‘Men fall like boiled eggs. Women fall like raw eggs.’ Civilised female bodies and gender relations in British National Hunt racing

Figurations, power and ‘the jockey figuration’

To understand an individual’s actions it is necessary to consider these are products of mutual relationships (Atkinson, 2012). Figurational sociology emphasises the fact that people are part of complex interdependencies more or less dependent on one another from birth and that these networks of interdependence emphasise the connectedness of people (Malcolm, 2013). As a consequence of modern societies, there is greater reciprocal dependence and a strong social function between groups that leads to ‘diminishing contrasts and increasing varieties’ between them (Mennell, 1992: 109). This reflects long-term processes in which functional democratisation is evident, a term used to describe a process of social transformation of power relations between groups that typically occurs through the creation of denser webs of interdependence (Dunning and Hughes, 2013). This can be seen in the jockey figuration, which involves a number of interdependent people including trainers, owners, jockeys, breeders, and punters, to name a few. Power relations between groups in this figuration are in flux and, looking at long-term social processes, there is evidence of a process of functional democratisation, especially with regard to gender relations, but also more broadly in relation to changes in the betting industry, breeding regulations and better conditions for jockeys. There have also been significant changes to the governance of horse racing in the UK. The Jockey Club emerged in 1750 as a sporting organisation solely for men and, at this time, they were able to monopolise positions, resources and networks as well as shape the development of the sport and decide who was granted a licence (Velija and Flynn, 2010). Women were not allowed to apply for a licence as a professional jockey before 1975 and changes to licensing were, in part, due to the introduction of the 1975 Sex Discrimination Act. Pressure to comply with this meant women were eligible to apply for professional flat racing licences in the same year, and then in 1976 they became eligible to apply for NH racing licences as well (Butler and Charles, 2012). Despite this leading to greater organisational interdependence and equity in being able to apply for a professional licence, few women have one (four at the time of writing). Thus, changes in power relations may grant access to a process but, since there are still only a small number of women becoming NH jockeys, there may be other constraints hindering women from joining this group. Recent changes to the governance of the sport means licensing is now governed by the British Horse Racing Authority. In order for a licence to be granted the rules insist on jockeys meeting several conditions. One of these is that the jockey must be, ‘in the full-time, paid employment of a Trainer who holds a licence granted by the Authority to train horses and make the application jointly with the Trainer’ (BHA, 2015). The fact that certain conditions have to be met before a licence can be applied for means jockeys are highly dependent on established groups, i.e. trainers and owners, and power imbalances between the two generally favour the trainers/owners.

Habtius, shame and civilised bodies

Although habitus is often associated with the sociological tradition of Bourdieu it is found in several of Elias’ earlier texts. Elias considered habitus to be a durable ‘second nature’ (Van Krieken, 1998: 47). One of the fundamental differences between Bourdieu’s and Elias’ concepts of habitus is the fact that Elias considered both psychogenic and sociogenic factors. Elias argued that in conjunction with the theory of civilising processes there is a relationship between long-term structural development of societies and long-term changes in people’s character or habitus (Kilminster and Mennell, 2003). Through his study of sociogenesis and psychogenesis, Elias describes personality structures as socially learned second natures or habituses and suggests that through ongoing socialisation processes individuals learn seemingly taken-for-granted ways (i.e. habits) of experiencing, utilising and interpreting bodies (Atkinson, 2012). A marker of more civilised bodies is greater self-regulation of emotional responses, and self-restraint and, therefore, the presentation of disciplined bodies. For Elias, shame is one emotional response to more civilised restraint and he considered shame as an emotional response, a fear of social degradation or, more generally, ‘of other people’s gestures of superiority’ (Elias, 2000: 415). Embarrassment is an associated response that refers to anxiety arising when social norms are breached. Shame is conceptualised as both positive and negative – an intended and/or unintended consequence of the relations within a figuration. It can, for example, be used as a motivating way of encouraging people to behave in more civilised ways. Shame, therefore, can be a powerful mechanism of social control. Although it has not been widely used in figurational studies of gender thus far, Mierzwinski et al. (2014) demonstrate that shame can be used as a mechanism for the social control of civilised female bodies as it offers a critical framework for the analysis of responses to the emergence of female mixed martial arts (MMA) and female MMA participants and it relates closely to the concepts of civilising processes and quest for excitement.

