Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Interspecies Haptic Sociality: The Interactional Constitution of the Horse’s Esthesiologic Body in Equestrian Activities

  • Empirical Study / Analysis
  • Published:
Human Studies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This article explores forms of haptic sociality in interspecies interaction. Data examined are taken from a corpus of equine assisted therapy sessions, in Finland and France. During these sessions, therapists invite clients to pay close attention to the horse’s behavioral displays of comfort or discomfort and to react accordingly. In this way, the horse is regarded as a living, sentient creature, whose body has haptic and kinesthetic properties, resulting in socialization practices that cultivate forms of care. The study discusses Merleau-Ponty’s concept of “esthesiologic body”, in light of analytical instances, draws on contemporary re-examinations of phenomenological notions (such as intersubjectivity and intercorporeality) by ethnomethodologists and analysts of social interaction, and proposes to respecify them in the particular context of human–animal interactions. The argument is inspired by a conversation analytic approach, sensitive to the orderly character of social actions. Two formats, displaying diverse ways in which participants interact with the horse as an esthesiologic body, are examined in detail. The analysis shows the fundamental role played by touch and haptic practices in the practical accomplishment of intercorporeality.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The journal Human Studies being described by Lynch as “[its] most consistent outlet” (2002: 485).

  2. Merleau Ponty also mentions a relation of “kinship” (parenté) between humans and animals (1996: 89). On this point, see also Daly (2022).

  3. See also Shapiro (1990), who argues for “kinesthetic empathy” in order to understand dogs.

  4. The complete quotation is: “This Ineinander between sentient beings and the different forms of corporeality accounts for the reciprocal participation between human perceptive life and animality, revealing, ipso facto, that the esthesiologic body is in a relationship of intercorporeity with animal life, through a model of projection, introjection and reinvestment, which expresses the strange kinship revealed by the morphogenetic configuration of life".

  5. But see also Laurier et al., 2006, or Mondémé, 2022a for an exhaustive review of the EMCA literature on human/animal interaction – a body of work that will not be discussed in details here.

  6. This is the reason why this study does not draw on the now abundant literature on horse’s behavior, stemming from ethology or animal behavior research. For an overview on human-horse relationships, see Hausberger et al., 2008, and on horse’s social structure and sociality, see Krueger, 2008.

  7. In French the turn is constructed with an impersonal pronoun (“il ne faut pas,” one must not), and carries a high normative charge.

References

  • Alger, J., & Alger, S. (1997). Beyond Mead: Symbolic interaction between humans and felines. Society and Animals, 5(1), 65–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alger, J., & Alger, S. (2003). Cat culture: The social world of a cat shelter. Temple University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arluke, A. (2010). Animal-assisted activity as a social experience. Handbook on Animal-Assisted Therapy (pp. 401–419). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-381453-1.10019-4

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Arluke, A., & Sanders, C. (1996). Regarding animals. Temple University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bischur, D. (2011). Animated bodies in immunological practices: Craftsmanship, embodied knowledge, emotions and attitudes toward animals. Human Studies, 34, 407–429.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blattner, C., Donaldson, S., & Wilcox, R. (2020). Animal agency in community. Politics and Animals, 6, 1–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boccali, R. (2019). Sur l’intercorporéité et l’interanimalité. Merleau-Ponty Et La Chair Primordiale. Revue de Métaphysique et de Morale, 101, 39–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cekaite, A. (2016). Touch as social control: Haptic organization of attention in adult-child interactions. Journal of Pragmatics, 92, 30–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cekaite, A., & Kvist Holm, M. (2017). The comforting touch: Tactile intimacy and talk in managing children’s distress. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 50(2), 109–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cekaite, A., & Mondada, L. (Eds.). (2020). Touch in social interaction: Touching moments. Routeledge.

