EMBODIED KNOWING: OF CENTAURS AND HYBRIDS

Ann ^{Game’s (2001}: 1-2) exploration of the relationship and deep connection that can develop between a horse and a human, allows her to propose that “we are always already part horse and horses part human; there is no such thing as pure horse or pure human. The human body is not simply human”. Game emphasises that “people who live with animals experience connectedness and cross-species communication daily” and, arguably, shatters any illusions that we might have that we are separate from the other and unable to communicate or connect across the species divide. The capacity we have for ‘horseness’ goes beyond a process of entraining, of tuning into one another. It is what Gaston ^{Bachelard (1969}: 14-15) described as an ‘inhabitation’, when horse and rider come to inhabit riding. And, when the rider achieves “the ideal of a horseman who knows full well that he will never be unseated” (Bachelard, 1971: 31), a true humility is reached for the rider has surrendered to the Self and has become one with the horse. Game describes this moment of connection, of flow⁹, as a ‘rapture’ (2001: 10) and declares that “Connectedness in living the image of the centaur comes of opening ourselves to the otherness of horse and letting go of self in order to be open to a connecting spirit.” There are echoes here of Snyder’s “in-between world”, a world we can enter, one that is “not exactly human, not exactly animal, where rain might look like fire and fire might be rain” (1990: 177).

The relationship is, arguably, not just one of co-being and intra-action (Maurstad et al., 2013); it is one of co-creation. It is what is created together although this still leaves open the question as to how contributions are made equitable and to what extent the self is allowed to slip away and is replaced by oneness. Drawing on the grammar of the social field, proposed by ^{Scharmer (2016}: 231-253), this ‘letting go’ and a ‘letting come’ is the essence of presencing. It should be noted that the concept of the ‘centaur’ also figures strongly in the humanistic approach to Action Research (Rowan, 2006). This emphasises the transpersonal as a form of psycho-spiritual development that concerns itself with experiences that involve “an expansion or extension of consciousness beyond the usual ego boundaries and beyond the limitations of time and / or space” (Grof, 1979: 1555). The shift from the mental ego to the Centaur stage is marked by peak experiences that are considered a harbinger of change and transition; it is part of the call to adventure. In this case, the change or transition is an important one, both at the personal level and at the level of the horse-human hybrid:

The name Centaur was chosen to mark the contrast with the Mental Ego stage, where the basic image is of a controlling rider (the intellect) on a controlled horse (the emotions and body), separate and distinct. At the Centaur stage we think in terms of bodymind unity instead. (Rowan, 2006: 107).

To understand this better, we have to recognise the unity of living source across species that gives rise to multiplicity in unity. Difference, however, appears first and one is left struggling to recognise oneness. According to ^{Bortoft (2012}: 119), the “organism of the work is an inexhaustible multiplicity in unity of self differences, which are the work’s own possibility of meaning manifesting in a variety of contexts and situations”. For ^{Buber (2000}), oneness comes first and comes to develop a separate identity, as objectifying relationships are formed¹⁰. The resulting I-It seeks and is capable of returning to the inborn Thou. For Buber, truly becoming a human person requires us to meet the World as Thou. (^{Kramer, 2003})¹¹. The embodied oneness that can arise between horse and rider may therefore represent an immanence (^{Smith, 2011}), a genuine encounter, a return to the Thou.

This transformation in human-equine relationships can be summarised as a journey from domination towards and into dialogue. It is so much more than that, however: In turning to the other, we are opening a listening organ within ourselves and letting go of our own agendas. It is this willingness to co-create rather than command and coerce that gives rise to what Buber terms genuine meeting and dialogue and Scharmer develops further in his work on presencing and generative dialogue. How can we realise the transformative potential that knowing through the body and through the present moment makes when possible when we turn to the working equine? To understand this, we must consider how to cross the threshold and meet genuinely. It is to the knowing of such encounters that we now turn.

KNOWING THROUGH SHIFTING OUR SOURCE OF ATTENTION

In seeking to understand how to deepen one’s sense of self as a relational being, one has to go deeper and explore new fields of awareness. In the same way that Ingold (2010: S122) reminds us that “a mindful body that knows and remembers must also live and breathe”, we recognise that there are aspects of life and of being that we often fail to attend to. Knowing the equine involves becoming present to ourselves, to the other and to the world whilst learning to recognise when and how we absent ourselves (^{Scharmer, 2016}). Absencing arises when the judging, dualistic, thinking mind intervenes and imposes itself. Staying mindfully present provides us with an opportunity to observe the mind and see how non-humans are judged and categorised. In doing so, non-human orderings and ‘otherings’ are exposed and it becomes possible to question the authority of those who insist that “their statements are literal depictions of a reality thereby made manifest” (^{Law, 2004}). Staying present thus challenges us to attend to the lived encounter, wherein, according to ^{Donovan (2008}: 48), “humans pay attention to -listen to- animal communications and construct a human ethic in conversation with the animals rather than imposing on them a rationalistic, calculative grid of humans’ own monological construction”. This is essential if we are to know the other according to ^{Heron and Reason (2008}: 367) for whom failure “to honour the experiential presence-through premature abstraction, conceptualisation and measurement, or through a political bias which values the experience only of socially dominant or like-minded groups-ignores the fundamental grounding of all knowing”. The extent to which one can suspend habitual ways of seeing and open up an organ of seeing is thus a key step to deepening awareness. Scharmer (2016) describes this as “suspending judgment,” proposing that this involves a shift in the source of our attention from I-in-Me to I-It. In suspending judgment, curiosity becomes available to us. A further deepening of awareness becomes possible when we suspend our reluctance to feel (our cynicism) and embrace compassion as a way of knowing. This involves a shift in our source of attention from I-It to I-Thou. This reluctance to feel, traps considerable energy within our bodies and any shift into sensing¹² therefore represents a significant barrier to awareness but one we must learn to navigate if we are to transform working equine welfare and the human-equine relations that shape the equine’s faring. This barrier can be thought of as a threshold, one that must be explored if we are to move beyond factual knowing and engage empathically and more holistically with the systems that enact welfare. Crossing this threshold requires us to understand how to turn to the other and be present to the other and to the between. There is perhaps no better way to summarise this than by means of Martin ^{Buber’s life work that distinguishes between I-Thou and I-It relationships (Buber, 2000}). In the former, the I is open to the other and the mutuality and reciprocity experienced is dialogical. An I-It relationship is, by contrast, a “one-sided experience of knowing, using and categorising people and things” (^{Kramer, 2003}: 42). According to Buber, the most powerful moments of dialogue occur when I and Thou meet: Genuine meeting, requires unconditional trust and a willingness to be vulnerable to the other. Remarkably, one of Buber’s early insights into how we meet the other came, at the age of 11, from a dapple-grey horse:

When I stroked the mighty mane … and felt the life beneath my hand, it was as though the element of vitality itself bordered on my skin, something that was not I, was certainly not akin to me, palpably the other, not just another, really the Other itself; and yet it let me approach, confided itself to me, placed itself elementally in the relation of Thou and Thou with me. The horse … very gently raised his massive head, ears flicking, then snorted quietly, as a conspirator gives a signal meant to be recognisable only by his fellow-conspirator; and I was approved. (Buber, 1967: 26-27).

Somewhere within this exchange, there is an element of non-judgemental awareness, of approval, of acceptance.

Figure 1 The tendency for the muleteer to view and treat the mule as an object rather than as an extension of himself has come to define the relationships that exist between man and mule. Transforming the self and the relationship requires us to see ourselves in the other. It is this that allows us to transcend and dissolve subject-object awareness and attain a new, higher level of awareness. Both mule and muleteer grow through this transformative process as they let go of the ignorance, judgement, cynicism and fear that limited who they could be. 

This is a genuine meeting. When, later, the stroking becomes pleasurable, something shifts, the other is objectified, judgement creeps in and dialogue ceases.

Buber distinguishes such genuine meetings (Begegnung) from mismeetings (Vergegnung). Only in the former do the most powerful moments of dialogue appear; these are transformative, leaving the “man who emerges from the act of pure relation” with “something more in his being, something new has grown there of which he did not know before and for whose origin he lacks any suitable words” (^{Kramer, 2003}: 47). This is what David ^{Whyte (2016}) means when he advises us that “alertness is the hidden discipline of familiarity” and that the I deepens the more you pay attention (Figure 1).

This is a genuine meeting. When, later, the stroking becomes pleasurable, something shifts, the other is objectified, judgement creeps in and dialogue ceases.

Buber distinguishes such genuine meetings (Begegnung) from mismeetings (Vergegnung). Only in the former do the most powerful moments of dialogue appear; these are transformative, leaving the “man who emerges from the act of pure relation” with “something more in his being, something new has grown there of which he did not know before and for whose origin he lacks any suitable words” (^{Kramer, 2003}: 47). This is what David ^{Whyte (2016}) means when he advises us that “alertness is the hidden discipline of familiarity” and that the I deepens the more you pay attention (Figure 1).

METHODOLOGY FOR ACTION

Action Research according to Reason and Bradbury (2008: 1) is “not so much a methodology as an orientation to inquiry in which qualities of engagement, curiosity and question posing are brought to bear on significant practical issues”. It brings together a range of “practices of living inquiry”, “engaging those who might otherwise be subjects of research” in “more or less systematic cycles of action and reflection”. These cycles integrate knowing and action, “responding to a desire to act creatively in the face of practical and often pressing issues”, opening new “communicative spaces in which dialogue and development can flourish” (Reason & Bradbury, 2008: 3). It “draws on many ways of knowing” and is “values oriented, seeking to address issues of significance concerning the flourishing of human persons, their communities and the wider ecology in which we participate” (Reason & Bradbury, 2008: 4). Perhaps most importantly (Reason & Bradbury, 2008: 4) , it is a “living, emergent process that cannot be predetermined but changes and develops as those engaged deepen their understanding of the issues to be addressed and develop their capacity as co-inquirers. The approach developed within this project has been extensively reported elsewhere (^{Cousquer, 2018}; 2022) and it is beyond this paper to provide anything more than the briefest of introductions to help explain how the theoretical underpinnings presented in the first half of this paper, inform the practical systems change work. The reader will see that the researcher makes extensive use of still images (and video) as part of the iterative cycles of experiential learning, reflection and development of practice undertaken with muleteering teams working for a number of travel agencies. These agencies learnt from the reports on mule welfare and muleteering practice and were willing to create safe spaces and learning and development opportunities for their teams to evolve their practice.

NURTURING THE BETWEEN

A primary welfare concern identified early on in the work concerned the bitting injuries hidden away within the cave of suffering that is the mule’s mouth. Prototyping alternatives to the traditional Moorish bit, especially for ground work but also for ridden work, demonstrated how creating the “new” can render the old obsolete.

This section explores how the bit was replaced and the between nurtured and is arranged in two parts. First, the traditional bit as a monological device and tool of domination is presented. This allows us to name and unmask the powers and the stories told to justify the use of power over. We then consider how space was created for genuine meeting and dialogue and present the dialogical relationships characterised by respect and mutual reciprocity that emerged.

THE TRADITIONAL BIT AS A MONOLOGICAL DEVICE AND TOOL OF DOMINATION

The traditional Moorish bit has, for centuries, been placed as a “communication device” in the mouths of horses and mules. It has a high port that can be pushed up into the hard palate and thin bars that press down onto the bars of the mouth¹³. To understand the various ways the traditional bit ensures communication is one-way, or “monological”, we need to understand how the lived experience of the mule is denied, how feedback is blocked and how this lack of feedback comes to limit awareness of self and of the equine and of what might arise when partnering rather than domination is privileged. This allows the use and abuse of power-over to be named and unmasked and then engaged.

^{Cousquer (2018}) reports how, during his fieldwork he became used to hearing claims that mules were too “strong” to be worked without a traditional bit. He came to recognise this as a prime example of habitual listening or downloading (^{Scharmer, 2016}): a single truth that, once accepted, leaves little space for others. It was, a reaction rather than a considered response, a reading of the situation based on a lack of self-awareness and an inadequate knowledge of the mule. It was a reading that he profoundly disagreed with and devoted years to unmasking and developing a more adequate response for. To understand this better, it is helpful to consider how the traditional bit hides many sinister truths about the downstream physical, mental and spiritual impact of the bit on the mule and the upstream motivations and assumptions of the human. To render these visible requires us to start paying attention differently - to look in the mouths and the eyes of the mules, to explore the minds and hearts of the muleteers and ultimately to work in the liminal in-between space to transform the relationship (the spiritual connection born of two conscious intelligences).

Looking into the mouth of mules served as a starting point and from there it was possible to encourage the wider community to interest themselves in what lay hidden in the mouth (using still images, slide shows and film) and in the mule welfare. This led them ultimately to “turn the camera back on themselves” (^{Scharmer, 2016}) and consider the source of their own actions.

^{Cousquer (2018}) tells of his first meeting with an old, emaciated mule carrying guest suitcases up to a hotel above Imlil (Figure 2a). Concerned by her state, he asked the staff there to send him the mule to examine. What he found inside her mouth (Figure 2b) moved him to tears and angered him for he felt her pain and the pain of all the other mules who suffered in similar ways. Unseen and unknown to all those¹⁴ who exploited her failing body, this mule had suffered extensive trauma to the bars of her mouth, resulting from the abuse of the traditional bit (Figure 2c) that had been used to drive her on and keep her working.

Figure 2a Hassan’s emaciated mule labours up the path, carrying the suitcases of a holidaying couple who have walked up separately, oblivious to the state and suffering of the mule carrying their bags, oblivious to the traditional bit and horrendous injuries in her mouth, oblivious to the lack of polices in place to protect mule welfare. They, of course, were on holiday! And, as such, oblivious to their responsibilities. But who would spare this mule a second glance and, attending to her respectfully, recognise her emaciated sate? Who would see and feel and act on her behalf? 

