18/10/2023
This page is not a place where "respect" is ever framed or taught as a brutal co-dependence and exchange of violent challenges for dominance.
Dominance theory has always been among us, but gained traction after the studies done in 1947 on wild wolf populations titled "Expression Studies in Wolves" by Rudolf Schenkel. In this study he presented the first "evidence" of dominance theory and the wolf pack structure of a dominant alpha female and alpha male whom all pack members remaining submissive too.
Shortly after publishing this study, his own theory was debunked... largely in part by himself! By that time his theory of dominance had rapidly escalated into an accepted reality. Trickled down into dog training, trickled rapidly into horse training (which in some cases already has a brutal streak, needing half a reason to continue) and trickled down into human relationships.
Rudolph Schenkel then spent the rest of his life, trying to de-condition and RE-train people against the very dominance theory he helped to spark.
It is proven that wolves have a more complex social structure than a top down, alpha/boss/dominance logic.
Horses too. No horse herd has been observed in wild or domestic settings where a single male or female made all the choices and the rest of the horses remained always submissive, over long periods of time.
Yes, as a short term solution, a loud and aggressive interlocutor appeared to assume the role as herd organiser and instigator. It was believed -WAS being the primal word- that the uncompromising, willing-to-use-violence approach of the alpha and the subservient submission the dominance implied upon other members of the social grouping, correlated towards an overall peaceful and fighting free social dynamic. No surprise that in 1947, so soon after WW2 that scientists believed in the logic that an atomic bomb held against the head was cause and reason for peace.
The threat of violence may stop further violence escalating today. But at a really crucial cost, of stronger social connections tomorrow. Those of us interested in long term success with a horse should step back from training modalities which dominate the horse to give a human-centric result TODAY... because it is that same horse whom will catastrophically fail them in the future, despite todays results.
The slower path, the path that takes selflessly into consideration the intelligent machinations of the horse; an animal infinitely more socially and emotionally hard wired than we are, that we may not get what WE want today, but the horse will give us what we really need, even and especially when we didn't expect for it, or ask for it, tomorrow or one day in the future. Take care today, be taken care of tomorrow. Or, results at any cost today, catastrophic fail looming later. We get to choose.
We know that the social intelligence of mammals causes the punitive exchange of the dominant creature to the submissive, to create a gradual build up of resentment. Resentment causes a lack of care. And carelessness eventually returns to violence and discontent.
Disregard a horses intelligence at our peril.
Correlation is not causation. I can stand on a crack in a highway. But because I am photographed next to this crack, even jumping on this crack, does not mean that I caused the crack. I am correlated to the crack. The crack is not caused by me.
Dominance theory is correlated to herd social unity. But is not the cause of herd social unity. This is what Rudolph Schenkel discovered when he debunked his own research into the Alpha wolf illusion. The behaviour he observed was real and tangible, but it was not the cause for over-arching peace and behavioural unity of the wolf pack.
Bully horses exist in all herds. They are not the social glue that keeps everyone together.
Dominant horse trainers exist. It is not their dominance of the animal which is the reason for their good results. It is more likely their technical proficiency, good timing, regular disciplined practice and years of experience and education that gives them results. Not the dominance. More than likely, the dominance they tout as the cause for their success is actually an unrecognised impediment to their success. Imagine what they could achieve if they replaced punishment with patience, retribution with repetition, and escalation with clarity?
Many horse trainers uphold dominance theory as the "yucky medicine" necessary for a safe relationship to a horse. I know trainers who promoted this, worked intimately with them, who in the same breath promoted being the Boss, and immediately could relate a bewildering story of a horse who suddenly and "unexpectedly" hurt them, despite many years of working together. Yet in this scenario they did not believe that their dominance caused the horses eventual safety failure. It was correlation and causation turned upside down.
Though I would have liked to believe, they believed me when I inferred, that the very dominance of the animal constituted a down-the-road scenario, where the horse didn't think twice about tossing their rider onto a pile of collateral damage, when s**t hit the fan. And explained about my own stories, where horses trained in the absence of dominance, tried exceedingly hard to TAKE CARE of the human, when s**t hit the fan... but I think I might have wasted my breath.
We don't teach pigs to sing. It doesn't work, and only annoys the pig.
What we know now, is that most mammals who live in social groupings, follow a complex dynamic where individuals share decision making, take turns in the roles of followers, instigators, boundary setters, care givers, movement drivers and resource seekers. That is the very function of community!
Safety in numbers moves much deeper than just safety of existence from predators. But safety in sharing the load! No individual can do it all alone. So mammals group together to cooperate. And cooperation includes all behavioural and emotional needs. It takes a village.
"But what about dominant behaviour? I have a horse who is always dominant over the others, pushes them around, tells them what to do".
Yes, the absence of dominance theory does not denote the absence of rage and boundary setting in inter-mammalian relationships. That is the function of rage- to set boundaries. Boundaries can be done non-punitivitely.
What we also now know is that permanently enraged individuals are usually dealing with an unmet need, be that physical, emotional, mental or spatial and will constantly dysregulate into bouts of beating up others as a displacement behaviour.
Or, we are measuring leadership by our own bias of "the strongest survive" mentality, and fail to recognise how the quiet horse in the background is the horse the herd follows in a nonchalant and simple way, when the herd in balanced and the tide has turned to peace.
We live in a world that trains us to recognise the vulgar, exaggerated signs of loud, dominant, hyper masculine behaviour as synonymous with leadership. Yet spend no time learning to read the signs and signals of gentle, non-punitive, clear leadership that sets boundaries without being an as***le.
"Dominant" horses, upon closer inspection, are usually struggling horses, at some level. Not always. But almost always, in my professional opinion.
Does the same go for dominant horse training? Is it a cry for help at some level? Considering the epidemic of equestrian professional burn out, I am cautiously saying... yes.