The Horse is no more a Flight Animal than the Human is a Freeze Animal

I have always found it fascinating that we call horses flight animals. As if the thing that most defines them is their primary stress response. It is often the first thing people offer as a response to the question, who is the horse?

Letting a stress response dominate how we see a species, I think it is fair to conclude that freeze is the predominant stress response in humans, or perhaps please/appease/fawn?

Other ways we define horses is by what they eat – they are grazing (or browsing animals) and therefore they are herbivores, one-stomached herbivores (in contrast to cows or sheep that are ruminators, not fermenters, like horses).

Or by how many toes they have, telling us they are ungulates (they have one toe/hoof). But they are singular/even toed, in comparison to cows and sheep that have a split toe – or is it two toes?)

We could also define them by how they live, in what kind of units. That would make them a social herd animal. I don’t use the term “harem”, I prefer family band/group. Or just “family”.

How you define them, what areas of their lives and they way they are – will determine how you see them.

Back to the stress response

Why do we put so much emphasis on the fact that most horses first respond with flight, if they can, in a stressful situation?

Because we have both bred on this fact (for racing = speed, for jumping = explosiveness and dressage = energy). But also, because we saw (and see) a lot of flight, as this is what we humans often trigger in horses – their most typical stress response?

I have been observing a lot of feral (and semi-feral) living horses, in different settings. They do not appear to be particularly stressed. And they do not flee a lot. I have written about this from different angles before (see my publication on Academia: https://lu.academia.edu/KatarinaLundgren)

What is this lens doing to us, that we see horses through? That what we see is that they essentially are their stress response?

All over the horse/equestrian/horsemanship world we talk about fearful horses, spooky horses, anxious horses, horses afraid of their own shadow etc (and make a lot of jokes about it). And next we talk about how we can control them…  and we invite gadget after gadget to be able to do so. To control their fears (or is it our own fear we are trying to control?)

While the horses I observe out in the “wild” don’t appear to be specifically fearful. At least no more than any other animal.

The most chronically fearful animals I have met, are humans…

To touch or not to touch?

And why do we conclude that any being that is not up for being touched by us – is fearful? As if the human touch is the highest form of reward for another being? And not any human touch, but the touch of our hands, and mouths, which is what we usually use, we caress, stroke, pat and kiss…

Whose need is that? They human’s, or the horse’s?

We often forget that we humans too are an animal, a species, with species specific behaviors, traits and needs. Humans need a lot of touch. This is part of how we (on group level) show affection and bond.

What about horses? Yes. They do touch each other. But they primarily bond by sharing space and staying in proximity to each other. They do not hug, caress, or kiss each other. They do occasionally groom each other or help each other out with insects and other itches. Mares and foals touch each other more often. But not nearly as much as a human mother-infant pair (when things are working between them. This touching of course also comes from necessity – a human infant cannot walk, cannot get to their food on their own, cannot even eat on their own for a long time, and they cannot take care of themselves at all in the beginning of their life – like the first year, then they need to learn how to do that for several years ahead).

Horses often learn to tolerate human affection. Sometimes they might even learn to like it. At least, a lot of horses learn to appreciate scratches.

Why am I asking these questions?

What is this text about? Good question! I want to invite you to think critically about how you see horses, how you categorize them, how you see them just because you are a human, with human needs, behaviors and traits.

That how we see horses might not say that much about them? At least not as much as it says about us, humans…

The second thing I wanted to invite you to think about is how we as human impact horses.

Because it is easy to think that the “human-reared” horses we meet in stables and arenas are the way horses as a species are.

Rewild your Heart and your Horse!

This is why I love going out and observe feral and even semi-feral living horses – it becomes very obvious that free-living horses do not behave in the same ways as horses living in most man-made environments do.

So, in essence, when we only study horses living in man-made environments, we are studying a being we ourselves produced. Or at least a behaviorally, but also biologically, altered horse. Those studies do not say much about horses as a species, just horses living in these particular environments, and those are the horses most people meet, so no wonder most people think this I how horses ARE, who the horse is!

Two years ago, I and a collaborator in the UK offered a course we called: Rewilding – Rewild your Heart & Horse. I thought it was a brilliant name. But people understood it as they were to bring their horses so they could learn how to rewild them.

But what I meant was – come and learn about rewilding, rewild yourself, so you can go home and help your horse rewild (become more like a horsey horse…), and then in my opinion have a better quality of life, which we all have, when we live according to who we are.

And while I have led and facilitated quite a few “Rewild your Heart” workshops (or Learning Wild as the concept was called from the beginning – now owned by a former collaborator), I am still at times feeling bewildered about obviously my own miss in communication. Some people grasp the idea immediately. That coming out and observe and meet feral (or semi-feral) living horses, will give them a lot to ponder and take with them home, some always see their horses at home as – well – horses, and those we meet in the “wild” as either poor neglected horses, or some kind of other species that can live like that. They don’t make the link between the needs of horses living feral and horses at home in our own backyards. And they do not know how to bridge that knowledge – which is why I keep on offering these workshops. And keep on doing my best to bridge different areas of knowledge, ideas and affects (emotions/feelings).

Which is funny in a way, because many now feral-living horses were once living in man-made settings, or at least, their predecessors did. They rewilded themselves.

Nowadays, some horses, particular Koniks, are bred to go directly to grazing and conservation programs, they are never trained, at least not extensively. Their purpose for humans is to be wild and manage on their own, so they can manage the land for us.

The importance of observing feral-living horses - and to critically think

I can’t put enough emphasis on how important I think it is for any horse person to go out and observe feral-living horses. To learn, to compare with what they see in horses in man-made settings, to think about what it is that we take away – or add – to horses – keeping them so close to ourselves – and our own needs (of them), in our anthropocentric environments and lives.

PS. Why do I say humans are predominantly freeze animals? Studies have shown that women who get raped freeze during rape. Or the study specifically looked at the stress response called “tonic immobility”. 70% of the women in the study reported experiencing tonic immobility. This led to changes in how we understand power dynamics in sexual assault situations. And impacted legislation. This is just one study looking at rape of adult women and their stress responses. I would argue that children who are sexually molested repeatedly develop more of a please/appease/fawn stress response.

I am contrasting horse stress responses to human stress response to argue that it is actually quite useless to name and categorize a whole species just by one of their more frequent stress responses. I think it blinds us to both the mechanisms at work leading to stress, and our understanding of horses and their behaviors as well as their affects (emotions, feelings, as well as their cognition (how they think and use their minds). Making us humans come up with all kind of training methods and housing models for them, based on the lenses we see them through.

The humaness of it all

PS 2. I know I come through as provocative at times. And as if I think I have all the answers (I do most certainly not! – neither think that, nor have them!) I don’t know how to invite to thinking and discussing without being me. So if you take offense from how I put things or how I ask questions – please try to look behind that perceived offense?

I really think we can come up with a lot of good stuff for both horses and humans – if we talk to each other and try to hear what we all are saying, or more meaning. Cultural belonging, what our native language is and our skills in English all affect how we seemingly show up, together with a lot of other learned habits and ways of being. I wish it would not stop us from trying to communicate and learn from each other.

Next online intro to MiMer’s Rewild your Heart starts October 8: Find out more about it here: https://mimer-centre-school.teachable.com/p/rewild-your-heart-autumn-2024

Reference: Möller, A., Sondergaard, H. P., Helström, L. (2017). Tonic immobility during sexual assault - a common reaction predicting posttraumatic stress disorder and severe depression. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica 96(8). DOI: 10.1111/aogs.13174

Text and Pictures are copyright protected © Katarina Felicia Lundgren, MiMer Centre, 2024