Equine-Assisted Therapy and Learning with At-Risk Young People

Hannah Burgon

• Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan
• Year: 2014
• ISBN:
  9781137320872
• Topic: Psychology
• Subtopic: Clinical Psychology
• Index: Psychology

This book provides an overview of the field of Equine-Assisted Therapy and Learning and gives a powerful account of a research study charting the experiences of seven 'at-risk' young people attending a pioneering Therapeutic Horsemanship centre in the UK. The book includes a foreword from Leif Hallberg, author of Walking the Way of the Horse.

1

Background to Equine-Assisted Therapy and Learning

TH and EAT/L are interventions where therapists, social workers, teachers and other related professionals employ horses for therapeutic and/or learning benefit with young people and adults with a range of psychosocial issues. Improvements are reported in mental health and physical health, in addition to behavioural change and educational and learning opportunities. Alongside EAT/L, horses are starting to be utilised in the self-development and business leadership field in the UK. Here the emphasis is on personal growth and team-building for the purpose of achieving more effective skills and success in the corporate environment (e.g. see www.egld.eu and www.leadchange.com).

Whilst it has been argued that horses have been employed as healers for centuries (Broersma, 2007; Kohanov, 2001, 2005; McCormick & McCormick, 1997, 2004), EAT/L as a contemporary profession is still a relatively newly emerging field which has largely been led by the USA. Consequently, published studies on EAT/L are limited, until recently mainly consisting of descriptive and anecdotal accounts of these interventions by practitioners and therapists. There is a slightly larger research base on hippotherapy – the employment of the horse for physical therapy – which has a longer history, having been employed by occupational therapists and physiotherapists since the 1950s (Bertoti, 1988; Davies, 1988; Engel, 1984, 1997; Henrickson, 1971; Kunzle, Steinlin & Yasikoff, 1994; MacKinnon et al., 1995; Young & Bracher, 2005; Young, 2005).

It is interesting that the emerging research on EAT/L largely follows the traditional approach to treating psychological problems, namely the medical model, with a large high proportion of recent studies utilising quantitative methods and psychological measuring techniques, and being published in psychology and health-based as opposed to sociologically orientated journals (Bachi, Terkel & Teichman, 2012; Bizub, Joy & Davidson, 2003; Bowers & MacDonald, 2001; Ewing, et al., 2007; Rothe et al., 2005; Schultz, Remick-Barlow & Robbins, 2007; Trotter et al., 2008; Vidrine, Owen-Smith & Faulkner, 2002). A number of the limited studies on EAT/L published in sociological journals have also employed psychological testing techniques (Kaiser et al., 2004; Klontz et al., 2007). Surprisingly, considering the infancy of research in the field as a whole, a relatively large body of the available research in EAT/L involves young people. This is in contrast with AAT, where the majority of research was initially with adults. This may be due to the fact that EAT/L has evolved largely from the RDA field, which caters mainly for children and young people, whereas AAT was initially largely concerned with animals in the context of the health of adults and older people, such as guide dogs for the blind. However, as outlined above, the emphasis has been on research following a pre- and post-test design with psychological testing methods concerned with measuring change (Garcia, 2010). Wholly qualitative approaches with children are rarer and limited to a handful of published studies and descriptive sessions and vignettes by psychotherapists in the field (Brooks, 2006; Chardonnens, 2009; Karol, 2007; Vidrine, Owen-Smith & Faulkner, 2002), although there is more ‘grey’ literature in the form of theses and dissertations (see e.g. Esbjourn, 2006; Frame, 2006; Hayden, 2005). It is hoped, therefore, that this book will provide a contribution to this knowledge base and make a useful addition to the research concerned with the qualitative, subjective processes involved in, and young peoples’ own understandings of, TH, rather than with measuring outcomes. Nevertheless, it is accepted that an outcome focus can provide useful additional information and is necessary for credibility and funding in the field.

Animals and society

Humans and non-human animals have occupied and shared their lives and spaces throughout the history of humankind. Whilst there are a number of competing theories behind the history of human and non-human animals, ranging from biological, Darwinian based theories to more recent cultural and sociological understandings of animals in the lives of humans, it is claimed that

it is now being fully recognised at the analytic level that animals are crucial to the functioning of any society, in that they provide for humans food, labour, raw materials, modes of transportation, companionship, scientific knowledge through observation and experimentation, and forms of leisure and entertainment amongst other things.

