horse as autonomous agent.
14
3.2.1 Horse in control. Two patterns were identified across the dataset where the horse was positioned as being in control:
The horse as rational decision-maker
The horse as disobedient decision-maker
The complexities of these constructions will now be discussed in detail. 3.2.1.1 Horse as rational decision maker. Preliminary studies have demonstrated how amateur show jumping riders regularly describe their horses as being able to make autonomous decisions, especially when rider error occurs during competition (Thompson & Birke, 2014). The present study’s elite eventing sample also described their horses as being able to make judgments that could ‘save’ the rider on course. Thompson and Birke (2014) described how riders tended to credit themselves for training horses in a way that gave the animal an ability to make split-second judgment calls. The elite riders interviewed here also attributed intelligence to their horses, and constructed a relationship in which riders could develop the ‘natural’ mental abilities of the animal through training. This training allowed horses to develop an ability to correct mistakes made by the rider when a jump was approached incorrectly. Riders repeatedly drew on the concept of ‘trust’ in relation to their horses in these situations. A horse’s ability to make quick decisions was regularly worked up by elite riders when they were describing situations where they had been unable to approach a jump correctly during competition. The horse-as-quick-decision-maker was frequently mentioned as an important element of what was involved in establishing a good partnership with an 15
event horse. Rider’s also described the horse’s decision-making ability as part of what was involved in establishing ‘trust’ with an event horse, and routinely cited the absence of ‘trust’ as a reason for not wanting to ride an unfamiliar horse in a competition. Extract 1 shows a rider responding to a question about attributes that she looks for in an event horse. Consistent with the pattern of horse as rational decision-maker, identified throughout the corpus, she describes her horse as having the ability to ‘fix’ her mistake on a cross-country course. Extract 1 1
R:But, umm, the who:le course she’d been amazing and, I always had in
2
the back of my head, umm, [National Team veterinarian] and [National
3
Team coach] always say to me, ‘you’re always slow on time, you need to
4
make time [time allowed to complete the cross-country phase without
5
incurring penalties]’ and um, so I just had this focus and I come to this, it
6
was a reasonably narrow fence with a big ditch in front of it, and it was just
7
on its own, just sitting there, and I’m like ‘right, gallop at it!’ You know,
8
‘just keep going, don’t even take a pull’ and I had the biggest ‘miss’ [at it
9
I: (laughs)]
10
R: and she jumped it a:nd I hit myself in [the fa:ce
11
I: (laughs)]
12
R: and I was like (.) you are jus-, you know, you shouldn’t have done th-
13
you know, she was that good, she just said ‘oh, I’ll fix it up for you’ (R6, female)
Throughout the interviews, elite riders described being able to jump from an awkward position as a desirable attribute of an event horse. In Extract 1 (l.8), the rider uses
16
direct reported speech to emphasise the importance of not pulling on the horse’s mouth with the bit, which is often done in an attempt by the rider to set the horse up for a suitable jumping take-off distance. She then describes having a ‘miss’, meaning that the horse took off from an awkward distance from the jump, either too close or too far away. Such ‘misses’ often result in riders losing their balance as they ride the horse over the jump. In line 10, the rider claims that she hit herself in the face, indicating that the horse did jump awkwardly and she lost her balance. The description that the rider gives in this example, constructs the horse as having the ability to make an autonomous decision to jump the fence, even though the rider did not set the horse up correctly, and had lost her balance. In this way, the rider constructs her horse as a rational decision-maker. In line 13, she voices the horse through the use of reported speech. This persuasive technique serves to construct the personality and positioning of the original ‘speaker’, and is produced and tailored to suit the appropriate identity of the original ‘speaker’, according to Leudar & Antaki (1996). This voicing technique occurred throughout the corpus in various contexts, serving to add credibility to a rider’s construction of a version of the horse. In Extract 1, the reported speech positions the horse as rational agent that responds to the rider’s error. Constructions of the horse as an autonomous decision-maker, were worked up in various ways. Descriptions of the horse ‘responding’ to rider error were constructed in situations where the rider was reporting being influenced by pressures, such as involving team selection, during competition, or resulting from equipment malfunction. Rider’s routinely described a horse as rational decision-maker when discussing how to differentiate a good event horse from an average one. Thompson and Birke (2014) flagged a complication with the construction of show jumping horses as being agentic, in that they were described as capable of deciding when to
17
take over from the rider. The researchers discussed this complication in terms of an ‘entanglement’ of nature and culture. Horses have what might be categorised as a natural ability to jump without a rider requiring them to do so. Another construction of the horse as rational decision-maker was identified across the corpus. In this case, the event horse was constructed as a ‘thinking’ agent with ‘natural abilities’. Training sessions were routinely described as environments where the rider would face the horse with confronting circumstances, or challenges, aiming to develop its ‘natural abilities’. Riders frequently constructed ‘thinking’ as a ‘natural ability’ of the horse, and formulated it as something that they could not control. Typically, riders described a dominant-submissive relationship with their horse, even while constructing the horse as being able to do what it ‘thinks’ the rider is asking of it. An illustration of the pattern of the ‘horse as a thinking agent’ can be seen in Extract 2. The rider is answering a probing question about ‘responding’ after she mentioned it as being something she was currently trying to teach an inexperienced horse. She describes a dominant-submissive relationship with her horse (l. 2 - 3) and then describes the importance of allowing the horse to be an autonomous ‘thinker’ (l. 4). Extract 2 1
I: So responding is something you aim for? [In your training?