The mule looked so uncomfortable; I could literally see the pain in her eyes, not to mention the blood in her mouth. What I found in her mouth surprised and shocked even me though!! The bars on both sides of her mouth had deep wounds where the bit had been pulled into the mucosa, cutting it up and leaving it raw and bleeding. No wonder she had not been able to eat. As we set about cleaning out the wounds, Brahim went past. He leant over the wall and commented - “elle mange pas bien henh? It is striking how the bottom line for many owners is their mule’s appetite and they appear to have some difficulty seeing beyond that. Earlier, when coming past the Kasbah, we had seen a thin mule (perhaps even this one) and Brahim had said - “elle est très fatigué!”¹⁵

Eating badly, very tired: these descriptions of the lived realities of an old mule reflect how she is attended to. Her lack of appetite and energy are statements of fact. Or, perhaps, euphemisms for getting old and being unfit for work. Where Brahim and Hassan, the mule’s owner, saw a mule who was unable to do what she should be doing (eating and working), ^{Cousquer (2018}) describes seeing an old, abused mule who needed to be retired or euthanased.

The injuries were so severe that, despite being rested for several weeks, the mule died. Her plight had gone largely unnoticed by the tourists whose bags she had been carrying, her suffering effectively ignored by those who had employed her owner to transport the luggage. Ignored yes. Obscured too by her work, her load, her passing and our inability to question. A few months later, ^{Cousquer (2018}) describes how he met Hassan with a new mule, again being worked in a traditional bit.

He told me that he had bought a new mule, a younger mule, for 5000 MAD from Asni. He showed me the mule and told me, when I asked why he was using a traditional bit, that it was because she was too strong.¹⁶

Figure 2b Hassan’s mule, when viewed from the front, has a fearful and pained look to her. There is blood pooling inside her lower lip and the traditional bit that has been used to force her to work is hanging from her mouth. 

Figure 2c The traditional bit removed from the mouth of Hassan’s mule is the obvious cause of the injuries she has suffered. If this were true, replacing it with a smooth modern bit would address the problem. Sadly, a focus on the equipment obscures more fundamental problems. These include the relationship between mule and handler, the muleteer’s lack of access to education, training and equipment and the circumstances that allow them to purchase and then work a mule that is unfit for work. 

The up-stream causes of the horrendous injuries in this and other mules’ mouths were unclear, however. Where do we look for causes and causal mechanisms (^{Scharmer, 2016}), to what should we attend? Superficially, one might be able to single out the traditional bit for it was this Causa materialis that had directly caused the trauma to the bars of the mouth. If this was true though, simply replacing the bit with a modern (wider, smoother, stainless steel) more humane alternative would solve such problems. Why then, he asks, did he feel so uncomfortable seeing Hassan’s mule being given a well-made snaffle bit?

In the case of Hassan’s old mule, the problem was not that she was strong. It was not that she needed a different bit or even a head collar; she was simply unfit to work and her owner needed to work. In the absence of a viable solution that respected the mule’s need for rest and retirement¹⁷, she was given a bridle with a snaffle bit. This is symptomatic of the impotence one is faced with when trying to solve a much bigger problem: unable to see and address the underlying causes, one is left addressing a false cause. In the case of Hassan’s new mule, he was needing to work her but did not have the means (the equipment, time, training and ability) to establish a trusting, respectful relationship with her. The bit is thus used to force a mule to work not because she is strong but because there has been no investment in the between.

Looking into the minds and hearts of the muleteers becomes possible when spending weeks and months with them and their mules in the field. Key to disrupting the status quo is opening the mind and heart such that a deeper awareness of the whole can develop and the bit be seen more clearly for what it does. Helping them to see and sense into the mouth and lived experience of the mule became part of the research approach with multi day treks undertaken in ways that promoted opportunities to do just this. Sitting down, of an evening at the end of a long day’s trekking, with a team of muleteers allowed images and footage of the day to be viewed as well as slide shows of images, collected of the mouth injuries from the village of Tizi Oussem.

These injuries are easily overlooked, even by professionals, if one does not notice the subtle clues that lead one to seek out the injury inside the mouth. And it was important that these muleteers started noticing the tell-tale signs so that their awareness deepened.

The last mule that came in for examination arrived with a young lad on her back. I could see at a distance that there was blood in the mule’s saliva and noted the force with which the young boy yanked on the bit. Houda did not spot the lesion - but it was not easy to find for it was hidden in a fold of mucosa under the tongue.¹⁸

The mule in question had been examined as part of a study¹⁹ on the welfare of the mule in the two neighbouring valleys. The blood in this mule’s saliva (Figure 3) drew attention to the bitting injury and to the fact that oral examinations²⁰ were not very thorough and were probably missing a lot of pathology. This highlighted the fact that these examinations were not evaluating the roof or the bars of the mouth or the bars for signs of repeated trauma and would have missed injuries that were no longer bleeding.