(Wilkie & Inglis, 2007: 3)

In addition to the roles that they play in our lives outlined above, animals, and especially horses, have been included in stories, myths and legends throughout the ages and across cultures (Chamberlin, 2007; Davies & Jones, 1997; Howey, 2002; Jackson, 2006; Runnquist, 1957; Walker, 2008). These complex arrays of relationships are fraught with as many contradictions as there are in society. On the one hand, animals are exploited, dominated, eaten, worn and experimented on in medical science, and, on the other, the same species are kept as pets, used for therapy, seen as a way for humans to have contact with nature and wilderness, and used as a way of defining who we are. In order to attempt to deal with some of these complexities, industrial and post-industrial modern societies have evolved processes where the messy parts of the lives of many animals have become invisible, especially in relation to food production, with the lives and deaths of food animals, such as those in the factory farm and slaughter house, largely being hidden away from people’s lives. Most urban dwellers are distanced from wild or farm animals, but conversely ‘pet’ animals have become more visible. There are confusing contradictions in these relationships in that some animals, the pets, are seen as fluffy, cute and become anthropomorphised, in contrast with how other (and the same) animals are raised and farmed for food (both for humans and their pets), fur and experimentation, as well as entertainment in zoos, sports and circuses (Wilkie & Inglis, 2007).

Animals as ‘good to think with’

Some critics have argued that sociologists have largely neglected studying the role of animals in society due to the historical anthropocentric belief that only human animals matter (Serpell, 1999; Wilkie & Inglis, 2007). Animals in the lives of children have been almost entirely ignored by sociologists (Melson, 2001; Serpell, 1999), although the place of animals in society and culture has had greater prominence in anthropology and an emerging animal geography (Arluke & Saunders, 1996; Franklin, 1999; Philo & Wilbert, 2000). Drawing on the earlier work of Levi-Strauss (1968), these disciplines suggest that ‘animals offer a window into human thinking and needs’ (Arluke & Saunders, 1996: 3). Because animals are both like us and not like us, they are uniquely positioned to provide us with the opportunity to learn more about ourselves because ‘studying animals and human interactions with them enables us to learn about ourselves as social creatures’ (Arluke & Saunders, 1996: 4). Philo and Wilbert suggest that animals are responsible for having helped to shape our cultures because

Humans are always and have always been, enmeshed in social relations with animals to the extent that the latter, the animals, are undoubtedly constitutive of humans societies in all sorts of ways.

(2000: 2)

These ideas are linked to some of the literature on how animals and nature are used in symbolism, and the ways in which these symbols can represent some of our emotional states, feelings and other attributes. Many words and phrases which employ horses, other animals and nature can be used to illustrate this. For example, racehorses are described ‘as fast as the wind’ – a reference to the Greek myth of Achilles and his marvellous horses, which were said to have been born from the West Wind (Howey, 2002). Other terms are ‘wild horses wouldn’t keep me away’, ‘sly as a fox’, ‘courage of a lion’, ‘free as a bird’, ‘slippery snake’ and many more. In Jungian psychology, animals are often seen as representing certain aspects of ourselves in dreams, as being ‘innate’ archetypes held within the ‘collective unconscious’, although there are different perspectives on Jung’s interpretations of these concepts (Jones et al., 2008; Jung, 1978; Knox, 2003).

Differences between humans and non-human animals

Historically, how a society treats non-human animals has been used by philosophers, storytellers and artists in an attempt to explore moral issues and greater philosophical questions of who we are and why we are here (Kemp, 2007). By determining that human animals are different from non-human animals because humans possess a ‘rational’ self-conscious mind and are ‘civilised’, as opposed to ‘uncivilised’ animals that behave on instinct and primal needs alone, animals have been used to create an understanding of what it is to be human (Philo & Wilbert, 2000: 14).