2
R: Absolutely.] Yeah, absolutely. They have to be submissive, listen to you,
3
respond to your aids, ‘cos you ca:n’t take away their natural ability to, to
4
um, think either, so, it’s, it’s really important that they, um, if they get in
5
trouble or into a situation at a jump or at a complex of, o- fences, they’ve
6
got th-, their own balance to get themselves (.) out of that as well.
7
I: hmm mm
8
R: Um, if you overtrain them, which some people can do, they think that’s 18
9
really, the horse stops thinking a little bit. So I like to have them really
10
schooled, really trained, but give them a lot of time with no contact just to,
11
for them to work it out for them, themselves as well (R11, female)
The implication of this construction of the event horse as rational decision-maker, is that rider input can be detrimental to a horse’s ‘natural ability’. By acknowledging that a horse has the ability to think, the rider is able to allow the horse to complete training exercises, without using force. This way of making sense of the rider-horse relationship has important implications for riders and coaches when implementing training programs for event horses. By allowing the horse to occasionally complete training exercises without guidance from the rider, can potentially encourage a relationship based on mutual negotiations rather than relying on force or fear. 3.2.1.2 The horse as disobedient decision-maker An alternative variation on the construction of the event horse as an autonomous agent involved descriptions of horses as not ‘listening’ to riders. Event horses that do not listen to riders were described repeatedly as ‘disobedient’ and ‘undesirable’ by the interviewees. Just as Thompson and Birke (2014) found when interviewing amateur show jumping riders, this elite sample described horses that disobeyed riders as failing to ‘listen’. When responding to questions about unsuccessful relationships with their horses, elite riders routinely described horses that would not ‘listen’ to the rider. This pattern also occurred when riders were discussing unfamiliar horses, or horses that had been trained by someone else. Rider’s frequently oriented to the need for a horse to do what is asked of it, or to be ‘submissive’, in situations where training problems would arise. Extract 3 shows an example of a rider answering a question about a ‘catch-ride’. A catch-ride refers to situations in which riders ride a horse in competition after only limited
19
time together. Occasionally, riders compete a horse without riding it prior to a competition. This occurs when the horse’s usual rider is unable to compete the horse due to injury or other commitments, yet the horse needs to compete at the event to continue it’s training program. In this example, the rider has just described the horse as being ‘unfeasibly difficult’ as he was preparing to ride it at a competition. This Extract shows the construction of a horse as an autonomous decision-maker, choosing not to ‘listen’ to the rider’s commands during training. Extract 3 1
I: When you say the horse was difficult, what sort of things w- would he do
2
(.) to be difficult?
3
R: ummm, oh I was doing training (.) er (.) dressage training at the
4
competition, so in a sixty by twenty arena and it got to the point where I
5
couldn’t make it (.) it just stood (.) it just stood still and I couldn’t make it go
6
anywhere.
7
I: hmm mmm
8
R: It didn’t want to do anything. It
9
I: [right
10
R: Like i-, it, as in, go forwards, backwards, sideways, it just stood there. I
11
think when I got to that point, I just decided hhhh, that was it.
12
I: hmm mmm
13
R: But it would, umm (.) yeah it would not do what it w-, was asked of it, so
14
say if doing what was asked of it was to halt and trot (.) forward, it (.) m:ight
15
run sideways, or if the, the, the task was to go from canter to walk (.) it
16
might put it’s head straight to the sky and, and run, or something like that, it
17
was really umm, just a bit all over the shop. (R3, male)
20
In the context of eventing, Wipper (2000) suggested the length of time that a horse and rider spend together is often related to the strength of their relationship, but her finding was based on the journey of one horse and rider. The present study’s finding that constructs an event horse as a ‘disobedient’ decision-maker adds to the human-horse relationship literature by placing emphasis on an unsuccessful relationship. The construction of the horse as a ‘disobedient’ autonomous agent has implications for the horse-rider relationship. Aside from the routine construction of a horse being ‘difficult’ to ride when unfamiliar, elite riders frequently suggested that riding unfamiliar horses at competitions was ‘risky’. Implications of unfamiliar horse and rider pairings highlight the importance of a rider spending time attempting to understand their horse, and for the rider to allow time for the horse to understand them, especially in the context of the high risk sport of eventing. Interestingly, the horse is celebrated by the rider when constructed as a rational decision-maker that is able to ‘fix’ riders mistakes, but considered undesirable when described as a decision-maker that doesn’t ‘listen’ to the rider. An event horse as an autonomous decision-maker, positioned, as being in control of the rider, is a complex construction that requires further investigation. 3.2.2 Rider in control. An alternative construction of the event horse from that of an autonomous agent, positioned the rider as being in control. Two broad patterns were identified across the data set that positioned the rider as being in control in the context of training the horse.
Development of ‘natural abilities’
Training negotiator
This section will look at the various ways that these patterns were constructed.