  • Cerulo, K. (2009). Nonhumans in social interaction. Annual Review of Sociology, 35, 531–552.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chazel, F. (2008). Retour sur une correspondance oubliée entre Alfred Schütz et Talcott Parsons. Revue européenne des sciences sociales European Journal of Social Sciences. https://doi.org/10.4000/ress.168

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crist, E. (1999). Images of animals: Anthropomorphism and animal mind. Temple University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crist, E., & Lynch, M. (2022). [1990]), “L’analysabilité de l’interaction entre humains et animaux : Le cas de l’éducation canine ». Langage et Société, 176(2), 25–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daly, A. (2022). « The ‘strange kinship’ of interanimality. Vision, visibility and lifeworlds in science and art », Captures, vol. 7, no 2 (novembre), dossier « Animaux et figurations animales ».

  • Due, B. (2021). Interspecies intercorporeality and mediated haptic sociality: Distributing perception with a guide dog. Visual Studies. https://doi.org/10.1080/1472586X.2021.1951620

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eberle, T. (2012). Phenomenological life-world analysis and ethnomethodology’s program. Human Studies, 35(2), 279–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fele, G. (2008). The phenomenal field: Ethnomethodological perspectives on collective phenomena. Human Studies, 31(3), 299–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fuchs, T. (2017). Intercorporeality and interaffectivity. In C. Meyer, J. Streeck, & J. Scott Jordan (Eds.), Intercorporeality: Emerging socialities in interaction (pp. 3–23). Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Galatolo, R., & Caronia, L. (2018). Morality at dinnertime: The sense of the other as a practical accomplishment in family interaction. Discourse & Society, 29(1), 43–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garfinkel, H., & Liberman, K. (2007). Introduction: The Lebenswelt origins of the sciences. Human Studies, 30(1), 3–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goffman, E. (1972). Interaction rituals. Penguin Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goode, D. (2007). Playing with my dog Katie. Purdue University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodwin, M. H. (2017). Haptic sociality: the embodied interactive construction of intimacy through touch. In C. Meyer, J. Streeck, & J. Scott Jordan (Eds.), Intercorporeality: Emerging socialities in interaction. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haraway, D. (2003). The companion species manifesto: Dogs, people, and significant otherness. Prickly Paradigm Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haraway, D. (2008). When species meet. University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hausberger, M., Roche, H., Henry, S., & Visser, E. K. (2008). A review of the human–horse relationship. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 109(1), 1–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Irvine, L. (2004). A model of animal selfhood. Expanding the interactionist possibilities. Symbolic Interaction, 27, 3–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jerolmack, C. (2005). Our animals, our selves? Chipping away the human-animal divide. Sociological Forum, 20(4), 651–660.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jerolmack, C. (2009). Humans, animals, and play: Theorizing interaction when intersubjectivity is problematic. Sociological Theory, 27(4), 371–389.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koschmann, T. (2012). Early glimmers of the now familiar ethnomethodological themes in Garfinkel’s “the perception of the other.” Human Studies, 35(4), 479–504.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krueger, K. (2008). Social ecology of horses. In J. Korb & J. Heinze (Eds.), Ecology of social evolution (pp. 195–206). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-75957-7_9

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Lynch, M. (1988). Sacrifice and the transformation of the animal body into a scientific object: Laboratory culture and ritual practice in the neurosciences ». Social Studies of Science, 18(2), 265–289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lynch, M. (2002). Ethnomethodology’s unofficial journal. Human Studies, 25, 485–494.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merleau-Ponty M. (1995). La Nature. Notes Cours du Collège de France. Le Seuil.

  • Merleau-Ponty, M. (1982). Phenomenology of perception. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203981139

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Merleau-Ponty, M. (1996). Notes de cours au Collège de France 1955–1959 et 1960–1961. Gallimard.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, C. (2017). The cultural organization of intercorporeality: interaction, emotion, and the senses among the wolof of Northwestern Senegal. In C. Meyer, J. Streeck, & J. S. Jordan (Eds.), Intercorporeality: Emerging socialities in interaction (pp. 143–171). Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, C., Streeck, J., & Scott Jordan, J. (Eds.). (2017). Intercorporeality: Emerging socialities in interaction. Oxford University Press.

