Paper short abstract:

In equine-assisted therapy, a romantic ideal suggests that horses can calibrate human souls towards healthier ways of living. But this paper describes conflict between two versions of that romantic ideal, leading to a critical evaluation of the idea of mutual more-than-human flourishing.

Paper long abstract:

Equine-assisted therapy is gaining traction in the UK and US, in part, because horses are valued as authentic relationship partners given their capacity for embodied attentiveness and interdependence. This is held in critical contrast with the harmful, false and limiting normative moral orders of human society. Contemporary mental health care exists in a critical context, wherein normativity is considered particularly troubling. Traits once seen as unhealthy have been reframed as merely non-normative. While more and more people experience their troubles as mental health problems, therapists' authority is fragile.

In equine-assisted therapy, horses are thought able to calibrate human thoughts and behaviours towards authentic flourishing. This rests on the idea that the concept of 'good connectedness' carries across species. In fact, ethnographic observations show that two versions of this romantic ideal can conflict with one another. One version holds that as humans work on themselves and become healthier, horses will thrive in their company. The other version suggests that if humans can learn to behave in a way that horses respond well to, there will be therapeutic benefit. This article describes friction between what is good for horses and humans, demonstrating the artful role of the therapist in almost invisibly curating relationships of apparent mutual benefit.

This could lead to a critique of romanticism on its own terms - as it appears normatively produced, after all. Yet I consider the good brought about by the compelling idea that moral calibration should come from somewhere other than human moral orders.