3.2.2.1 Development of ‘natural abilities’.
21
A pattern was identified across the data set in which the rider was constructed as responsible for developing the horse’s ‘natural’ mental abilities during training sessions. This construction contrasts the one discussed in Section 3.2.1.1, where the rider was positioned as not being able to control the horse’s natural ability to ‘think’. When the horse was constructed as an autonomous agent but with the rider being in control, the purpose of training the horse was worked up as a matter of developing its ‘natural abilities’. Elite riders described the goal of developing a horse’s ‘natural abilities’ as ensuring that, on the day of competition, it could be left to perform without interference from the rider. Riders routinely discussed the importance of trying to make a horse respond to the riders commands, and constructed the animal as the one that was doing the hard work. Extract 4 illustrates a rider’s answer to the interviewer’s question of whether she thinks a horse can be considered an athlete. Here, the rider outlines a dominant-submissive relationship in the extract, but constructs the horse as the active decision-maker on the day of competition. Extract 4 1
R: I mean obviously the horse on the day in the competition is absolutely
2
the athlete and we’re the mugs on top that
3
I: [hmm (laughs)
4
R: that], you know, that, that (.) try not stuff up, the horses natural ability
5
basically, erm, our job is to develop the horses natural ability
6
I: hmm mmm
7
R: In the areas of dressage (.) cross-country and show jumping. (..) The
8
fitness levels of the horse is our responsibility, ‘cos the horse just can’t go
9
out in the paddock and go round and round the paddock in in- intervals and,
10
you know, get itself fit (.) so, the rider really (.) is, is responsible for (.) the 22
11
training of the horse, both physically and mentally (.) um, for the
12
development of the horses gymnastic ability, to be able to do the job (.) so
13
that (.) the rider on the day (.) the horse on the day is the athlete, the horse
14
on the day is the one that performs, but it’s the riders jo:b in the lead up to
15
that competition (.) to put everything in place so that the horse ca:n do the
16
job (R2, female)
In line 2, the phrase ‘mugs on top’ is used to characterise riders, positioning the horse as being in control on the day of competition. Yet, in the lead-up to the competition, she positions the horse as being under the control of the rider. This construction is a complex achievement. It involves positioning the horse as an autonomous agent, but specifically, as one that is capable of determining when it is appropriate to listen to the rider, and when it is expected to autonomously think and act independently. 3.2.1.2 Rider as training negotiator The previous section discussed constructions of the horse as an autonomous agent in competition scenarios, but there was another pattern identified that described event horses as active decision makers during training sessions. Riders described having a good partnership with their horse when it would respond easily to their commands (e.g., when they would not have to ‘ask’ too firmly). Riders routinely constructed training sessions as mutual interactions. Horses that could be trained in this way were held in high regard and such descriptions constituted the essence of what were characterised ‘trainable’ horses. Extract 5 shows a rider’s response to a probing question about a horse being ‘trainable’, after the rider had used the term in previous talk. Riders frequently reported using repetition as a training technique. In this example, the rider describes the horse as an agent, who is actively thinking in response to the rider’s commands.
23
Extract 5 1
I: Can you talk about a horse being ‘trainable’? Can you describe what that
2
is?
3
R: Oh, just being (.) receptive to, to, ide-, to stimulus, um to cues and, ah,
4
ah I guess you, they only learn by (.) you have to ask (.) whatever it is you
5
want and they’ll often come back with a few ideas of their own about what
6
they think you might be want, you might want, ah (.) and then, you might
7
have to ask again straight away, or, um, if they give you what, if you give
8
you, they give you what you want, um, then you have to celebrate, then you
9
have to give them a pat, let them, give them a break, whatever it is you
10
think um, er, will let them know that, that they’ve done the right thing. (R12, male)
In line 7, the rider describes the use of repetition while asking the horse to obey his commands, yet in line 5, he describes the horse as responding to his commands with it’s own ‘ideas’. Throughout the dataset, desirable event horses were repeatedly worked up as ‘trainable’ agents who could accept commands from their riders, and respond by making autonomous decisions about what the rider was asking of them. This section has illustrated the ways in which event horses were constructed as autonomous, decision-making agents. Broadly, this was achieved in two main ways: positioning the horse as in control, in terms of being a rational decision-maker, and positioning the rider as in control, where the relationship was based on mutual interaction. Constructions of an event horse as an autonomous agent were relatively complex, lacking clear distinctions of the types of horse-rider relationships that are involved. Horse-rider
24
relationship constructions varied from authoritarian through to egalitarian, depending on the context, and often involved a mixture of both. In relation to the ‘equine habitus’ framework, horses that were constructed as obedient and submissive but also able to develop a relationship with their rider based on mutual negotiation were described as highly desirable. 3.3 The Horse as Social Being The second part of the ‘eventing habitus’ analysis focuses on routine linguistic practices and rhetorical organisation used to construct the horse as a social being that displays human-like dispositional attributes. Dispositional attributes refer to internal characteristics that reside within the individual that explain behaviour. Wipper (2000) outlined the importance of the social characteristics involved in building a ‘partnership’ of horse and rider through training for competition. Gilbert and Gillett (2011) argued that particular social characteristics contribute towards a horse’s ‘cultural capital’, increasing its appeal for the desired use. The present study aims to explore and develop the notion of an ‘eventing habitus’. The section that follows details patterns identified in elite rider’s constructions of the horse as a social agent. 3.3.1 ‘Careful’ horses. Throughout the corpus, emphasis was routinely placed on dispositional attributes that contributed to the successful jumping of an event horse. In particular, a routine pattern was identified in which riders described their event horse as being ‘careful’ when jumping. The construction of a ‘careful’ event horse was complicated by some variation in use of the concept. On some occasions, riders worked up a ‘careful’ horse as an account for problems that occurred during competition. On other occasions, riders constructed this dispositional
25
attribute as beneficial to performance. Sometimes the term was used to describe a desirable cross-country jumping horse, and, at other times, it was used to describe a desirable show jumping horse. There were also instances where a horse was described as ‘careful’ for one jumping phase and not for another. The following analysis of the event horse as a social agent is organised into three sections:
Constructions of a ‘careful’ event horse
‘Brave’ vs ‘careful’ vs ‘heart’
Rider in control of dispositional attributes
3.3.2 Constructions of a ‘careful’ event horse. Elite riders routinely used the term ‘careful’ to describe their jumping horses. Some riders claimed that they would only ride a horse that was ‘careful’, whereas other riders cited problems with horses of this type. Although a ‘careful’ horse was more commonly worked up in positive scenarios, some riders constructed ‘careful’ horses as being difficult to work with. The following section explores some of the complexities associated with constructions of a ‘careful’ event horse. 3.3.2.1 ‘Careful’ as a negative attribute in horses. One version of the construction of an event horse as a ‘careful’ jumper described problems that ensued for the rider. Rider’s described a ‘careful’ horse as one that would hesitate or refuse to jump in inappropriate conditions. Inappropriate conditions were described as situations in which, for example, a horse would get very close to a jump, making it hard to take-off or when there were unfamiliar fences, or the ground surrounding the jump was slippery or uneven.