  • Meyer, C., & Wedelstaedt, U. v. (2017). Intercorporeality, interkinesthesia, and enaction. In C. Meyer & U. von Wedelstaedt(Eds.), Moving bodies in interaction-Interacting bodies in motion: Intercorporeality, interkinesthesia, and enaction in sports (pp. 1-23). John Benjamins.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mondada, L. (2018). Multiple temporalities of language and body in interaction: Challenges for transcribing multimodality. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 51(1), 85–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mondada, L. (2019). Contemporary issues in conversation analysis: Embodiment and materiality, multimodality and multisensoriality in social interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 145, 47–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mondémé, C. (2019). La socialité interspécifique. Pour une analyse multimodale des interactions hommes-chiens. Lambert-Lucas.

  • Mondémé, C. (2020). Touching and petting: exploring “haptic sociality” in interspecies interaction. In A. Cekaite & L. Mondada (Eds.), Touch in social interaction: Touching moments. Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mondémé, C. (2022a). Why study turn-taking sequences in interspecies interactions? Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior, 52(1), 67–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mondémé, C. (2022b). Lire et comprendre le comportement animal: Une herméneutique ordinaire. Langage et Société, 176(2), 43–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nishizaka, A. (2017). The perceived body and embodied vision in interaction. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 24(2), 110–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Psathas, G. (1989). Phenomenology and sociology. Theory and research. University Press of America

  • Psathas, G. (1972). Ethnomethods and phenomenology. In J. G. Manis & B. N. Meltzer (Eds.), Symbolic interaction: A reader in social psychology (2nd ed., pp. 125–141). Allyn and Bacon Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanders, C. (1999). Understanding dogs: Living and working with canine companions. Temple University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanders, C. (2003). Action speaks louder than words: close relationships between humans and nonhuman animals. Symbolic Interaction, 26(3), 405–426.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Servais, V. (1999). Some comments on context embodiment in zootherapy: The case of the Autidolfijn project. Anthrozoös, 12(1), 5–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shapiro, K. J. (1990). Understanding dogs through kinesthetic empathy, social construction, and history. Anthrozoös, 3(3), 184–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shusterman, R. (2002). Wittgenstein’s somaesthetics : Body feeling in philosophy of mind, art, and ethics. Revue internationale de philosophie, 219(1), 91–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steiner, P., (2019). Désaturer l’esprit. usages du pragmatisme. Questions Théoriques.

  • Streeck, J. (2009). Gesturecraft: the manu-facture of meaning. John Benjamins.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Tulbert, E., & Goodwin, M. (2011). Choreographies of attention. multimodality in a routine activity. In J. Streeck, C. Goodwin, & C. LeBaron (Eds.), Multimodality in Communication (pp. 79–92). Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wieder, L. (1980). Behavioristic operationalism and life-world: chimpanzees and chimpanzee-researchers in face-to-face interaction. Sociological Inquiry, 50, 75–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilkie, R., & Mckinnon, A. (2013). George Herbert Mead on humans and other animals: social relations after human-animal studies. Sociological Research Online, 18(4), 182–194.

Download references

Acknowledgements

Data presented in this paper were collected within the MEDEQUIN project funded by the French Horse and Riding Institute (Institut Français du Cheval et de l’Équitation, IFCE), and the writing was supported by InSHS of the CNRS as part of an International Mobility Grant (Franco-Czech TANDEM program).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. CNRS, Ecole Normale Supérieure de Lyon, 15 Parvis René Descartes, 69342, Lyon, France

    Chloé Mondémé

  2. CEFRES - Centre Français de Recherches de Sciences Sociales, Prague, Czech Republic

    Chloé Mondémé

Authors
  1. Chloé Mondémé
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Chloé Mondémé.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mondémé, C. Interspecies Haptic Sociality: The Interactional Constitution of the Horse’s Esthesiologic Body in Equestrian Activities. Hum Stud 46, 701–721 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10746-023-09667-5

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10746-023-09667-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation