FREE SHIPPING over $40
OVER 9000 FIVE-STAR REVIEWS
5% OFF ALL SUBSCRIPTIONS
100% HAPPINESS GUARANTEE
Analyze Diet
0
Home / Equine Research Bank / Animals (Basel) / Remediating Cambridge: Human and Horse Co-Relationality in a...
Animals : an open access journal from MDPI2025; 15(2); 194; doi: 10.3390/ani15020194

Remediating Cambridge: Human and Horse Co-Relationality in a Culture of Mis-Re-Presentation.

Abstract: This case study aims to problematise concepts of equine and human co-relational agency in the context of 'mis-re-presentations' in the Australian media of harms experienced by the Anglo Arab stallion, Cambridge, following his development of laminitis and his consequent confinement at a leading national Equestrian centre. Autoethnographic narrative is used to retrospectively and selectively narrate the evolving relationship between Cambridge and his owners, farrier, and treating veterinarians within the dominant housing and veterinary practices and welfare paradigms in equestrian culture of 1990's Australia. Structured author/owner autoethnographic vignettes are framed by newspaper and internet reportage to highlight a productive tension between the public mediation of the case, and what it means to be fully embodied in relationship with an equine companion agent within a particular, racialised, gendered, and biopoliticised location. Adopting a phenomenologically informed intersectional feminist ethics of care perspective, a counternarrative to the gendered, racialised and essentialising rights-based judgements about Cambridge's illness and eventual death that dominated the popular media is provided. Crucially, the autoethnographic vignettes are chosen to capture the corporeal reciprocity and rapport of forces that produced a co-created agentivity that characterised the horse's birth, training, and treatment. The embodied interspecies knowledge that informs the training and care of equines (and all animal species) is always historically situated within permeable, dynamic worlds of self and other that are fluid, contextual, and always in relation. It is suggested that the case of Cambridge illustrates how competing stakeholder investments in animal welfare can play out in the public mediation of particular cases in ways that exclude their historical and interspecies situatedness and serve to reinforce dominant ideologies governing human and animal relationships.
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 2025-01-13 PubMed ID: 39858194PubMed Central: PMC11759155DOI: 10.3390/ani15020194Google Scholar: Lookup
The Equine Research Bank provides access to a large database of publicly available scientific literature. Inclusion in the Research Bank does not imply endorsement of study methods or findings by Mad Barn.
LinkedInCopy
  • Case Reports
  • Journal Article

Summary

This research summary has been generated with artificial intelligence and may contain errors and omissions. Refer to the original study to confirm details provided. Submit correction.

Overview

  • This study examines the complex relationship between a horse named Cambridge and humans, focusing on how media representations misrepresent the harm Cambridge experienced due to illness and confinement.
  • It highlights the contrast between public portrayals and the lived, embodied experiences of those caring for Cambridge, framed through an intersectional feminist ethics of care perspective.

Context and Purpose

  • The research addresses how Australian media misrepresented the harms suffered by Cambridge, an Anglo Arab stallion, after developing laminitis, a painful hoof disease.
  • The case unfolds within the equestrian culture of 1990s Australia, particularly examining dominant veterinary and welfare practices applied to horses.
  • The study problematizes concepts of co-relational agency, meaning the mutual influence and relationship between humans and horses.

Methodology: Autoethnographic Narrative

  • The author employs autoethnography, a qualitative research method where personal experience is used to explore wider cultural, social, and political meanings.
  • This approach includes retrospective and selective narration of the evolving relationships among Cambridge, his owners, farrier, and veterinarians.
  • These narratives are presented as structured vignettes, juxtaposed with media reports to show tensions between lived experience and public representation.

Theoretical Framework

  • The study draws on phenomenology, focusing on embodied, lived experience between humans and horses.
  • It adopts an intersectional feminist ethics of care, which considers multiple overlapping factors such as race, gender, and biopolitics in care relationships.
  • This framework critiques reductive, rights-based judgments prevalent in media reporting that often essentialize the horse’s experience and illness.