26
Extract 6 illustrates a rider describing her most successful horse. After giving a description of this horse as an event horse, she talked about some trouble she had experienced with his dressage training. In response to the interviewer’s question about a ‘jumping horse’, she describes her horse’s technique and physical ability (l. 4 – 9) before discussing him as ‘careful’ at line 11. The rider explains the term ‘careful’, as both a matter of the horse’s technique: ‘his front legs were really neat’ and as a matter of his disposition, ‘he didn’t want to touch a rail’. The description positions the horse as having the physical ability to clear the jump, but as being ‘careful’ when the conditions were undesirable. In line 13, the rider describes the horse as ‘ducking out’, meaning that the undesirable conditions would result in him refusing to jump. The rider’s description constructs the horse as having a disposition that overrides its physical ability in relation to performance success. Extract 6 1
I: Can you just tell me what he was like more as a jumping horse then?
2
R: Jumping. Amazing. [He
3
I: yep]
4
R: was sharp in front, really good technique, neat with his knees, um, got
5
his legs out, out of the way, um, was very much focussed on his fences, um,
6
would jump any height, any line, any spread, he was just um, ama-, actually
7
at the start as a young horse, at two-star, when he went up to two-star, he
8
did have a few jumps, he did have a few duck outs if the ground wasn’t right,
9
he was [very much
10
I: hmm mmm
11
R: a careful jumping, careful, being that his front legs were really neat,
27
12
didn’t, didn’t want to touch a rail when the ground was slippery, or on a
13
slope, on an angle to a fence, he would duck out. (R11, female)
Riders describing a ‘careful’ horse in a negative way, also portrayed the animal as having an anxious or nervous disposition, for example, describing them as being ‘worried’, ‘sensitive’ or ‘tense’ in these situations. ‘Spooky’ was a related term that was also frequently used by riders in relation to horses that exhibited trouble in jumping. A ‘spooky’ horse was constructed as a horse that appeared scared of unfamiliar jumps, in a similar way to the description of a ‘careful’ horse in a negative circumstance. In both cases it was suggested that these problems could be overcome, by exposing the horse to different situations. For example, riding it in a variety of new locations, leading the horse through water puddles, and guiding the horse over a diverse range of jumps. Describing a horse as ‘spooky’ routinely occurred in accounts of unexpected or outof- character behaviour. Extract 7 provides an example of this construction. The rider has been asked about a time when her horse behaved unexpectedly. In lines 1 – 6, she constructs the horse as an experienced competition horse, but mentions that, at the last event, they had a fall at a competition. In line 7, she describes the horse as ‘spooky’ and then qualifies her claim by constructing a narrative about the horse defiantly refusing to jump the crosscountry course. Similar to Extract 6, here the horse is constructed as having a dispositional attribute that overrides its physical ability in relation to performance success. Extract 7 1
R: Um, [event] this year, um he’d obviously had a break so I hadn’t
2
competed since [event] two thousand and fourteen, where, where he had a
3
fall (.) um (.) been going super, been jumping quite a bit, took him to
4
[coach’s] cross country schooling, thought he might have to jump a few 28
5
cross country jumps before we go out (..) a:nd I think he was winning (.) the
6
one-s- (.) I think it was one-star he did at [event], um was the first one back
7
(.) a:nd he was so spooky
8
I: [mmm
9
R: Like] I could barely get him over the practice jumps, he was just mind
10
boggled
11
I: mmm
12
R: and he did a really good [dressage] test, I think he was (.) winning (.) um
13
(.) a:nd he jumped fence one and fence two and wouldn’t go down the hill
14
(laughs)
15
I: [ahh
16
R: he was like] ‘no way I’m not going near anyone down there’ (..) and then
17
fence three he stopped.
18
I: [ahh
19
R: and I] was like ‘oh my god, what is going on here’ he’s never, ever, ever
20
stopped in his whole life (.) and th:en he stopped again, and then I ended up
21
walking home.
22
I: Right.
