Toward Better WHY’s and WHAT’s of P.E.: a vision of P.E. for Bodyfulness in the service of Well-Being for All

Before you read this article, consider that:

1. I’ve broken this article up into a 3-part series elsewhere. Here are Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3. If you prefer to read the recap and save yourself some time, scroll down to the very bottom.
2. I intend to come back to this and edit it as I see fit. So, what you see here may not only change, but may also be the result of multiple updates and edits.
3. I would love for you to highlight and/or comment on any significant parts. Dialogue is welcome here!!
4. My position is grounded in Democratic aims — political/civic equality, fairness, social justice, the common good, and general welfare, and more as a way of life and less like a political system — the purpose of which, I think, can be summed as Well-Being for All. I have nothing to say about Public Education or Physical Education in the context of a society that is NOT explicitly Democratic.
5. You can scroll down to the bottom to read the recap if you want to skip the lengthy nonsense below.

Incoherence In Education and Physical Education

Physical Education, in America and perhaps internationally, seems to be in a perpetual state of either crisis, insecurity, or confusion (or maybe it’s all of those at the same time?). Some of the reasons for this lie at the feet of the field, and some of them lie elsewhere. But regardless of who is judged to be most guilty, the biggest issue (for me) is this: INCOHERENCE. We either don’t have, or don’t agree on (or both), a compelling and coherent vision of WHY and WHAT Education and Physical Education should be and be about. And while I admit that a total consensus on such a thing is impossible, I believe that we can, and should, strive for more clarity of purpose. If we don’t, we will continue to be ineffective. We will continue to try to do the wrong things “righter,”and the right things “wronger.”

The Big WHY Problem & Where It Comes From

I suggest that this fragmentation and incoherence begins with a pervasive societal inability to clearly identify and agree on what our society is for (speaking from an American perspective here), even though the Preamble of the Declaration of Independence makes it fairly clear. As a result, we repeatedly devise and revise aims for Education, and thus Physical Education, that are not only mis-aligned with our greater societal aims, but often conflict with them. This is a WHY problem.

P.E.’s WHY Problems

P.E. suffers from two primary WHY problems, both of which equate to having the wrong WHY:

1. It isn’t grounded in a coherent, functional, or legitimate Educational WHY. It typically aligns with the aims of a public education system that prioritizes Neoliberal Capitalist ends before Democratic ones. And since Neoliberal Capitalism often obstructs Democracy, such an education system is incoherent, dysfunctional, and illegitimate (at least it is far too often).
2. Its purpose is (far too often) a narrowly conceived end-state of “Health” and/or a “Healthy Body,” that is ultimately reduced to a set of “objective” metrics (which fits nicely with Neoliberal Capitalism’s demand to measure, and thus, commodify everything). This purpose reduces the value of everything we do in P.E. to the degree that it contributes to these metrics, hence the overriding emphasis on Sport, Fitness, Physical Literacy, and Lifelong Physical Activity (because they are assumed to improve health metrics).

P.E.’s WHAT Problems

Because of these WHY problems, Physical Education also suffers from two primary WHAT problems:

1. It has the wrong WHAT. Typically, P.E.’s WHAT is movement, or a notion of Physical Activity that is reduced to movement. And when this limited WHAT is coupled with a dysfunctional WHY, the possibilities for transformative, empowering experiences is severely constrained, thus rendering P.E. ineffective (for far too many) and impotent (in terms of its potential to facilitate well-being for all). I will explain, in part 2, why a better WHAT for P.E. is the Physical or Body (of which movement is a part).
2. Its main WHAT’s are too narrowly conceived. Dominant notions like movement, physical activity, health, body, and physical are typically seen through a reductive lens, leading Educators and Physical Educators on a wild goose chase toward an Ideal Form that is not only unattainable for far too many, but also encourages teachers to view students (and the rest of the world) as objects to be corralled, controlled, disciplined, and fine-tuned. Such an approach disregards the agency of students (and others), limits the construction of positive meanings associated with our medium (our Embodiment), and hinders the development of deeper inter-relationality with others (and not just human others).

In short, we too often design P.E. around the assumption that our WHAT is movement (or Physical Activity) and our WHY is a Healthy Body. If you pay enough attention, you will see that dancing, running, throwing, skipping, playing, competing, and any other “physical activity” is done in P.E. because they will make students more healthy and productive (think about how the grit narrative gets abused and co-opted by P.E. teachers). This is PE as ANesthesia, as an ANaesthetic. It is dead. It doesn’t enliven and enrich (enough).

This wrong WHAT and narrow framing, at least to me, is ineffective for far too many people, and too often obstructs the realization of many of the foundational values and aims of Society (in an American context, these values/aims are located in the preamble of the Declaration of Independence).