Key Findings and Arguments

  • There is a productive tension between how Cambridge’s case was publicly mediated (often in an essentialized, gendered, and racialized manner) and the complex, embodied interspecies relationships observed by those closest to him.
  • Autoethnographic vignettes reveal a reciprocal, co-created agency between Cambridge and humans, showing how his birth, training, illness, and treatment were entangled with embodied, interspecies knowledge and care.
  • The care practices and relationships are contextually and historically situated, highlighting the fluid, dynamic interaction between self and other, human and animal.
  • The study argues that dominant animal welfare narratives in the media often exclude this interspecies situatedness, reinforcing ideologies that govern and limit human-animal relationships.

Implications

  • The case illustrates how media and other public stakeholders’ differing investments in animal welfare can obscure the complexities of equine care and agency.
  • It calls for more nuanced, ethically informed representations that recognize interspecies co-agency and the embodied, contextual reality of care relationships.
  • This approach challenges simplistic categories of harm and welfare, advocating for more relational and situated understandings in animal-human studies and equestrian culture.

Cite This Article

APA
Brady FA, McDonell J. (2025). Remediating Cambridge: Human and Horse Co-Relationality in a Culture of Mis-Re-Presentation. Animals (Basel), 15(2), 194. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani15020194

Publication

Animals : an open access journal from MDPI
ISSN: 2076-2615
NlmUniqueID: 101635614
Country: Switzerland
Language: English
Volume: 15
Issue: 2
PII: 194

Researcher Affiliations

Brady, Francesca A
  • English Literary Studies, School of Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences (HASS), University of New England, Armidale, NSW 2351, Australia.
McDonell, Jennifer
  • English Literary Studies, School of Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences (HASS), University of New England, Armidale, NSW 2351, Australia.