Big questions of whether animals possess feelings, souls and consciousness, or are machines, as Descartes declared, have accompanied our treatment of animals over time (Kemp, 2007). In feudal England, humans and animals lived in close proximity to each other and ‘during winter it was common throughout Britain for people and beast to share the same roof’ (Franklin, 1999: 11). It has been suggested that because of this close proximity to and relationships with animals, it was necessary to create a division between ourselves and our non-human co-habitants in order to have some boundaries and separation, otherwise we were all in danger of being the same, and humans would have no superiority (Franklin, 1999; Philo & Wilbert, 2000). Christianity provided the legitimisation of human–animal difference as religion maintained that God positioned ‘man’ as dominant over nature and animals: ‘Man being made in the likeness of God’ (Wilkie & Inglis, 2007: 8). This view was substantiated by Saint Augustine (354–430), who claimed that animals do not possess souls and were therefore vastly inferior to humans, so animal suffering and cruelty were acceptable. Because they were not seen as possessing consciousness or having a soul, it became easier to believe that animals do not feel pain like humans and brutal practices towards them, such as bear-baiting and cock-fighting, became an acceptable and necessary means of creating a distinction and distance between animals and humans (Franklin, 1999; Tester, 1991). It is obviously easier to morally justify eating, exploiting and carrying out scientific experiments on another living being if it is considered different and inferior, and does not possess feelings (Bekoff, 2007). This dominant discourse began to be challenged in the mid-nineteenth century with the Enlightenment and Romantic movements, Jeremy Bentham asserting that ‘if all pain is evil then pain and suffering caused to an animal by a human must be evil despite the absence of rationality in the animal’s mind’ (cited in Wilkie & Inglis, 2007: 8). A romantic view of nature emerged, and the beginnings of the animal rights movement arose alongside the rise of industrialisation and the movement away from a life with animals in the country to modern, urban living, distanced from nature and animals. The growth of capitalist society brought further changes to our relationships with animals: more leisure time together with mass consumerism gave rise to animals and nature becoming profitable marketable commodities (Franklin, 1999; Louv, 2008; Roszak, Gomes & Kanner, 1995). An increased interest in nature conservation, zoos, national parks and wildlife theme parks alongside hunting and fishing as leisure and sports activities add further complex contradictions to how we relate to and live with animals (Franklin, 1999; Haraway, 1991, 2008). Postmodern thinkers brought a deeper understanding that a history of exploitation of animals follows a similar trajectory to other marginalised and discriminated groups in society. The history of slavery and women’s rights together with the acknowledgement that ethnic minorities and people with disabilities have suffered discrimination and been judged as inferior to the ‘cultured man’, the white male, are compared to the history of the treatment of animals by some authors (Birke, 1994; Dunayer, 2004; Haraway, 1991, 1992). Language has been employed accordingly to reinforce this notion, with words such as ‘bitch’, ‘cow’, ‘jackass’, ‘beastly’, ‘brutish’, ‘monkey’ and so on becoming terms of repression, and, ‘Like sexist language, speciesist language fosters exploitation and abuse’ (Dunayer, 2004: 11).

New questions about our relationships with animals are raised with recent scientific and medical developments on the use of animals in research. As humankind has, on the one hand, begun to blur the boundaries between animal, machine and human, and animals used in science and technology have become distanced further away from our daily lives, they are, simultaneously, potentially becoming part of our bodies with the ‘advances’ in medical science now making the very real possibility of animals being farmed for their organs for use in human transplants. The fusion of human and machine has been raised as having important implications by some authors, with the division between human, animal and robot becoming blurred (Haraway, 1991, 1992; Louv, 2008; Mazis, 2008). The creation of chimeras and microscopic ‘nanorobots’ capable of living deep inside our cells is now a reality and ‘the boundary between human and animal is thoroughly breached’ (Haraway, 1991: 151). A further paradox is that whilst these particular animals become more ‘othered’ in order to become part of us, there is a burgeoning growth in the use of animals in an emotional and therapeutic context within the field of AAT (Chandler, 2005; Dossey, 1997; Fine, 2000; Friedmann et al., 1983; Levinson, 1969, 1980; Podberscek, Paul & Serpell, 2000). This corresponds with the recent (re-)emergence of a move to get ‘back to nature’, and ecological awareness and concern. The fields of nature and wilderness therapy and ecopsychology, with their roots in the sometimes controversial work of E.O. Wilson’s biophilia theory (1984), believe that humans are intrinsically, biologically, related and part of nature, and consequently need contact with the natural environment in order to flourish and grow (Devall & Sessions, 1985; Kellert & Wilson, 1993; Louv, 2008; Roszak, Gomes & Kanner, 1995; Shepard, 1982; Wilson, 1984). The AAT field has a number of links to the biophilia hypothesis and this is explored in more depth later in this chapter.

Children and animals – a sociological perspective

Whilst there is limited literature on EAT/L, there is even less on the relationship between children and animals within the fields of sociology, psychology and child development. Serpell observes that ‘the sad truth is that psychologists and social scientists have shown a baffling lack of scholarly interest in the child-animal relationship’ (Serpell, 1999: 92).