This pathology is better known to archaeologists studying the origins of domestication (^{Bendrey, 2007a}, ^2007b, ²⁰¹¹, ²⁰¹²) and to veterinary practitioners trying to study the relationship between bone pathology, the bit and the horse’s experience (^{Cooke, 1999}, 2011). Attending to the physical signs of trauma left behind by the bit is thus a clinical matter, founded on an ability and willingness to examine the mouth: An ability, or competency, born of training, of familiarity, of an awareness of where the teeth lie and of how to examine without being bitten or upsetting the mule. Attending to the trauma is also, however, pathological and archaeological. In this sense, the materiality of the bit appears in the mouth (a place) and across time, both in terms of an individual’s lifespan and the histories²¹ of the domination and domestication of the horse. These materialities are different, hinting at the multiplicity of narratives the bit gives rise to.

The traditional bit’s material productions lie hidden inside the mouth, beneath the overlying soft tissues, inscribed in the periosteum and in the nerves, mind and spirit of the equine. Hidden too by the gap between the stimulus of the bit and the response of the equine, a gap that is easily filled with the narrative threads that suit the intention of the storyteller. When attending to the loaded mules being worked with bits in their mouths, I saw the meals denied, the grass that wasn’t there, the calmness denied; when, later, we sat down together to look at images of the mouth injuries I had recorded, we attended to what should not have been there. That which these narratives make present or absent is therefore welfare.

Attending to the relationships that the bit enacts allows us to appreciate how the bit transmits messages (Figure 4) and the directive, monological nature of those messages, how it renders a mule compliant, productive and invisible! Designed, made and used by man to direct and control, it is a telling device, not a listening device. It supports the status quo, imposing and sustaining a singular narrative. This both limits and determines how mules and mule welfare are known.

^{Mol (2002}: 31) shows that, by foregrounding the “instruments that unveil the hidden reality of atherosclerosis”, an atherosclerosis is enacted that is entirely dependent on the microscope. ^{Cousquer (2018}) similarly demonstrates that the instrument that is the bit, enacts a man-mule dyad and the welfare contingent on that one-sided relationship. He has furthermore shown how the bit enacts unequal exploitative relationships in which downloading (^{Scharmer, 2016}) and the abuse of power deny mules the right to reply, eat and drink (^{Enoff, 2014}). By attending to that which the traditional bit brings into being, it is possible to understand how its brutal efficiency and insensitivity can render those who use it inattentive, insensitive and even brutal. Possible too to understand the nature of the relationship between mule and muleteer that the bit creates through its redistribution of power. Power does not necessarily corrupt but it can be abused where humility and integrity are lacking (McManus, 2004). In cultures where we value task accomplishment over relationship building, the “culture of do and tell” dominates and we fail to inquire humbly of the other (Schein, 2013) and fail to see that with great power comes great responsibility.

CREATING SPACE FOR GENUINE MEETING AND DIALOGUE

To transform the I, it is essential that the source of attention be shifted from I-in-Me and I-It to I-Thou. When attending and available in this way, genuine meeting becomes possible, providing the other is similarly available. From a pedagogical perspective the Holy Grail becomes to create space for and facilitate such encounters.

The shift from I-in-Me attention where the ego’s world view is downloaded requires a shift into curiosity that allows disconfirming information to be noticed. This can be thought of as facilitating open-mindedness. A further shift into compassion is required for genuine meeting to occur and this requires an opening of the heart. It can be helpful to think of these two steps as (i) seeing and (ii) sensing. Facilitating these encounters requires the guide to be familiar with the territory involved and to have developed their own seeing and sensing practices.

The photos shared with the muleteers were collected during the earlier survey work that had taught ^{Cousquer (2018}) to attend to clinical signs. Restraining, handling, examining then lead to diagnosing and awareness. These were his seeing practices and he had to understand and draw on them to help others learn to see and to attend, to then feel and care. Looking carefully. Looking care-fully, attending fully with care. His own practice provided a window into the mouth, one that led him to attend to the many actions of the traditional bit. What else lay hidden in the mouth or elsewhere? What was he not seeing? Where did he need to redirect his attention? One starting point was to consider how the traditional bit sits in the mouth (Figure 4) and functions²². But he also needed to step back and consider the issue more holistically: He needed to contemplate its appearances. As ^{Bortoft (2012}) emphasises we need to take appearance seriously and attend dynamically, paying attention to the material appearance and the way something comes into appearance in our minds and in our hearts. There is thus a need to move upstream, from the bit, through the reins, to the hand that pulls the bit, to the mind that causes the hand to clench and be moved backwards and thence to the heart that causes hands to be hard and minds unseeing.

But how do we engage the mind and the heart when it is so well defended? ^{Cousquer (2018})’s account of the work required to establish working relationships and opportunities to explore this draws attention to the many fears that lead mule handlers to rely on the bit and on power over.

When proposing that muleteers abandon the bit and eschew power over, there was no appetite for this hard work. On the morning after sharing the slideshow, ^{Cousquer (2018}: 164) asked the muleteers if any of them would be willing to try the head collar he had brought with him. There were no takers! They were all of the opinion the mules were too strong and would run off. His invitation refused, he was left to ponder his next move. He needed to get into their map and, in turn, ask them to step into his, to understand each other’s world maps (^{Wagner, 1986}). The picture he was getting was that the traditional bit, their local tethering practices and their willingness to ride a loaded mule were all quite normal to them and they did not really see a need to change. His map had, at its centre, mule welfare and the pathological and psychological traumas of oppressive muleteering practices, theirs a muleteering practice that worked well and that they were satisfied with. And, if he imposed his map, he would be exerting power-over when what was needed was to free both the oppressed and the oppressor.

A few days later, he waited on a col for the mules and watched another group of mules arrive:

One of the shepherds arrived on his grey mule with a large log of juniper in the chwari. As he reined up his mule, the mule’s mouth was forced open and she appeared to lift her head to relieve the discomfort provoked by the action of the bit.²³

The image he captured captures a moment of attention. As the shepherd smiled and greeted him, he saw distress written across his mule’s face. He could not return the greeting. He could not absent himself from the signs of discomfort and pain that he was learning to recognise. This image (Figure 5a) would, come to symbolise the hidden discomfort endured by mules and other equines working in traditional bits across Morocco. It is captured and glorified in images used to promote the country and the Moroccan’s so-called mastery of the horse. The open mouth was something that Moroccans were familiar with and did not see the need to question (Figure 5b). ^{McLean and McGreevy (2010}) similarly comment on the need to recognise that “on the bit head and neck posture” seen in classical dressage (and hyperflexion in particular) is unnatural and typically achieved through force. The challenge was therefore not to fight the old but to create the new so that the old became obsolete.

This shift from fighting the old into creating the new proved liberating. It was also a significant commitment that involved spending months training a young mule to work in a head collar and then training her handlers to work to overcome their fears and establish a depth of trust and respect that had hitherto been unknown within the industry (^{Cousquer, 2018}). Once the proof of concept had been established, trekking agencies were persuaded to send their teams for training workshops and treks where they gradually learnt to work with their own fears and those of their mules, learning to presence themselves and tune into the emotional state of their mules, checking in systematically as part of an ongoing two-way communication. Over a two-year period, the trekking teams working with the core members of the Expedition Providers Association were trained up to a point where their regular muleteers were confident working their mules in head collars rather than in bits and had developed an impressive ability to read situations and engage in reciprocal respectful working practices.

Mohamed was one such muleteer and his story exemplifies the shift from the bit to the between (^{Cousquer, 2018}), exemplifying what can arise when an attuned handler turns to their mule and grows into and through the relationship, becoming with, becoming Mohamed-Mule, developing into someone who can find this path repeatedly and guide others along a similar journey.

requires skill, confidence, curiosity and consideration. 

forcing the mouth open 

^{Cousquer (2018}) introduces Mohamed as a young twenty-year-old whose family make their living from a small shop and renting out rooms in the gîte they have built. Mohamed had recently become a father; his own father previously worked as a shepherd and now runs the shop. The family’s one mule was worked by Mohamed and his younger brother. Mohamed was encouraged by his employer, James Kniffen, of The Mountain People, to take an interest in improving the welfare of his own mule and that of the mules they employed. This is the story of the co-sensing and co-creating journey undertaken by Mohamed. This story captures how a safe collective holding space (^{Scharmer, 2016}) was created in which a small team came together and supported Mohamed as he undertook a deep inquiry into how relations and working practices between man and mule could be transformed for himself, his family, his employer and his mule.

To do this, Mohamed had to give of himself. He listened attentively. He organised meetings for the muleteers from his village at which he spoke passionately. He put in hours of training to develop his groundwork and riding skills, he organised training treks, participating in three of these and organised and gave riding lessons. This is classical fast-cycle learning (^{Scharmer, 2016}, p.210) that constantly iterates the existing prototype and integrates feedback to improve practice. Mohamed’s contribution is thus highly significant for he helped prototype strategic microcosms of change as a “landing strip for the emerging future” (Scharmer, 2016: 210-212).

Mohamed’s journey started with his exposure to the generative dialogue James and Cousquer engaged in about the challenges involved in improving mule welfare. Both Mohamed and his father attended the Expedition Providers Association (EPA) workshop in March 2015 and, a few months later, Mohamed was taking lessons. Turning to his mule came easily to Mohamed and in opening to her, he opened his mind and heart to her welfare. In integrating head, heart and hand (^{Scharmer, 2016}), he was discovering and embodying a different way of being and dialoguing with a mule.