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

This article includes 70 references
  1. Van Manen M. Researching Lived Experience: Human Science for an Action Sensitive Pedagogy. 2nd ed. The Althouse Press; Ontario, CA, USA: 2001.
    doi: 10.4324/9781315421056google scholar: lookup
  2. Merleau-Ponty M. Phenomenology of Perception. Routledge; London, UK: 1962. First Published [1945].
  3. Tsumagari M.I. The Enduring Effects of a United World College Education as Seen Through a Graduate’s Eyes. J. Res. Int. Educ. 2010;9:289–305.
    doi: 10.1177/1475240910388916google scholar: lookup
  4. Rossman G.B., Rallis S.F.. An Introduction to Qualitative Research. Sage Publications; London, UK: 2017. Qualitative Research as Learning; pp. 1–22.
    doi: 10.4135/9781071802694.n1google scholar: lookup
  5. Pensoneau-Conway S.L. Autoethnography: Storied Scholarship. In: Tierney R.J., Rizvi F., Erickan K., editors. International Encyclopedia of Education. 4th ed. Elsevier; Amsterdam, The Netherlands: 2023. pp. 102–106.
    doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-818630-5.11012-7google scholar: lookup
  6. Hughes S.A., Pennington J.L. Autoethnography: Process, Product, and Possibility for Critical Social Research. Sage Publications; London, UK: 2018. Autoethnography: Introduction and Overview; pp. 4–30.
    doi: 10.4135/9781483398594.n1google scholar: lookup
  7. Adams T., Holman Jones S., Ellis C. Autoethnography: Understanding Qualitative Research Series. Oxford University Press; New York, NY, USA: 2015. pp. 1–20.
  8. Ellis C., Adams T.E., Bochner A.P. Communication as Autoethnography. In: Shepherd G., St. John J., Striphas T., editors. Communication as…: Perspectives on Theory. Sage Publication; London, UK: 2013. 2006.
    doi: 10.4135/9781483329055google scholar: lookup
  9. Ellis C., Adams T.E., Bochner A.P. Autoethnography: An Overview. Forum Qual. Soc. Res. 2011;12:273–290.
    doi: 10.12759/hsr.36.2011.4.273-290google scholar: lookup
  10. Ciocan C., Diaconu M. Introduction: Phenomenology of Animality. Challenges and Perspectives. Stud. Phaenomenolgica 2011;17:11–17.
    doi: 10.5840/studphaen2017171google scholar: lookup
  11. Donovan J., Adams C.J.. The Feminist Care Tradition in Animal Ethics. Columbia University Press; New York, NY, USA: 2007.
  12. Guenther K.M. An Invitation to Bring Animals into Feminist and Queer Sociology. Sociol. Compass 2024;18:e13198.
    doi: 10.1111/soc4.13198google scholar: lookup
  13. Donovan J. Feminism and the Treatment of Animals: From Care to Dialogue. SIGNS A J. Women Cult. Soc. 2006;31:305–329.
    doi: 10.1086/491750google scholar: lookup
  14. Molloy C. Popular Media and Animals. Palgrave Macmillan; London, UK: 2011.
  15. Signal T., Taylor N. Attitudes to Animals: Demographics Within a Community Sample. Soc. Anim. 2006 14:147–157.
  16. Herzog H. Gender Differences in Human-Animal Interactions: A Review. Anthrozoos 2015;20:7–21.
    doi: 10.2752/089279307780216687google scholar: lookup
  17. Verrinder JM, Phillips CJC. Choices on Moral Reasoning on Animal Ethics Issues on Students of Veterinary Medicine and Other Relevant Professions. J. Vet. Med. Educ. 2018;45:269–292.
    doi: 10.3138/jvme.0117-016rpubmed: 29767568google scholar: lookup
  18. Friedman M. Beyond Caring: The De-Moralization of Gender. Can. J. Phil. 1987;17:87–110.
    doi: 10.1080/00455091.1987.10715931google scholar: lookup
  19. Lewis RA. Feline Entanglements: Feminist Interspecies Care and Solidarity in a Post-Pandemic World. Hypatia 2024:1–17.
    doi: 10.1017/hyp.2024.13google scholar: lookup
  20. Taylor S. Beasts of Burden: On Disability and Animal Liberation. .
  21. Guenther KM. The Lives and Deaths of Shelter Animals. .
  22. Dave N. Witness: Humans, Animals and the Politics of Becoming. Cult. Anthropol. 2014;29:433–456.