23
R: and (.) that was a massive shock
24
I: mmm
25
R: and (..) u:m I think it was just all overwhelming for him (R10, female)
The horse was described as having the physical abilities to compete successfully, yet because it was ‘spooky’ on a particular day, it had problems with jumping the cross-country course. This version of the horse as a social being highlights examples of how riders
29
typically construct horses that display jumping problems in eventing: such problems were routinely attributed to individual disposition rather than to physical ability. The implications for riders working with horses that are constructed as having a ‘spooky’ or ‘careful’ disposition, is that the attributes may override the physical ability of the horse. Therefore, consideration will need to be made as to whether a rider is suited to working with such a horses, and if so, specific programs need to be tailored to suit a horse of this disposition. 3.3.2.2 ‘Careful’ as a positive attribute in horses. An alternative version of constructions of horses as ‘careful’, involved descriptions of this attribute as a desirable characteristic. Riders routinely described this attribute in two ways: a ‘careful’ horse that would avoid hitting a cross-country jump and potentially having a rotational fall, or a type of horse that could give the rider ‘confidence’ due to its ability to clear jumps. Extract 8 involves a rider’s response to the interviewer question about her most successful horse. The extract shows an example of a positive construction of a ‘careful’ event horse. Extract 8 1
R: she was just a joy, right from the word, dot. Umm, but just a freak. Umm,
2
I call her a freak, um, I’ve never had another horse like her. Just, would
3
jump anything you put in front of her and tr:y her guts out for ya, just, you
4
know she always tried her best
5
I: hmm mmm
6
R: and umm, horses like that don’t come along every day.
30
7
I: [mmm
8
R: you know], and if ya make a mistake, well she fixed it, you know and um,
9
er, just amazing, and er, I think ‘cos she was so careful, she never wanted to
10
hit a fence, so she was always careful, but you could go into show jumping
11
knowing that you’d do a good round, you were never too nervous going into
12
the last phase. (R6, female)
Here, the rider expands her attribution of ‘careful’ (lines 9-12) by claiming that her horse ‘never wanted to hit a fence’, presenting this attribute as a desirable in a horse. This description can be compared to that in Extract 6, to illustrate two different constructions of a ‘careful’ event horse: a negative and a positive description. 3.3.3 Careful vs Brave vs Heart. The term ‘careful’ was routinely used to describe horses in the context of crosscountry and show jumping. A different construction that riders frequently worked up to describe event horses was ‘brave’. Bravery was routinely described as an essential attribute of success for these horses and, in some cases, riders described giving up on training a horse that did not appear to have this quality. Discussion about ‘brave’ horses was particularly evident in the context of the cross-country phase, although it occasionally occurred in descriptions of dressage. Bravery was commonly described as an attribute that was required to meet the demands of the progressively difficult ‘questions’ that a rider would ask the horse to answer on a cross-country course. A cross-country course contains a variety of different styles of jumps, such as ditches, narrow fences, and combinations of fences that require agile turning and jumping into water. The rider is allowed to view the course before they ride it, but the horse is not. The variety of jumps is considerable, and the course is designed to be a series
31
of tests of horses training and ability. As noted, riders frequently referred to these jumping tests as ‘questions’. When asked to characterise a ‘brave’ horse, riders repeatedly used terms such as ‘courageous’, ‘bold’, possessing ‘heart’ or ‘giving everything’ to the rider. They also regularly described the cross-country phase as a test of a horse’s ‘bravery’. Extract 9 shows an example of a response to the interviewer’s probing question about ‘bravery’, after the rider had used the term in previous talk. Consistent with the pattern identified throughout the sample, this extract shows how ‘bravery’ was depicted as important in an event horse. Here, the rider describes the absence of ‘bravery’ as a horse being ‘unsure of his job’. Extract 9 1
I: you have mentioned bravery a couple of times. Is that something you
2
always look for in a horse?
3
R: Absolutely. Especially if you are wanting to event. Ahhh I think, I mean
4
dressage to a degree, needs some (.) bravery um, but also with dressage you
5
can use that flight instinct that the horses have to get a bit more expression
6
out of the work provided your aids are all sorted and your schooling’s there.
7
Hhhh um, but yeah with eventing (inaudible) there’s no point (.) in (.) if
8
you’re wanting to get to a higher level of eventing anyway, if you’ve got that
9
horse that’s, you know (.) a bit unsure of his job. (R1, male)
Interestingly, riders routinely emphasised the need for a successful horse to be both ‘brave’ and ‘careful’, terms that appear somewhat inconsistent. Descriptions of horses as both ‘brave’ and ‘careful’ were accomplished in two ways: the attributes were presented as innate personal dispositions of the horse, or as attributes that could be developed or overcome through training by the rider. The nuances of these dual constructions will now be considered. 32
Elite riders frequently reported being able to identify a ‘brave’ horse upon first meeting, or after only a few rides. In one case, a rider discussed not even having to ride a horse to know that it would be sufficiently ‘brave’ to be successful at eventing. As stated in the previous section, ‘courage’, ‘heart’, or a horse that would ‘give everything’ to its rider, were used as character descriptions for the term ‘brave’. For example, when the interviewer asked riders a probing question for a definition of a term such as ‘heart’, they used the term ‘brave’ or ‘braveness’ as a descriptor. Riders routinely presented narratives in which a horse that appeared to be ‘brave’ or to have ‘heart’ would influence rider decisions about buying or agreeing to ride such a horse, despite it lacking other desired attributes, such as physical ability or education. Extract 10 shows an example of a rider discussing why she chose to buy the horse that became her most successful event horse. In line 3, she mentions the horse’s breed ‘Irish sport horse’, which is a well-known, purpose-bred horse that is routinely used for eventing. The rider says the horse came to her ‘started’, meaning that the horse had training with a previous rider. In this extract she places emphasis on the horses dispositional attributes, ‘big heart’ and ‘tried really hard’, as well as its jumping ability, despite his incorrect previous training. Extract 10 1
I: Can you tell me a little bit about your four-star horse that’s in the paddock
2
now?