Civilised (female) bodies and the quest for excitement

Elias demonstrated how standards of behaviour and psychological make-up have changed in Europe since the Middle Ages, focusing on complex social processes which enabled these standards of behaviour to change. This links long-term structural developments in societies with long-term changes in people’s habitus (Dunning and Hughes, 2013). Concomitant changes in personality begin with elite groups and then gradually disperse to other groups. These changes can be explained through the increasing social interdependencies between groups. As a consequence, people are forced to pay more attention to one another and the balance of control between individuals shifts from external constraint to more internalised self-constraint. Because Elias viewed the body as biological and social this has led others to outline how his work provides an understanding of the civilised, rational body (Shilling, 2012). Atkinson (2012: 51) expands this by suggesting that Elias offers the potential for the study of the body as a ‘marker of social processes’: specifically, social and internal self-regulation that are reflective of shifting social relationships between groups of people.

In their book entitled Quest for Excitement: Sport and Leisure in the Civilising Process, Elias and Dunning (1986) outline the relationship between physical contests in contemporary societies and broader structures of social relations in relatively pacified (civilised societies). In advanced industrial societies leisure activities form an enclave for the socially approved arousal of moderate behaviour in public. Sports are defined by an upper and lower threshold of violence tolerance: too high and people may consider the sports uncivilised, but too low means they may become bored (Elias and Dunning, 1986). Although the focus of this work has been mainly on violence in sport it also explores how people seek a range of emotions such as fear, anxiety, anger and sadness when engaging in sport. Although little has been written specifically about civilised female bodies it is important to stress that women’s bodies have been more constrained in sporting practices by perceptions of the female civilised body as passive and weak (Dunning, 1999, Thing, 2001). Yet, women who participate in sport or leisure activities traditionally considered male preserves may seek exciting significance through pursuing experiences that challenge dominant views of the female civilised body, although this remains undertheorised (Mierzwinski et al., 2014). Although Elias is criticised for not fully discussing civilising processes and the embodied performance of gender and sexual identities (Atkinson, 2012; Hargreaves, 1992, Thing et al., 2016), others have applied the concepts to the gendered body in sport. Maguire and Mansfield (1998) and Mansfield (2002, 2008), for example, apply Elias’ key concepts to understanding gendered bodies and fitness practices that shape perceptions and experiences of female bodies, fatness and fitness. Elsewhere, Thing (2001) applies Elias to question assumptions about male and female civilised bodies as biological and fixed. She offers a critical discussion of the social processes involved in socially constructing ideas about the male and female body and aggression in sport (Thing, 2001). For example, she notes how civilising processes are gendered and emotions are expressed differently, with females being perceived as having ‘soft’ emotions, lacking in aggression in sport. She draws on empirical research to show how these perceptions are constructed and reinforced by social processes. These studies outline the potential for a figurational analysis of gender relations in sport that focuses on power relations and the civilised female body as well as for understanding the various forms of resistance to female involvement in sport. In the following section we outline the methods adopted in our study.

A (gendered) racing habitus

Figurational sociologists stress the importance of understanding the social figurations (e.g. family, school, peers, leisure and work relations) and the impact of these connections on personality structures and opportunities people are able to access (Atkinson, 2012). The majority of female jockeys interviewed for this study had families involved in the racing industry and, therefore, they were involved in racing from a young age. The habitus of the jockeys was impacted by early experiences which gave them access to a largely ‘closed’ space. This space is not only gendered, but also structured by class and race, as McManus et al. (2013) highlight; in Britain, owning a racehorse is related to a particular social class culture.

The direct family involvement in the racing figuration was part of the females’ early childhood experiences, ‘my parents have been involved in racing as long as I can remember … my father was a jockey for 30 years’ (Jockey 2), ‘my grandfather is a trainer, my mum’s had a permit and I’ve ridden all my life’ (Jockey 6). Being born into a racing family allowed them an opportunity to become successful riders, ‘My dad trains so I think that way and his father had a permit before him so I think like we’ve always had horses around’ (Jockey 4). The female jockeys were aware of the importance of being part of this network of relations, ‘with the help of my granddad really, so we are kind of bred into it if you like, otherwise I think it would have been a lot harder without the kind of backing experience’ (Jockey 1). Being part of the racing figuration from a young age gives the female jockeys an understanding of what is required to be successful in this space. The influence of the family in accessing the racing figuration was not dependent solely on male relatives; for some of the jockeys it was their mothers and grandmothers who were involved in the racing industry, ‘me and my sister have all ridden as amateurs, just because grandma trained and now mum trains’ (Jockey 5). Most of the jockeys in this study had grown up developing a specific habitus which gave them access to the jockey figuration. For women born into families who train or own horses there is a social class element through which they have access to networks, networks that seemed critical for the female jockeys in gradually working their way to professionalism. One jockey suggests this is a different path than for male jockeys, ‘the girls who have turned professional over jumps have all come from point-to-pointing or amateur and they’ve already proven they can ride. Whereas a young lad will just get given chances straightaway’ (Jockey 2).