    doi: 10.14506/ca29.3.01google scholar: lookup
  23. Gillespie K. Witnessing Animal Others: Bearing Witness, Grief, and the Political Function of Emotion. Hypatia 2016;31:572–588.
    doi: 10.1111/hypa.12261google scholar: lookup
  24. Despret V. From Secret Agents to Interagency. Hist. Theory 2013;52:29–44.
    doi: 10.1111/hith.10686google scholar: lookup
  25. Brady F. One Big Secret: A Thousand Little Lies. .
  26. Elder J. Dark Horse Not in Running. The Age (Melbourne, VIC) May, 2002.
  27. Cyberhorse. [(accessed on 1 August 2024)]. Available online: http://www.cyberhorse.net.au/tve/newsearch.shtml.
  28. Iaria M. Call for Law Change. Werribee Banner (Werribee, VIC) Jun, 2002.
  29. Ryan K. Dark Horse Outrage. Herald Sun (Melbourne, VIC) May 24, 2002. p. 7.
  30. Weaver CK. Learning, Animals and the Environment: Changing the Face of the Future. 2002.
  31. Iaria M. Barn Door Opens on Horse’s Plight. Werribee Banner (Werribee, VIC) May, 2002.
  32. Ryan K. Vet Says He’d Shoot Sick Horse. Herald Sun, (Melbourne, VIC) May 30, 2002. p. 11.
  33. . Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act (Victoria). .
  34. Bunnett C. Writ. Bonfate Pty Ltd v RSPCA and Kevin Apostiledes, 5919–02. Supreme Court of Victoria at Melbourne Commercial and Equity Division; Melbourne, VIC, Australia 2002.
  35. Apostiledes K. Complaint. May 30, 2002.
  36. Ryan K. Vet Check Blocked. Herald Sun (Melbourne, VIC) Jun 5, 2002.
  37. Wyckoff J. Analysing Animality: A Critical Approach. Philos. Q. 2015;65:529–546.
    doi: 10.1093/pq/pqv020google scholar: lookup
  38. Ryan K. Expert Distressed by Stallions’ Stalls. Herald Sun (Melbourne, VIC) Jun 12, 2002.
  39. Merskin D. The Construction of Arabs as Enemies: Post-September 11 Discourse of George W. Bush. Mass. Commun. Soc. 2009;7:157–175.
    doi: 10.1207/s15327825mcs0702_2google scholar: lookup
  40. Gavrilos D. Arab Americans in a Nation’s Imagined Community: How News Constructed Arab American Reactions to the Gulf War. J. Commun. Inq. 2002;26:349–456.
    doi: 10.1177/019685902236900google scholar: lookup
  41. Heymering H. A Historical Perspective of Laminitis. Vet. Clin. N. Am. Equi. Pract. 2010;26:1–11.
    doi: 10.1016/j.cveq.2009.12.004pubmed: 20381731google scholar: lookup
  42. Bear C, Holloway L. Beyond Resistance: Geographies of Divergent More-Than-Human Contact in Robotic Milking. Geoforum 2019;104:212–221.
    doi: 10.1016/j.geoforum.2019.04.030google scholar: lookup
  43. Wood D. Deconstruction and Humanism. 1999. In: Steeves HP, editor. Animal Others: On Ethics, Ontology, and Animal Life. State University of New York; Albany, NY, USA: pp. 15–35.
  44. Haraway D. When Species Meet. 2007. University of Minnesota Press; Minneapolis, MN, USA.
  45. Birke L, Thompson K. Un(Stable) Relations: Horses, Humans and Social Agency. 2018. Routledge; Oxfordshire, UK.
  46. Goetz TE. The Treatment of Laminitis in Horses. Vet. Clin. N. Am. Equi. Pract. 1989;5:73–108.
    doi: 10.1016/S0749-0739(17)30605-3pubmed: 2650833google scholar: lookup
  47. Pollitt C. The Colour Atlas of the Equine Foot. 1994. Mosby-Wolfe; Maryland Heights, MO, USA.
  48. Pollitt C. Equine Laminitis: A Revised Pathophysiology. Proceedings of the American Association of Equine Practitioners Annual Convention Albuquerque, NM, USA. 8 December 1999; pp. 188–192.
  49. Cleland R. Personal communication. 2002.
  50. Garde G, Nixon J, Carney J. General Form of Order. Bonfate Pty Ltd v Werribee Park Equestrian Centre Inc, 5591-2000. Supreme Court of Victoria at Melbourne Commercial and Equity Division; Melbourne, VIC, Australia 2000.
  51. McGreevy P, Berger J, De Brauwere N, Doherty O, Harrison A, Fiedler J, Jones C, McDonnell S, McLean A, Nakonechny L. Using the Five Domains Model to Assess the Adverse Impacts of Husbandry, Veterinary, and Equitation Interventions on Horse Welfare. Animals 2018;8:41.