Reporting on their early work together, Ellen Cochrane²⁴, describes Mohamed’s early progress as his awareness of how his mule feels and communicates emerges:

he relatively simple tasks of grooming and picking up the mule’s feet have been made possible with the increased level of understanding in behaviour that Mohamed has now developed. The first time he worked on grooming his mule and picking up her feet she was quite difficult and giving him warning signals to stop. However, by taking the right steps to make her more comfortable with him doing this, it has become very easy and enjoyable for them both.²⁵

Ellen and Mohamed progressed from groundwork onto riding. This was made possible by Mohamed’s willingness to “let go” (^{Scharmer, 2016}) of control, to “surrender” (^{Buber, 2000}) and to explore new ways of communicating with his mule, as they emerged dialogically.

Mohamed has also worked hard on developing his groundwork and handling skills … on using his body language and voice commands to communicate his intentions. He has been working on the ability to stop and turn his mule while leading her, and is also able to do this without anything on her head.²⁶

Communicating his intentions was something Mohamed could do gently for he was able to develop an awareness of, and feel for, his mule’s response under his hands. His mule was listening and responding. Like a seam of mineral ore, this could be mined for Mohamed knew the value of such I-Thou moments. Mohamed progressed to leading his mule with a hand resting on the top of her neck (Figures 6a-6b) and could reproduce this degree of subtle dialogue when riding (Figures 6c-6d).

An improved understanding of communication when riding has developed Mohamed to the point where he is able to ride his mule without a bridle, that is to say, without anything on her head at all. … The communication between himself and his mule is at the point where he can ask her to turn by placing his hands on her neck, and can ask her to stop by the use of a voice command. He has given a great example of more advanced work by performing trot to halt without a bridle.²⁷

Genuine meeting is born of mutual reciprocity and unconditional trust between two uniquely whole persons (^{Kramer, 2003}). Mohamed’s mule told us when this was absent, when Mohamed was not seeing her truly, when his “hinterland” got in the way. She was virtually blind in her left eye, making her wary of people behind her or approaching on her blind side. This had to be captured on film before Mohamed came to know this of his mule.

On a few occasions, Mohamed approached his mule quite suddenly on her blind side, without talking to or reassuring her. This frightened her, causing her to spook. She would slightly kick out, as she was aware something was there but didn’t know it was Mohamed.²⁸

Figure 5a A sharp yank on this mule’s reins forces the mule’s mouth open and brings the mule to an abrupt stop. The nostril is flared and the mule appears to be crying. 

Over a series of training treks, Mohamed learnt to recognise the need to empathise with her and adapt his behaviour so that she was not startled by his approach. This then helped us develop a similar awareness with his colleagues, during which he saw how they thought and how he no longer thought!

We then looked at Mohamed’s mule and … how he stopped his mule with his voice. They agreed that he had an excellent contact. … There were other clips where his communication was not so good. They recognised that he had scared her but it took a while for them to recognise why. Their first suggestion was that maybe he had used the stick. They then suggested that he did have a stick in his hand when approaching her. Ellen asked what was particular about this mule. She had to ask specifically whether the mule could see Mohamed. Initially they said yes. It took them a while to recognise that she is blind in her left eye and that, because he did not speak to her, she did not know it was him approaching her. Ellen asked them how they thought the mule was feeling. They recognised that she was scared. Ellen pointed out that she calms down very quickly.²⁹

Figure 5b The same mule continues to hold her mouth open after being stopped. Her ears are back, she is clearly uncomfortable and distressed. The bit thus ensures that she attends to her master even if he does not attend to her. The bit is not designed for this for it is a monological device. 

Mohamed’s muleteers recognise that mules fear sticks. In this instance, however, they had to suspend judgement and redirect their attention to what the mule was feeling and why. Over time, Mohamed came to understand that he needed to talk to his mule and indicate his intentions to her, especially if approaching from her blind spot. His awareness was growing and with it, trust. Mohamed was growing through developing that part of him that was part-mule. Growing through the other (^{Rohr, 2016}: 140-141), developing Buber’s dimension of the between, ^{Law’s of partial connections (2004}: 62-65).

During a later trek, Mohamed, in a hurry, did not place his mule’s bridle correctly over her head, leaving the cheek strap over her left eye. When this was pointed out to him, he replied that it didn’t matter as she was blind in that eye, prompting the question whether repeated stimulation of his own eyelashes was bothersome. He agreed that it would bother her, further developing his awareness of her World map. Mohamed was then able to share this awareness with his fellow muleteers to help them understand that all mules have blind spots, can be startled and are, indeed, unique persons.

The degree to which Mohamed cares about mule welfare was well demonstrated during a training trek in July. On this occasion, we encountered Abdellatif who was setting out with a newly purchased, mule on a multi-day trek with a Canadian client. We encountered them on the Tizi Tamatert. There we saw a young grey mule with a traditional bit in her mouth; she was uncomfortable and breathing hard.