3
R: umm, yes, he’s an irish sport horse, he um, he came to me started, um
4
and um he had quite a few issues to begin with, just his education wasn’t
5
correct, from the beginning, um but he had a big heart ], and he tried really
6
hard, a:nd he had a fantastic jump (R9, female)
33
In addition to the importance riders placed on certain social attributes overriding education and in some cases physical ability, riders also emphasised how these attributes impacted the crucial development of the horse-rider relationship. Extract 11 shows a rider describing how the relationship with her horse enabled her to achieve in other aspects of her life. Following a discussion of how her horse would ‘give everything’ to her by trying hard at competitions, she describes how their relationship was more important than any sum of money. Extract 11 1
I: Would you have ever sold [horse’s name] if you were offered the right
2
amount of money?
3
R: I was offered the right amount of [money
4
I: Yep?]
5
R: I was offered (.) seven hundred thousand dollars for him [umm (.) and um,
6
at the time, you know my [partner] still can’t believe I didn’t take that
7
I: (laughs)]
8
R: for him, um (.) but um, it was never a question, even then when I was
9
offered a ridiculous amount of money for him, it was never, ah there was
10
never even a hesitation, or a thought
11
I: mm
12
R: Some of that comes from the fact that (..) I probably didn’t appreciate at
13
the time
14
I: [(laughs)
15
R: how much money that was (laughing)] No, but honestly he was never, he
16
was never for sale
17
I: Yeah 34
18
R: he gave me (.) way more than seven hundred thousand dollars, you know,
19
in terms of like to think about it, I had him since he was fourteen until now,
20
he was there through those
21
I: since you were fourteen? [(laughs)
22
R: oh sorry, since I was] fourteen until now, um and he was there through
23
those formative years, like through
24
I: mm
25
R: through, through you’re trashy teens and all that, you know
26
I: (laughs)
27
R: he kept me out of trouble and, um, I absolutely believe he’s the reason I
28
got into [university] or that I was successful at [university] as I was because I
29
had him there, I was competing, he kept me focused, I was, you know, I
30
think kids get into trouble these days ‘cos they’re bored, I was never bored
31
I: [mmm
32
R: I always had a focus] and a passion, um and he was, he was (.) absolutely
33
all of that, um and then to go on and give everything that he had and, and I
34
think it’s that when you, you experience with event horses that you just, I
35
think a lot of people never experience to have an animal just give everything
36
to you, everything that they absolutely have, you do-, you can’t sell that
37
horse, you know, not every horse gives that to you but the ones that do, I
38
think you (.) er, if you, if you were at all in a financial situation to not, yeah,
39
to not sell that horse on, you owe it to ‘em. (R13, female)
Extract 11 is an example of the emphasis riders placed, in interviews, on the dispositional attributes of the horse, and their impact on the horse-rider relationship. Here, the rider emphasises the length of time and experiences together, rather than referring to the horse as
35
a commodity that can be sold on. In line 31, the rider describes this horse as having superior qualities over other types of horses. These examples highlight the importance that the riders placed on dispositional attributes of the horse, which contribute to the development of a horse-rider relationship. So far, this section has investigated the patterns identified throughout the corpus of dispositional attributes of an event horse. The next section looks at a pattern in the data set that constructed riders as having the ability to develop personality and emotional attributes in an event horse. 3.3.4 Rider in control of dispositional attributes An alternative construction of the event horse with dispositional attributes involved riders describing their ability to develop a horse’s ‘bravery’ through training. As mentioned previously, riders routinely constructed desirable characteristics of a successful event horse as being both ‘brave’ and ‘careful’, terms that appear inconsistent. Some riders oriented to this dilemma, by describing that they were able to train a ‘careful’ horse in a certain way to keep the horses ‘bravery’ in tact. It was routinely acknowledged that it was difficult to achieve this balance. Extract 5 shows an example of a rider managing this dilemma by describing how she took her horse hunting to develop his ‘bravery’. Consistent with the pattern identified across the corpus, the rider constructs her ability to train the horse to stay ‘careful’, yet develop its ‘bravery’ through training and by exposing the horse to new experiences. Extract 12 1
R: For me it was (.) ah- they had to be good in front (.) uum, you can keep
2
the horses (.) uumm carefulness (..) but it’s a- it’s, it’s, it’s quite tough to get
36
3
that balance of bravery and carefulness.
4
I: mmmm
5
R: ummm, (.) I actually got him started eventing by taking him out hunting.
6
I: [oh yeah
7
R: the first time] out hunting it was like was like ‘ooohhh
8
I: [(laughs)
9
R: (laughs)] this is all very spooky’, we’re jumping this high over [everything
10
I: (laughs)]
11
R: and then the second time (.) he got into the rhythm of it and was fantastic
12
and the third time he was getting a bit eager and then I didn’t have a fourth
13
time ‘cos I thought he was just [getting a bit eager
14
I: (laughs)]
15
R: but it had done it’s job because he bec- he was really brave
16
I: Right.
17
R: and loved it, a:nd just loved to jump, but was very careful so I think
18
probabl:y because of my own inexperience in eventing at the time (.) umm
19
(.) I (.) was able to make sure that we trained enough to make sure that he
20
went out there and (.) and kept the bravery (.) ummm because we had this
21
great partnership together right fr- like I broke him in and so
22
I: [hmmm
23
R: we had] this great rapport
24
I: [mmmm
25
R: and I] I always felt that, you know, as long as he understood (.) the
26
question, we’d be able to answer it.