Being a successful jockey is defined by the number of assigned ‘rides’ and achieved ‘winners’, so access to people who can select a jockey to ride is a necessity. Therefore, being part of the racing figuration is critical to female jockeys and it is highly unlikely that a female jockey will be successful without this. Being chosen to ride is how a jockey can move from being an amateur to a professional; it is only through riding that a jockey’s name becomes recognised, which leads to more opportunities to ride. This means that one of the challenges for women jockeys is that, ‘it can take years, to get your name established and for people to actually start using you’ (Jockey 2). There was also a perception that

you need to be better than your rivals, you have to look better, be stronger, be more effective and you’re asking a lot of a woman to be better than a man at the same sport to get the same opportunities (Jockey 3).

Early admission to the male-dominated space of the racing figuration grants access to an otherwise closed opportunity: it gives women the chance to develop the skills necessary to ride and introduces them to horses and valuable networks which enable them to be chosen to ride. However, there are still challenges with regard to proving their capability and getting noticed. Another part of the racing figuration (and part of the network of relations) that women find themselves dealing with is the ‘commonly accepted’ idea that females are weaker and less successful as NH jockeys. Thus, access to the figuration at an early age needs to be understood as both enabling and constraining because the development of the social identities of those in the figuration also involves internalising the perception that male and female bodies perform differently as jockeys.

Being a successful jockey is dependent on a number of factors, but family ties are critical. Yet, being successful is not easy and requires an element of resilience in a tough sport,

You’ve got to be so determined, you’ve gotta have so much courage, cos it’s not you know, it’s a tough game out there, you can’t be a bloody wimp you’ve gotta be, you know the slaps that they take, that we take, it’s not like, it’s not a mug’s game you’ve gotta be so tough, you can’t just be some flimsy little girl that goes oh I want to be a jockey, I want to ride horses. (Jockey 6)

If a woman can’t accept that the sport is tough then it is suggested the sport isn’t suitable for that particular person,

It’s a rough sport, you’ve got to be ok with hitting the floor and breaking bones and riding with men who at times can be rough and rude and you’ve kinda gotta be able to play with them, so I think that that can put a lot of girls off but if it does then they probably shouldn’t be riding in races anyway (Jockey 7).

Female jockeys need to be able to cope with the culture of racing rather than trying to radically challenge it; therefore, those most likely to be successful will identify with male jockeys and accept any hostility as a part of the sport.

Despite the challenge, enjoyment is also a critical part of the sport and it is why those who do gain access and become jockeys continue to compete, ‘it is great fun’ (Jockey 8). Racing is actually more than just fun, it is an achievement, ‘riding around Cheltenham is just amazing, even though I didn’t come anywhere, just riding round there, oh god, it’s such a buzz’ (Jockey 1). This is a clear example of women seeking excitement; risk is exciting and it is part of the reason why many jockeys remain in the sport. The satisfaction of riding, the thrill of the ride, the jumping and being successful are emotional responses to riding – ‘My first ever double and winning on my horses you know like when I’d seen it, bought it, trained it, and then won on it and you know it was a great family day out and just good fun’ (Jockey 8). Of course, this is expensive fun and highlights the class-based element of the sport, but also the pleasure of family socialisation and shared leisure pursuits.

Civilised female bodies: The injured and weak female jockey

Being within the correct weight range is essential for an equitable riding system and is fundamental to a successful racing industry. Jockeys must carry a specific weight and in NH racing the weight range is from 10 stone to 11 stone 12 pounds. If a jockey is too light then he/she must carry lead in his/her saddle. If a jockey is too heavy he/she has to use drastic measures to lose weight, such as by sweating or eating little or nothing in an attempt to make the ‘weight’. This means that the appearance and weight of the body are continually being scrutinised, and the surveillance of bodies is central to the whole exercise; jockeys’ bodies are physically strong and usually under the maximum weight.

