Hi everyone,
Thanks for waiting and I’d also like to thank you all for your carefully considered postings on this topic. Isn’t it great that we’ve managed to have this debate in such a respectful way? ;D ;D ;D
This summary is going to be a little rushed as I’ve been teaching a self-development course this past week and I’m still working my way through some of the ongoing assessment materials that need to be handed back to the participants first thing tomorrow!!! So, without further ado…
The original motion stated that; Punishment
causes fear and as such has
no place in training. So, the motion must be defeated if the opposition can show that
either a) there can be circumstances in which punishment doesn’t cause fear, or b) that there are any circumstances in which fear can have a place in training.
It’s clear from reading the original posts and the follow up comments that definitions play a huge role in any conversation such as this. [perhaps a discussion on “
what do you believe constitutes punishment, cruelty, violence, retribution, abuse, etc, etc would be a useful next topic. They can’t all mean exactly the same, all the time, or else why do we have different words for them…?]
A number of posts mentioned concern at the idea of horses being punished for doing something “
wrong” and that “
fear of being punished would stop the horse from trying (the behaviour) again". I must point out that the concept of “
right” and “
wrong” can only exist in the awareness of the human. The horse can only interact with the signals (visual, verbal or tactile) that we give.
The “opposition” has demonstrated several examples where
punishment (defined as
an aversive stimulus designed to disuade from continuing or engaging in a behaviour) would be an appropriate response in a given circumstance. I don’t believe, however, that anyone is suggesting that the punishment should be cruel, violent, borne of anger or frustration or, indeed, represent an emotional outburst of any form – quite the opposite, in fact. Neither do I believe anyone has suggested it should be standard operating procedure to be used at all times.
Taking this concept a stage (or perhaps several stages) further leads to a fascinating, though perhaps “politically sensitive” understanding of the use of the aids. In classical training it is often stated (though perhaps equally often misunderstood!) that a goal is to have the horse work “in self carriage”. In other words, a state where the horse is in complete freedom and “descent” (the total release) of all aids.
Once the horse is in this state, then any momentary use of any aid which moves "toward the body of the horse" (e.g expecting the horse to "move away from the leg") is, in fact, a very gentle tactile punishment in the sense that it disuades the horse from continuing with the current ongoing behaviour.
An alternative, however, is to train/educate onself to an undertanding of the use of "secondary impulsive aids", which only ever "open" doorways for the horse to enter or pass through in complete tactile freedom. Of course, this understanding is only useful (or even possible) if the horse is trained to achieve the descent of the aids by continually seeking his own comfort. [Makes you think, though, huh!
]
One poster mentioned that “It is rare for humans to be able to detach emotion and body energy sufficiently to leave behind frustration of a horse is not “getting it right”. While that is quite possibly an accurate reflection of the world, the emotional detachment of “the thinker” and “the observer” remains the aim to which we must aspire if we wish to train and/or interact with the “authentic horse”. It is perhaps interesting to note that a principle of good training (whether classical, IH or otherwise) is that, immediately following any
punishment (negative consequence) imposed, the next action should be one which
builds rapport and strengthens the relationship (e.g. a stroke or caress from the rider/handler).
Another poster commented that “
humans are emotive beings”. A more encompassing statement might be that “
humans are beings who are capable of emoting”, which returns the responsibility for
choosing an appropriate response in any given situation to the human involved. While developing this ability to control one’s emotions in any situation may well seem daunting or challenging, it is certainly possible and again represents the ideal to which we must surely all aspire, rather than the more limiting alternative of assuming this could never be so.
And so to fear. As has already been quoted, “
fear of a consequence (punishment) would stop a horse from trying a behaviour again”. I believe this rather succinctly proves the opposition’s case.
Even if only in extreme situations (e.g. danger to rider or handler), training of any animal (horse, human or other) is achieved through a balance of fear and love. If the
balance is too much toward fear, then the relationship suffers and the horse may become fearful of the trainer, or equipment rather than simply of any “negative consequence”. If, on the other hand, the balance is too far toward love, then the rider/handler will has no option other than “
ignoring unwanted behaviour and rewarding good”. While this may even seem a plausible ideal on the surface, what should we do when the “unwanted behaviour” is dangerous or life threatening?
For these reasons, I recommend that this motion as stated be defeated.
Best wishes,
Derek
PS: whatever the final outcome, this has been fun, has made me think deeper and I hope has been useful to some of you too! ;D ;D ;D