A More Coherent Vision: Part 2 of Toward Better Why’s & What’s of Physical Education
In part 1 of this series, I argued that Physical Education is too often ineffective and impotent, as it too often begins with incoherent and narrowly conceived WHY’s and WHAT’s.
What follows is an attempt to articulate what I believe are better WHY’s and WHAT’s that provide not only a compelling vision for Education and Physical Education, but a coherent one. One that:
- Grounds the visions for Physical Education and Education in the explicit, authoritative visions for the “Democratic” societies within which they live. (this article is only concerned with such societies. I have nothing to say here about other types of societies).
- Grounds Physical Education in a Holistic conception of the Physical and Body, whereby both mean Lived and Relational Body, and is about the development of Embodied Capacities for reasons, and in ways, that contribute productively to democratic aims.
Education for responding to life in pursuit of well-being
Education is ultimately about enhancing the ability to respond to the demands and possibilities of life in the quest to live well (which occurs through the development or “actualization” of latent capabilities or potentialities).
{It’s not merely about “learning,” narrowly conceived. It’s not merely preparation for a future life.}
PUBLIC Education for responding RESPONSIBLY in the COLLECTIVE quest for well-being
PUBLIC Education, in Democratic societies that prioritize the well-being of all, should be about enhancing the ability to respond *RESPONSIBLY to the demands of life in the COLLECTIVE quest to live well (develop capabilities).
“The most important question is how we can respond responsibly to, and how we can live peacefully with what and with whom is other.” (Biesta, p 55. See here)
*Responding RESPONSIBLY, in Democratic societies, entails living and acting in ways that consider the well-being of others. It is a “Response-Ability” based on an ethic of care and an intention to harm as little as possible. The value of schools in such societies can be found, at least partially, in their ethical/relational potential that is actualized through practices that develop responsiveness/response-ability.
{It’s not merely about “getting a job,” the next labor force, getting ahead, economic success, individual achievement, global competitiveness, 21st century work skills, college and career readiness, etc.}
Physical Education for Physical Capabilities
Seen in this light, Physical Education should ultimately be about the responsible development and deployment of our embodied *“Physical” capabilities in the quest to live well, together.
*“Physical,” in the context of Physical Education, essentially means “Body.” When we speak of “Physical” Education we mean “Body” Education (it’s obvious to me when I look at what has been done in P.E.’s name throughout its history). Unfortunately, both “physical” and “body” carry way too much reductive baggage and have typically connoted some form of Body-as-Object or Machine. When I speak of the “physical” or “body,” I mean it in holistic terms, whereby “body” is seen as the LIVED BODY (BodyMind or Soma, as both Subject AND Object), and RELATIONAL BODY (which is inter-subjective, entangled, and embedded with other “bodies,” including non-human and systemic ones).
{It should not be about shaping people into some Ideal Form that reproduces the social order (an obedient, sporty, fit body that performs well on the field, in the classroom, or on standardized tests; nor one that increases employers’ profits and reduces public health care costs). It should not be about shaping people into SHAPE! Note that America’s national Physical Education organization is called “SHAPE America.” While it’s a catchy title that everyone can remember, it is also one that sends a potentially destructive message: that Physical Educators should determine what people are to do with, and how to be, a body. In other words, it implies that bodies (people) are objects to be moulded, disciplined, and shaped. That’s not very Democratic!}
Physical Education for enhanced BODYFULNESS
As an “Education” of/through/with/in the “Physical,” P.E. should help cultivate functional solutions to the problems and possibilities of living an embodied and *embedded life. The problems and possibilities associated with such a life occur all day, everyday, and are always mediated through our desire to be and live well, together. They are not limited to the domains of sport or fitness. What I’m saying is that PE, in a Democratic society, should not primarily be for Sport, Fitness, Movement Skill, or even a future “Physically Active” life. Rather, it should be for BODYFULNESS, a Physical or Bodily Literacy if you will, that enhances our ability to sense and interact fluently and productively with our world¹ — and by “fluently and productively” I mean in accordance with Democratic Principles like Equality, Freedom, and Social Justice.