The injured body is also something NH jockeys become accustomed to, and one of the jockeys in this study had received a potentially life-threatening injury, ‘I broke my collar bone and had a bad head injury, I was unconscious for 15 minutes and had to get air lifted’ (Jockey 6). Despite NH races being dangerous for men and women alike, there is a perception that women’s bodies are more prone to injury. The idea that women are more likely to be injured draws on established beliefs that females have weaker bodies than males – ‘I think generally, people and trainers see that women aren’t as strong as men, I do think women fall heavier, I mean you know, men just kind of roll and get up’ (Jockey 1). The idea that women fall more heavily, whereas men just seem to roll and get back on their feet again seems to draw on a set of largely unchallenged assumptions about male and female bodies. These discussions also drew on perceptions of acceptable risk for female bodies which position them as needing protection from injury. Often the protector – a governing body or male doctor – decides what levels of physical activity are acceptable for female bodies and these ideologies have a long-standing influence on people’s attitudes and access to a range of opportunities (Roberts and MacLean, 2012). The perception that women have weaker bodies is often supported by some medical or scientific evidence, or some kind of visible difference that, apparently, confirms a common sense perception that can be used to justify limiting opportunities in sport (Hargreaves, 1994). This was also noted by one jockey, ‘just looking at us we are the weaker ones, you know like we are smaller framed aren’t we, we are probably more likely to break a bone or something’ (Jockey 1). Looking becomes ‘proof’, obvious for all to see, and the perceptions become commonly accepted. These differences become heightened in the jockey figuration where interdependency between groups is dense, and examples to ‘prove’ the differences can be easy to find, whilst those that challenge this perception are ignored.

The issue of risk for women’s bodies is, seemingly, related to women being or becoming mothers and this risk can be understood as twofold: (i) injury may prevent motherhood; or (ii) mothers should not put themselves at risk. As one jockey notes there will be a point in her life where she will need, ‘to get a proper job, you can’t keep taking falls after falls. I want to, you know, settle down, marry, have kids, I wouldn’t expect that guy to be accepting of me going out dicing with death at times’ (Jockey 3).

In this sense, women are constrained by ideas of risk and motherhood, which positions male jockeys as more suited to the role of riding. Here, the gendered female body is shaped by social processes related to the biological body that assumes female bodies need protection so they can be mothers (regardless of whether they want to be or not) (Connell, 2009). The fact that many male jockeys are also fathers is not considered such an issue, demonstrating again how expectations of civilised bodies are gendered and responses to nonconformity equally gendered. For example, Alison Hargreaves’ death during the climb of K2 was discussed more than the equally tragic deaths of the male climbers because she was a mother, and some media reports considered the act of climbing selfish and too risky for mothers, yet the same criticism was not levelled at the male climbers who were fathers (Gilchrist, 2007). This highlights how the role of the mother is still valued more than the role of infant child rearing and early socialisation (Gabriel, 2017). The value placed on motherhood, both in terms of having a child and then the role in the socialisation process, influences the opportunities for female jockeys – ‘it’s just very sexist, I dare say at the time that most females have been getting going they’ve usually packed in and had families and stuff’. Civilised female bodies are expected to become mothers and along with this goes the assumption that mothers should take fewer risks than fathers. This is associated with beliefs about physicality and strength and traits associated with male embodiment (Vertinsky, 1999). Without these, women are perceived as not tough enough,

I think it is tougher for girls, definitely we don’t roll the same and I think it is harder for us we are just not designed the same, I mean look we are women, we are bred to breed, to have babies, you know men are bred to fight for us and bring back food they are made as like a tougher breed (Jockey 6).

Such views about gender and bodies are located in historical discourses and long-term social processes about the role of male and female bodies and their biological purposes.

Whilst increased interdependence has reduced the social boundaries that separated male and female jockeys this enables the perceptions about the need for strength (typically associated with males) to be reinforced as essential to the success of NH jockeys. Strength as a determining characteristic of being a NH jockey was largely accepted, but not unquestioned, as one female professional jockey articulates, ‘I mean not all men can be as strong as the strongest man anyway, the girls can be as strong as some male jockeys, they’re not gonna be the strongest but you don’t have to be to ride winners’ (Jockey 2).

Through their own experiences some females begin to identify how bodies exist on a continuum of strength. Another jockey went further to argue that some women could be as strong as some men. In particular, she highlights the fact that one of the most well-known NH female jockeys would not be noticeable for being a woman in the last sprint of the race, ‘some women are strong and good, like you couldn’t tell Hayley Turner in a finish from a man, do you know what I mean, just cos she is so strong’ (Jockey 1). Not being able to distinguish between a male and female jockey highlights how the body type of jockeys is similar (again a difference from other sports); therefore, with a helmet, goggles and jockey attire the gender of a rider may not be noticeable. Thus, during the race, bodies appear ‘genderless’. Due to this fact, the race commentary attempts to emphasise gender difference by stressing how the riding style of female jockeys is different to that of male jockeys, thus marking out difference in line with acceptable gendered perceptions.