The research and literature agenda around animals has primarily been concerned with animal rights, ethics and animals in research (Arluke, 1994; Bekoff, 2007; Regan, 1983; Singer, 1990), how we think about animals and animals in culture (Arluke & Sanders, 1996; Franklin, 1999; Haraway, 1992, 2004), and our connection with animals (Bekoff, 2007; Irvine, 2004; Serpell, 1999, 2000a; Podberscek, Paul & Serpell, 2000). As previously stated, children are almost entirely absent from this literature with a few notable exceptions, such as Melson (2001) and Myers (2007). The area of AAT has looked a little more in depth at the therapeutic and health benefits of contact between animals and children, with the often cited study of how the blood pressure of children was lowered when they stroked dogs (Friedmann et al., 1983), but it is still largely adults who dominate the AAT literature (Fine, 2000; Irvine, 2004; Serpell, 1999). This is perhaps linked to the long-standing Western tradition of denying the voice of children and giving them only limited rights (Alderson, 2001, 2004; Christensen & Prout, 2002, 2005; James & Prout, 1990). Myers takes this theme further, suggesting that Western culture has a deep-rooted tradition of viewing children as essentially unformed and ‘animal-like’ (Myers, 2007). In her study on children’s lives with animals, Melson (2001) shows surprise at how the field of child psychology and development has ignored the roles of animals, and especially pets, in children’s lives, considering the prominence of attachment and transitional object theories (Bowlby, 1984, 1988; Winnicott, 1953, 1965). She proposes that animals provide much opportunity for children to experience healthy attachments and to explore transitional experiences through animals and play, mentioning Freudian and Jungian theories of animal symbolism and suggesting that animals are useful because ‘children readily access animals as material in the development of a sense of self’ (Melson, 2001: 20). Melson suggests that in addition to their role in child development, animals offer many aspects that have been largely ignored by scholars writing about children, arguing that the study of children has been ‘humanocentric’. She points out that pet-keeping is ‘apparently universal across human groups and so old it co-evolved with modern humans’, proposing that this is why animals are so prominent in children’s stories, myths, rhymes and fairy tales (Melson, 2001: 14). Examples given of this include ‘Goldilocks and the Three Bears’, ‘The Ugly Duckling’, ‘Little Red Riding Hood’ and so on. It is argued that the use of animals continues in contemporary children’s literature, in films, cartoons, toys, and in marketing, with Bambi, 101 Dalmatians, Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck and the Andrex puppy being just a few examples (Melson, 2001; Serpell, 1999).

Melson goes on to express the view that animals are useful in teaching responsibility to children, together with a valuable healing role through providing companionship, emotional support and opportunity to experience love and affection (2001, 2003). She goes on to hint that for some children, animals are more important to them than the people in their lives and that ‘for many children . . . pets are more likely to be part of growing up than are siblings or fathers’ (Melson, 2001: 34). In addition is their role as ‘social lubricant’ (Corson & Corson, 1980; Fine, 2000; Wells, 2009) and their ability to enhance the therapist–child relationship, as initially suggested by the child psychologist and pioneer of AAT, Levinson (1969), and later Fine (2000). Other authors exploring the role of animals in the family from a social work perspective support Melson’s conclusion that animals are important to children who are suffering from trauma and distress, and that animals have the capacity to offer healthy attachment experiences (Tedeschi, Fitchett & Molidor, 2005; Turner, 2005; Walsh, 2009) and opportunities for the acquisition of empathy (Poresky, 1990).

AAT

A small pet is often an excellent companion for the sick, for long chronic cases especially.

(Florence Nightingale, 1860, cited in Dossey, 1997: 8)

The pleasure that people appear to receive from living with animals would seem hard to dispute, with 26% of the population of the UK owning dogs and 31% cats, according to a random sample of 2980 households (Murray et al., 2010). Their value as a therapeutic intervention is also acknowledged, with guide dogs for the blind being the most obvious example, although pet-assisted therapy (www.petsasterapy.org), an intervention mainly concerned with taking pets to visit people in hospitals and hospices, is now expanding in the UK. In addition there are therapy programmes where people swim with dolphins, although these are not without criticism (Chandler, 2005), and ‘donkey-facilitated therapy’, where donkeys are taken into residential homes for the elderly and employed in therapy with children (www.elisabethsvendsentrust.org.uk). In the USA, where AAT is well ...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Copyright
• Contents
• List of Illustrations
• Foreword
• Preface
• Acknowledgements
• List of Abbreviations
• Introduction
• 1. Background to Equine-Assisted Therapy and Learning
• 2. Young People Considered ‘At Risk’, and Overview of ‘The Yard’ and Methods Used
• 3. Development of Self-Confidence and Self-Efficacy, and the Opening Up of ‘Positive Experiences’ and ‘Positive Opportunities’ through Therapeutic Horsemanship
• 4. Developing Attachments, Empathy and Trust through Relationships with Horses
• 5. The Horse, the Therapeutic Relationship and Other Psychotherapeutic Insights
• 6. Horses, Mindfulness and the Natural Environment
• 7. Conclusion
• Appendix A: Research Project into Equine-Assisted Therapy/Learning and Therapeutic Horsemanship
• Appendix B: Consent Form – Young People
• Appendix C: Research Project into Equine-Assisted Therapy/Learning and Therapeutic Horsemanship
• Appendix D: Consent Form – Adults
• Appendix E: XXXX Ltd Therapeutic Horsemanship Programme
• Appendix F: XXXX Ltd Therapeutic Horsemanship Programme
• Appendix G: Questionnaire about XXX Therapeutic Horsemanship (children and young people)
• Appendix H: XXX Therapeutic Horsemanship Programme
• Appendix I: PhD Questions for Young People
• Appendix J: Tables of Participants
• Glossary
• Bibliography
• Index