We did not have a head collar to give him. It was clear, however, that he wanted one and was willing to give up his traditional bit. Fortunately, and to our surprise, Mohamed stepped in and gave his own bitless bridle to Abdellatif. This meant that Mohamed would be continuing to Tachedirt with neither a head collar nor a bridle! He placed Abdellatif’s bridle in his panniers and we all headed off together. At one point, he and Abdellatif held hands and it was clear that something significant had happened.³⁰

I suggest this was an I-Thou moment. Mohamed felt empathy for both Abdellatif and his mule. He persuaded Abdellatif that the bit is cruel and unnecessary. He overcame any cynicism or fear Abdellatif might have that his young mule might be difficult to manage and, in lending his equipment, in letting go of any means of physically controlling his own mule, he turned to his mule and opened himself up to an emergent future. Mohamed thus surrenders himself to whatever the next few days of the trek will throw at him and sets out to explore ways of managing his mule with nothing on her head (Figures 7a-7d).

These experiences allowed Mohamed to prototype a good relationship with his own mule. This, in turn allowed him to provide instruction to muleteers who were to accompany him on treks with The Mountain People. Creating a holding space for training is not easy though: Mohamed had the support of his father and employer; he could afford to take time out from work. Many muleteers are reluctant to give up their time - especially when they could be working or socialising - and, unlike Mohamed, are not easily persuaded of the merits of training.

The investment required to establish a relationship is significant. The significance of such an investment is perhaps best appreciated by considering the consequences that can manifest themselves when there is no trust. Ellen and Mohamed visited one mule who behaves aggressively when she sees or hears the traditional bit and saw the manifest absence (^{Law, 2004}) of a good relationship:

… he explained that when someone approached with the traditional bit the mule was worse. … The handler could approach the mule in her stable without any problems the first time. He then carried the bridle and shook it so that the mule could hear the bit. At this point, the mule turned to kick the handler but caught the door causing it to shut. When the door was reopened, the handler stayed on the outside of the stable and the mule proceeded to charge at him through the doorway. It was very clear that this mule knew what the traditional bit was and didn’t want it in her mouth.³¹

The owner could not see the mule’s fear, the mule’s dislike of the bit and that he was betraying the relationship by insisting on the bit despite her protestations. Mohamed’s awareness and understanding of the mule’s fear meant that he could communicate this to the owner and help him turn to her and understand that there might be another path… Mohamed could not insist on this, however, for to do so takes us into yet another dimension, that of the mule as private property.

Figure 6a-6b Mohamed leads his mule with his hand resting over her poll. Subtle directional indicators help her to understand when she is being asked to walk on and when she is being asked to turn. 

Figure 6c When riding, Mohamed can ask her to turn around a series of poles with a gentle tap to her neck. Soon, just by raising his hand he can instigate a turn. This, however, is less efficient on her left side where her eyesight is deficient.  

Figure 6d The trot is controlled using hand and voice commands to communicate Mohamed’s intention to turn and stop. 

And yet he can do that at work. To understand this, we need to consider his role and his responsibilities as James’s head muleteer. The company have a policy of no traditional bits and expect all their muleteers to work their mules in head collars or bitless bridles. Those who don’t and who have not attended training, receive a lower daily rate than those who do. This gives Mohamed some leverage. Enforcing rules is easy. Training staff and helping them experience and develop a feel for best practice is more difficult for rules cannot influence an individual to turn to their mule. This knowing must be experienced. For this to happen holding spaces are needed in which muleteers and their mules can meet. Mohamed’s story shows us what is possible. Forsaking the bit for the between can travel from training to the work place, from ground work to riding and into situations where the desire and need to control (the I-It) dominate. The realities of work for Mohamed are tidy; he can resolve incoherences. His reality is one that can be centrally coordinated because he can, seek, enact and deliver a singular welfare (^{Law, 2004}). What happens however when, this is attempted in a larger company where a variety of truths, a multiplicity of welfares exposes incoherences? This is explored in ^{Cousquer (2018}) but is beyond the scope of this paper. to their mule. This knowing must be experienced. For this to happen holding spaces are needed in which muleteers and their mules can meet.

Mohamed’s story shows us what is possible. Forsaking the bit for the between can travel from training to the work place, from ground work to riding and into situations where the desire and need to control (the I-It) dominate. The realities of work for Mohamed are tidy; he can resolve incoherences. His reality is one that can be centrally coordinated because he can, seek, enact and deliver a singular welfare (^{Law, 2004}). What happens however when, this is attempted in a larger company where a variety of truths, a multiplicity of welfares exposes incoherences? This is explored in ^{Cousquer (2018}) but is beyond the scope of this paper.