Risk, shame and opportunities to ride

Even those women interviewed who were critical of the idea that all women were weak were aware of how others (male and female) within the racing industry perceived the suitability of their bodies for racing. One way this was manifested was in discounting certain horses that were not considered suitable for female jockeys to ride. As one of the jockeys explained, ‘like certain horses, people will be like, I wouldn’t want you to ride cos you know it’s not a girl’s ride and they wouldn’t want you to hurt yourself’. Here, the paternalistic idea that female jockeys need greater protection than male jockeys is evident as some horses are considered just too risky for female jockeys. Finding a trainer who is willing to use a female jockey can be difficult and one of the reasons given for this is concern about female jockeys being injured. This situation seems particularly prevalent in NH racing where injury is more likely than in flat racing,

I am sure there are some trainers who won’t have booked me and maybe their reason for not having used me is because of like they wouldn’t put a girl up over jumps, we’ve even got an owner at home who’s a little bit like that, who just doesn’t want, she doesn’t know how she’d feel if I’d got hurt and it was off her horse (Jockey 4)

This relates to broader notions about civilised female bodies in which they are viewed as weaker than male bodies. The accepted view that female jockeys were more susceptible to injury than males is not new and remains widely held.

There is greater concern about a female jockey being injured as opposed to a male jockey, and this is, apparently, an acceptable reason for preventing women from experiencing (risky) rides. It is more acceptable for trainers, owners or others in the racing figuration to draw on concern for the female jockey as a reason for not selecting them. The shame associated with a female jockey being injured on a horse that was known to be risky can be avoided by not selecting female jockeys for certain horses or by choosing safer horses. This can be seen as being a responsible trainer or owner, as opposed to being someone who doesn’t employ female jockeys. The close interaction in the racing figuration between male and female jockeys, as well as legislation, accept that female jockeys ride but, in response to this, some trainers and owners limit the opportunity for female jockeys to ride the ‘best horses’ (Roberts and MacLean, 2012). This represents ongoing power imbalances in the racing figuration, where shifts in power relations must be understood as shifts in power not total equality. Jockeys are highly dependent on trainers and owners and it is rare for a jockey to be able to influence what rides he/she is given. Decisions made by others in the racing figuration arguably prevent female jockeys from proving their ability to control a difficult or risky horse because owners and trainers make decisions about who rides on what horse. There is, however, another way of understading this. Shame may control opportunities as the fear associated with choosing a female jockey becomes risky as such decisions are under scrutiny. Selecting a female rider for a promising horse is a risk; if the jockey is not successful this is scrutinised by the owner(s) and the fact a female jockey was selected could cause embarrassment. Not offering opportunities because someone is female is considered increasingly unacceptable in this figuration and, more broadly, in the civilising of gender relations and, therefore, it becomes more acceptable to draw on the common sense notion that women need protecting from risky horses, which appears to offer an acceptable justification for such decisions.

The perception that female jockeys need greater protection and that some horses are considered ‘too risky’ is countered by the fact that other horses are perceived as better suited to female jockeys, ‘ I think that there are horses out there that run better for women, it’s the trainers’ job to put the right jockey on the right horse’ (Jockey 6). As another jockey explained, ‘there are some horses that maybe a women rider would suit more’ (Jockey 7). These remarks suggest that horses respond to different styles of riding, and that male and females ride differently, ‘some horses just go different for girls, you can’t deny that really there’s something different about the way girls ride that can have a positive effect on horses’ (Jockey 2). The perception that horses are aware of the gender of their rider, or that females ride differently and horses respond to the rider differently (depending on gender) is something that is widely believed to be true – ‘sometimes people say a horse will run better for a girl and I think some horses do’ (Jockey 4). Although it is not clear how widespread the view is from our interviews, Velija and Flynn (2010) came to a similar conclusion and it is difficult for a female (or any) jockey to challenge what becomes a commonly accepted idea, i.e. the horse says so. Rather than appearing sexist, it is presented as a ‘fact’ that some horses prefer a female jockey and some need a male jockey. This ‘knowledge’ is supported by those within the racing figuration who have the organisation networks and ‘evidence’ to reinforce these ideas. However, this means that the opportunities for female jockeys to ride a wide range of horses are being constrained or controlled, so that they are only able to ride some and not others. Thus, ideas about risk, gender and female bodies become an accepted reason for not allowing female jockeys opportunities to ride specific horses, limiting their chances to ride and, furthermore, these ideas are presented as natural (female bodies are weaker) and normal (everyone knows that horses respond differently). Such common sense perceptions are normalised and internalised in the racing figuration, yet they are also self-perpetuating because female jockeys have less opportunity to challenge them.