THIS IS NOT A HORSE235prosthetic paradigms, ambiguously vacillating between the role of pet
and that of machine. Examples of these ontological ambiguities can be
traced in their function of enhancing human sensory perception, as by
dogs at war, or as partners in hunting or policing.^46 Similarly, the “war
horse,” t hat wh ich i nspi red t he ta x ider my work of Berl i nde De Br uyckere,
also quivers between the figure of the pet and the machine, playing a key
role in the private and public lives of royals, military, and aristocrats
alike.
It is worth reassessing that the semantic strength of It’s Hard to Make
a Stand lies in its ability to derail human/animal transhistorical narra-
tives of domestication and companionship as justified by aesthetic-moral
defenses claiming that animals benefit from domestication. Juxtaposed
to the fur coat, the horse mannequin could be simplistically understood
to predominantly gesture toward biopower relations of the docile bodies.
However, deeper knowledge of the processes of domestication and train-
ing of horses may reveal otherwise. Although not resulting in the killing
of animals, the project of docility transhistorically operated upon horses
is one that, as Paul Patton argues, entails the regular performing of “cruel
practices designed to wear down the animal capacity to resist. Tying up
the horse and hitting it all over the body with a sack was known as ‘bag-
ging’ or ‘sacking out’. The purpose of this activity, which was terrifying
to young, unhandled horses, was to dull their sensitivity to touch and
sudden movement.”^47 The incorporation of these techniques of “training”
docile bodies in the domestication practices of horses are inscribed in the
fur coat of It’s Hard to Make a Stand: as it covers the head of the horse
mannequin, it alludes to the dulling of the animal’s sensitivity through a
process of passivation. The covering of the horse’s eyes can also be seen
to allude to the widespread use of blinders when horses are involved in
transportation. According to Steven Bowers and Marlen Steward, au-
thors of Farming with Horses, the blinders constitute much more than
simply a practical tool of coercion. The blinders tell the horse “he is not
being trusted with the full use of his faculties. This is a powerful yet sub-
tle way of telling the horse that you want to use his body without using
his mind.”^48 The coat thus metaphorically bridges horse and dog as ani-
mals shaped by human/animal power/knowledge relations driven by the
anthropocentric human desire to curb the horse’s temper into the docil-
ity of a dog—the quintessential signifier of animal obedience.