27
I: mmm
37
28
R: and, and that’s how we developed all the way through. (R2, female)
Riders regularly positioned themselves as having the ability to keep a horse ‘careful’, yet others described situations where they would make an error in approaching a jump that would cause a horse to be ‘careless’. One rider described the difficulties of keeping his horse confident while jumping, as related to the fact that she was so ‘careful’, and therefore very sensitive to work with. Elite riders also described having to alter their training exercises and plans to suit the dispositional attributes of their horse. As mentioned previously, riders described giving up on some horses after a certain timeframe because the horse did not meet the dispositional requirements deemed necessary. Descriptions of a horse as having dispositional attributes that riders are able to control, position riders and the horses they work with as needing to be suited to each other. In this construction, rider input can be detrimental to the horse if the animal is not trained in a way that develops their dispositional attributes. It is also constructed as important that a rider chooses a horse that has the specific dispositional attributes the rider considers to be important for competing in eventing. 3.4 Summary Throughout the data set, riders routinely described horses in relation to their dispositional attributes, as well as constructing them as autonomous, decision-making agents. The routine linguistic practices and rhetorical organisation identified across the corpus, aim to contribute to a better understanding of what is regarded as important internalised and embodied dispositions in an event horse. In the context of an ‘equine habitus’ (Gilbert & Gillett, 2011), these dispositions contribute to what is regarded as important ‘cultural capital’ of an event horse and can therefore be used in consideration of an ‘eventing habitus’. The findings from this analysis aim to contribute to a better
38
understanding of the horse-rider relationship as it relates to performance success, as well as a broader understanding of human-animal relationships more generally.
39
CHAPTER 4 Conclusion 4.1 Summary The present study used discursive analysis to investigate the routine linguistic practices and rhetorical organisations of constructions of an event horse by elite-level event riders. Two dominant types of constructions of the event horse were identified across the corpus: the horse as an autonomous agent and the horse as a social being. Two patterns were identified in the construction of the horse as an autonomous agent: one where the horse was positioned as being in control of decisions, and the other where the rider was positioned as being in control of the horse. A complex construction of the horse-rider relationship was identified in this study. Riders routinely placed emphasis on a horse that was constructed as being obedient and submissive, but also able to make autonomous decisions that ‘fixed’ riders mistakes. Horserider relationships were routinely described as a combination of authoritarian and egalitarian relationships. The second construction of the event horse as a social agent identified the dispositional attributes riders emphasised as being important contributors to the successful jumping of an event horse. Riders routinely constructed an event horse as being a ‘careful’ jumper, but this was complicated by variability in the use of the concept. The construction of the horse as both ‘brave’ and ‘careful’ was also discussed, as well as descriptions of the riders positioning themselves as being able to control and develop the horses dispositional attributes.
40
A particular focus of the present study was on the development of the concept of ‘equine habitus’ as outlined by Gilbert and Gillett (2011). Along with findings from a preliminary study on amateur show jumping riders (Thompson & Birke, 2014) the present study aimed to consider the usefulness of this concept. Discursive analysis identified desirable attributes of an event horse as worked up by elite event riders, attempting to contribute to a new concept of an ‘eventing habitus’. 4.2 Implications The present study is one of the few instances where a detailed discursive analysis has been applied to understandings of the human-horse relationship. This study has attempted to tease apart complex constructions used in riders talk, in discussions of performance success. It is also the first study to make use of rigorous, systematic methodology in the context of elite-level equestrian competition. Apart from the elite-level selection criteria of the sample, these riders were also required to have experience riding multiple horses. This experience ensured the sample was able to draw on a variety of training and competing scenarios with horses, adding to the robust findings of the study. Furthermore, with the inclusion of three Olympic riders, the international experience of these riders was invaluable for the context of the study. In the development of the cultural attributes associated with the an ‘eventing habitus’, findings from this study can be used to identify both desirable and undesirable attributes of an event horse, and competition horses more broadly. This study has also attempted to contribute to a better understanding of the horse-rider training and competition relationship, which differs from the relationship that a human might have with a horse that is used for companionship or leisure riding.
41
Riders, trainers and coaches can benefit from the findings of this study, by considering the constructions of the horse-rider relationship as well as the way riders discussed attributes of the event horse, to use when developing training programs for horse and rider. Findings may also influence decisions for coaches, when matching horses and riders together, or impact choices when buying a new horse for the purpose of competition. Breeders may also benefit, by considering desired dispositional attributes that are associated with event horses, when planning a breeding program for purpose-bred performance horses. Eventing is a high-risk sport, where elite riders routinely get on and off multiple horses in competition environments. The findings from this study of the desirable attributes associated with the performance relationship of horse and rider, can also be applied to other professional horse-rider relationships, that get on and off multiple horses in high-risk contexts. Jockeys and stockmen are two examples of occupational jobs, where this context could apply. 4.3 Limitations and future research This study has contributed to the relatively limited research on horse-rider relationships in training and competition environments, but limitations should also be acknowledged. Although the sample consisted of elite-level event riders, participants in this study were predominantly amateurs. Although a small selection of professional riders was included in the study, the majority of participants had a small number of horses, in which they owned, trained and competed over a relatively long period of time. In countries such as England and the United States of America, professional riders can ride ten or more horses a day, usually with staff that handle the horses in between rides and many of these horses have external owners. It is common in these environments for horses that are not owned by the riders, to only be with a rider for a short period of time, before moving it to a new rider.