*By “embedded” I mean that our lives are always entangled with and attached to others (including non-humans). We depend on others, and they depend on us. Everything we do has consequences not just for ourselves, but also for others and the whole (and vice-versa).
{It should not prioritize, above all else, the “physically active” or “sporty life,” or the development of a narrowly conceived “Physical Literacy” that is better described as Physical Activity Literacy, or better yet, a Physical Activity Habitus. And it should not deceive itself into thinking that one can eventually become Physically Literate one day (I can see the commercial now: “You too, yes you Physically Illiterate person, can one day become Physically Literate! Just take our PE class, demonstrate and remember all the critical elements of all the 1,000 skills we teach you, adopt exactly the right mindset and disposition that we tell you to adopt, check all the right fundamental movement boxes, and boom! You will then become Physically Literate!”). By the way, all people are always already Physically Literate in some form or fashion, and are always evolving in that regard. They always already CAN respond to the demands of embodied life. Our task is to help them, as partners, respond more fluently and productively, via meaningful embodied/physical practices and activities.}
Physical Activity is not reduced to “Movement.”
As a path to enhanced Bodyfulness, PE utilizes a variety of body-based (“Physical”) Activities that INCLUDES, but not is not limited to “movement” or “physical activity,” in the conventional sense. Conventional physical activities are almost always reduced to “movement,” the most prominent of which are sport or fitness-centered. But it doesn’t have to be this way. Practices and exercises that attend to the breath, posture, body-image, and the exploration/analysis of the politics of bodies and modes of “bodying” are all examples of legitimate P.E. practices that can significantly impact the quality of personal and social well-being, and possibly even more so than sport or fitness practices and techniques. But do breath-work and sitting practice qualify as “movement” or “physical activities?” Not typically. They are physical activities, however, and while they don’t easily fit into the “movement” box, that’s OK. They still count, and that’s because we shouldn’t be the movement box. We shouldn’t limit ourselves and students that way. We are a bigger box: the “Physical” Box.
Does this mean that PE teachers now need to devote A LOT of time to breath-work? No. But it should at least start making an appearance if it’s not already a common practice. And does this mean that movement doesn’t have a place in PE? Of course not. Movement is a significant mode of the “physical.” It is an important mode of “bodying,” and is therefore a path to deeper Bodyfulness and Physical Literacy (not merely Physical ACTIVITY Literacy/Habitus). But so is breath-work, attending to posture, inventing games, negotiating rules in sport, or any other “physical” activity that doesn’t fit neatly in the movement box. These “exercises” belong in the curriculum too, and aren’t just a break from the “real” work of Physical Education. The point of all these practices is that they deepen our engagement with our inter and intra-corporeal (bodily) selves, thus aiding the development of our personal and social embodied capabilities, and thus contributing to our personal and collective well-being (this is why they can be LIFE-ENRICHING, and most especially so when they are enjoyable/meaningful!!!).
{PE should not primarily be movement now for the sake of movement later (it should not sacrifice Life-Fulfilling “physical activity” in the name of Life-Long; we may be able to have both, but I think Life-Fulfilling wins). Nor should it be about moving to obtain a “healthy body” (The Ideal Form). And it most definitely should not primarily be about MVPA (Moderate-to-Vigorous-Physical Activity).}
**Thank you to those who generously offered their feedback before I published this! An extra special thanks to Justen O’Connor for his insights!
[1] “Fluent and productive interaction with the world” was from Margaret Whitehead:
“The phrase ‘fluent and productive interaction’ with the world, sums up the root characteristics of “literacy” in any field/area … . I feel it is not inappropriate … to describe physical literacy as identifying a human capability that affords us “the ability to identify, understand, interpret, create, respond effectively and communicate, using the embodied human dimension, within a wide range of situations and contexts.” (p. 26)
Whitehead, M. (2013). The history and development of physical literacy. Journal of the International Council of Sport Science and Physical Education, (65), 18–20.