    doi: 10.3390/ani8030041pmc: PMC5867529pubmed: 29562654google scholar: lookup
  52. Broom DM. Quality of Life Means Welfare: How Is it Related to other Concepts and Assessed?. Anim. Welf. 2007;16:45–53.
    doi: 10.1017/S0962728600031729google scholar: lookup
  53. Kirkwood JK. Quality of Life: The Heart of the Matter. Anim. Welf. 2007;16:3–7.
    doi: 10.1017/S0962728600031663google scholar: lookup
  54. Scott EM, Nolan AM, Reid J, Wiseman-Orr ML. Can We Really Measure Animal Quality of Life? Methodologies for Measuring Quality of Life in People and other Animals. Anim. Welf. 2007;16:17–24.
    doi: 10.1017/S0962728600031687google scholar: lookup
  55. Yeates JW. Is ‘a life Worth Living’ a Concept Worth Having?. Anim. Welf. 2011;20:397–406.
    doi: 10.1017/S0962728600002955google scholar: lookup
  56. McManus P, Albrecht G, Graham R. The Global Horseracing Industry: Social, Economic, Environmental, and Ethical Perspectives. 2013. Routledge; New York, NY, USA.
  57. Hall C, Randle H, Pearson G, Preshaw L, Waran N. Assessing Equine Emotional State. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2018;205:183–193.
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2018.03.006google scholar: lookup
  58. Ramsay G, Bastian ML, van Shaik C. Animal Innovation Defined and Operationalized. Behav. Brain Sci. 2007;30:393–437.
    doi: 10.1017/S0140525X07002373pubmed: 18081967google scholar: lookup
  59. Rummel J, Kvavilashvili L. Current Theories of Prospective Memory and New Directions for Theory Development. Nat. Rev. Psych. 2002;2:40–54.
    doi: 10.1038/s44159-022-00121-4google scholar: lookup
  60. Behnke EA. From Merleau-Ponty’s Concept of Nature to an Interspecies Practice of Peace. 1999. In: Steeves HP, editor. Animal Others: On Ethics, Ontology, and Animal Life. State University of New York Press; Albany, NY, USA: pp. 93–116.
  61. Satama S, Huopalainen A. ‘Please Tell Me When You Are in Pain’: A heartbreaking Story of care, grief and female-canine companionship. Gend. Work Organ. 2018;26:358–376.
    doi: 10.1111/gwao.12294google scholar: lookup
  62. Mellor DJ, Beausoleil NJ, Littlewood KE, McLean AN, McGreevy PA, Jones B, Wilkins C. The Five Domains Model: Including Human-Animal Interactions in Assessments of Animal Welfare. Animals 2020;10:1870.
    doi: 10.3390/ani10101870pmc: PMC7602120pubmed: 33066335google scholar: lookup
  63. Vicedo M. Epistemological Discipline in Animal Behavior Studies: Konrad Lorenz and Daniel Lehrman on Intuition and Empathy. Hist. Philos. Life Sci. 2023;45:6.
    doi: 10.1007/s40656-023-00558-7pubmed: 36854949google scholar: lookup
  64. Brigandt I. The Instinct Concept of the Early Konrad Lorenz. J. Hist. Biol. 2005;45:571–608.
    doi: 10.1007/s10739-005-6544-3google scholar: lookup
  65. McGreevy P. Equine Behaviour: A Guide for Equine Veterinarians and Equine Scientists. 2012. 2nd ed. Saunders Elsevier; Edinburgh, UK.
  66. Dennett D. Kinds of Minds: Toward an Understanding of Consciousness. Basic Books; New York, NY, USA: 1996.
  67. Aditi A, Graham DY. Vitamin C, Gastritis, and Gastric Disease: A Historical Review and Update. Dig. Dis. Sci. 2012;57:2504–2515.
    doi: 10.1007/s10620-012-2203-7pmc: PMC3874117pubmed: 22543844google scholar: lookup
  68. Despret V. Responding Bodies & Partial Affinities in Human-Animal Worlds. Theory Cult. Soc. 2013;30:51–76.
  69. Donovan J. Animal rights and feminist theory. SIGNS A J. Women Cult. Soc. 1990;15:350–375.
    doi: 10.1086/494588google scholar: lookup
  70. Haraway D. The Companion Species Manifesto: Dogs, People, and Significant Otherness. Prickly Paradigm; Chicago, IL, USA: 2003.

Citations

This article has been cited 0 times.
Subscribe to our newsletter
Join 99,005 horse owners like you who receive our email updates on horse health and nutrition.