42
Investigation into the horse-rider relationship under these circumstances is a possibility for future inquiry. There are also limitations to the use of interviews in this study. Although the semistructured interview provided a systematic method of data gathering, the process involves constructions from both interviewer and interviewee, which can influence the discourse that is produced. Although a semi-structured interview guide was used, the conversation is a mutually interactive process, which beliefs and values of the interviewer and participants are unavoidably influential. Discourse analysis is increasingly being used in more natural settings, such as media reports, internet blogs, or video or audio recordings. A possibility for future research would be to investigate human-horse relationships by using methods, such as video recordings of coaching sessions and competitions or investigating discourse produced through equestrian websites and blogs. This study has attempted to address repeated calls for further understandings into the social construction of human-horse relationships. The ‘equine habitus’ concept has been a useful framework to apply constructions of the event horse to, despite the evident complexity. Although this study has attempted to develop a notion of an ‘eventing habitus’, this framework can continue to be applied in the context of other human-horse relationships, ranging from companion horses to professional ones. Although there is a need for further development of the complex understandings of the constructions that are routinely described in a horse-rider relationship, this study has contributed to the relatively limited amount of research into human-horse relationships, interspecies competition and more broadly, subjective experiences of human-animal relationships.
43
References Amiot, C. E., & Bastian, B. (2015). Toward a psychology of human-animal relations. Psychological Bulletin, 141(1), 6 – 47. Birke, L. (2009) Interwoven Lives: Understanding human/animal connections in T. Holmberg (Ed.), Investigating Human/Animal Relations in Science, Culture and Work, (pp 18-31), Uppsala: University of Uppsala Birke, L., & Hockenhull, J. (2015). Journeys together: Horses and humans in partnership. Society & Animals. 23(1), 81-100 Brandt, K. (2007). A language of their own: An interactionist approach to human-horse communication. Society & Animals, 12(4), 299 - 316 Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2013). Successful Qualitative Research: A practical guide for beginners. London: Sage Coulter, K. (2014). Herds and hierarchies: Class, nature, and the social construction of horses in equestrian culture. Society & animals, (22), 135-152 Edwards, D. (1997). Discourse and cognition. London: Sage. Fédération Equestre International. About Eventing. 2015. Available online: http://www.fei.org/fei/disc/eventing/about (accessed on 20 September 2016). Game, A. (2001). Riding: Embodying the centaur. Body & Society, 7, 1-12 Gilbert, M., & Gillett, J. (2011). Equine athletes and interspecies sport. International review for the sociology of sport journal, 47(5), 632-643 Haraway, D. (2008). When species meet. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota
44
Irvine, L. (2004). If you tame me: Animal identity and the intrinsic value of their lives. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Latimer, J., & Birke, L. (2009). Natural relations: Horses, knowledge and technology. Sociological Review. 57(1), 1-27 Leudar, I., & Antaki, C. (1996). Discourse Participation, Reported Speech and Research Practices in Social Psychology. Theory & Psychology. 6(1). 5-29 Maursted, A., Davis, D., & Cowles, S. (2013). Co-being and intra-action in horse-human relationships: A multi-species ethnography of be(com)ing human and be(com)ing horse. Social Athropology. 21(3), 322-335 O’Brien, D. (2016). Look before you leap: What are the obstacles to risk calculation in the equestrian sport of eventing? Animals. 6(2), 13 Paix, B. R. (1999). Rider injury rates and emergency medical services at equestrian events. British Journal of Sports Medicine. 33 (1), 46-48 Palys, T. (2008). Purposive sampling. In L. M. Given (Ed.), The Sage Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods, Vol.2, (pp. 697-8), Los Angeles: Sage. Potter, J., & Wetherell, M. (1987). Discourse and social psychology: Beyond attitudes and behaviour. London: Sage. Sanders, C. R. (2003). Actions speak louder than words: close relationships between humans and nonhuman animals. Symbolic Interaction. 26(3), 405-426 Silverman, P. (1997). A pragmatic approach to the inference of animal mind. In R. Mitchell & N. Thompson (Eds.), Anthropomorphism, Anecdotes, and Animals (pp. 170-188). Albany: State University of New York Press.
45
Thompson, K. (2011). Theorising rider-horse relations: An ethnographic illustration of the centaur metaphor in the Spanish mounted bullfight. In N. Taylor & T. Signal (Eds.), Theorising Animals: Rethinking humanimal relations (pp. 221-254). Brill. Thompson, K., & Birke, L. (2014). “The horse has got to want to help”: human-animal habituses and networks of relationality in amateur show jumping. In J. Gillett & M. Gilbert (Eds.), Sport, Animals, and Society (pp. 69-84). New York: Routledge. Thompson, K., & Nesci, C. (2013). Over-riding concerns: Developing safe relations in the high-risk interspecies sport of eventing. International Review for the Sociology of Sport. 51(1), 97-113 Wipper, A. (2000). The partnership: the horse-rider relationship in eventing. Symbolic Interaction. 23(1), 47-70
46
Appendix Semi-structured interview guide
Tell me about your horses that you are riding at the moment?
What sort of training do you do with them?
Can you tell me about the horse that you have ridden for the longest period of time?
Can you tell me about your most successful horse?
How do you know when you have established a good partnership with your horse?
Can you tell me about a situation when you felt like the relationship with your horse was unsuccessful?
Do you think these relationships with your horse can change over time?
Can you talk about the horse as an ‘athlete’?
What do you think makes a successful horse and rider in eventing?
How do you feel about the concept of a ‘catch-ride’?
Is there a time that you have sold a horse that has stuck out in your mind?
47
