No abstract

The aim of this study is to enhance the understanding of how sport dressage riders describe rider-horse communication when riding, and to relate these descriptions to current research on human-horse communication. Interviews with 15 amateur dressage riders were analyzed using a qualitative approach. The study shows that the interviewed riders describe the communication with the horses partly in a behavioristic way, applying concepts based on learning theory, which deviate from the description of riders as lacking understanding of these concepts put forth by some researchers. The riders connect the timing of their aids to equestrian feel, which they describe as the most difficult yet the most awarding aspect of the interspecies communication that riding is. Simultaneously, they acknowledge that horses are fully capable of choosing to listen to and cooperate with their requests.

In an autoethnographic approach, theories of practical knowledge were used to explore the praxis of riding and to describe, interpret, and analyze the interspecies relation between rider and horse during riding. Both rider and horse are embodied subjects taking part in an active process of “becoming with”, and as a result of the interaction, both parts change and adapt to each other resulting in a shared practical knowledge. To build a trustful relation during riding, the rider’s as well as the horse’s emotions and feelings need to be taken into account. It is suggested that there are two kinds of “equestrian feel”, one connected to the rider’s body feeling of the horse through his/her body while the other is an “inner” equestrian feel when rider and horse move as one body, like a centaur. The latter could be seen as an expression of phronesis since it is guided by what is good for the human (and hopefully the horse) in itself rather than aiming at a specific outcome.

This study investigated what methods professional trainers use in their teaching. Interviews with nine professional trainers in sports dressage were analyzed using a qualitative approach. The results showed that trainers had developed a “good eye” using their prior experiences. The trainers helped the riders solve their problems but did not make clear their observations or reasoning for specific instructions. Thus, trainers could further develop the riders’ own practical knowledge. The role of the horse was not made explicit in most cases, showing that recognition of the horse as a sentient and thinking individual is not built into the current teaching practice. Teaching methods would be improved if trainers encouraged riders to pay more attention to the perspective of the horse, to examine how to interpret and attend to the horse’s reactions, and to reflect on these issues in dialog with them.

No abstract