Put another way, it inhibits Well-Being for all more than it should.

What follows is an attempt to provide not only a compelling vision for Education and Physical Education, but a coherent one.

One that:

1. 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).
2. 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).}

How Bodyfulness and PE can help make Democracy more possible

Given everything I’ve said up this point, an important question may need to be considered: what are the benefits of Bodyfulness/Physical Literacy, and thus PE, for persons and the public (Particularly in a so-called Democratic society)?

One potential, but powerful, answer is that we come to a deeper relationshipwith our embodied, embedded, and entangled selves as we spend more time inter and intra-acting with them through embodied practices/physical activities. Those deeper relationships (with self and other) reflect a more integrated/coherent connectivity that empowers each of the entangled selves, and are enhanced by the sensitivity, attunement, resonance, and harmony that is fostered through meaningful inter/intra-corporeal (bodily) encounters. In short, these encounters help us to see and sense our relatedness and interdependence, AND feel alive! Put simply, they help us to become personally and collectively “Well-Attached.”

The value of such deeper relationships for Democratic societies is that they enhance our ability to respect, understand, attend to, communicate, dialogue, and even disagree with each other with dignity, all of which makes harming each other (without informed consent) much more difficult, which makes Democracy, and thus living well together, much more possible. Again, it’s about being Well-Attached.

{PE’s value for society should not primarily be measured by its effect on test scores, obesity rates, health care costs, wins, and superficial status related to competence or body image.}

Emancipation means Well-Attached. *Image from the AMAZING book, Unflattening, (by Nick Sousanis; Harvard University Press, 2015)

A word on Bodies and why our notions of them matter so much

Throughout the first two parts of this series, I have suggested that the prevailing notions of body, in education and P.E., are too reductive (body-as-object or body-as-machine). A better, more accurate notion of body, in my view, is a holistic one whereby body means the LIVED BODY (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). One important difference between these two notions (between the reductive and holistic ones) is in how they matter.

The reductive version is of an atomized and separate individual whose agency and interdependence is disregarded or unrecognized. But this is an inaccurate, and thus, limiting conception of bodies. How does this notion matter? It lends itself toward undemocratic approaches where teachers control and direct students toward pre-determined ends.

Rather than P.E. working with that body, it should orient itself around a more accurate, and thus, more potent holistic one that honors how entangled, nested, and fractal all bodies are. This next section may get a little complicated (and fractal), but bear with me:

Each person is a body constituted and formed by other bodies, and each person is also a body that constitutes and forms other bodies. In other words, humans are bodies of bodies of bodies within bodies within bodies. Yikes.

An example: political bodies, community bodies, national bodies, family bodies, human bodies, organ bodies, cellular bodies, etc.

The point I wish to make here is that all bodies form and are informed by each other in a collective web of interdependence. This, of course, includes the human “body,” but also includes political bodies and community bodies. What is important here is that the dynamic state of these bodies matter! They all influence each other’s state. The more “in-tune” these entangled bodies are with themselves and each other, the more they *harmonize their actions. And the more harmonized they are, the more *coherent they are. And the more coherent they are, the more they empower each other to be well. Physical Education’s function in this context, then, is that it facilitates enhanced local and global coherence of body and bodies (through embodied practices/physical activities). Put another way: it helps us become more well-attached.

*I should be careful not to imply that harmony and coherence are equivalent to homogeneity and uniformity. Quite the contrary, these two terms describe the capacity for difference to remain different while simultaneously blending together to produce a synergistic effect. One formulation of coherence I am quite fond of is articulated by Mae-wan Ho as a dynamic state of simultaneous “maximum global cohesion and maximum local freedom.” The goal of enhancing harmony and coherence both personally and socially (and ecologically) is not a utopic society without struggle or tension, but rather a multiplicity in unity (not uniformity) that derives its strength and resilience from both its diversity and commonality, and from its ability to struggle well together with dignity. Such a society can be thought of as CHAORDIC.

Think of it this way: “good” political or economic policy can make it easier for personal and community bodies to live well, together (that’s what makes it “good”). And the same is true going the other direction: people who are well, together (because it’s ALWAYS together), tend to make better political and economic policies (that make it easier for people and communities to be well, together).

Bodies matter, because every “Body” is political and belongs to, shapes, and is shaped by a “Bodies Politic.” Bodies matter because every “Body” influences all other bodies. And so a holistic notion of body matters in such a way that it enables and encourages educators to partner and correspond (co-respond, as Ingold says) with others, effectively empowering them, not overpowering or disempowering them (as the reductive notion tends to do)

P.E.’s WHAT: entangled personal and social bodies

P.E., as “Physical Education,” then, is ultimately and primarily about and for the cultivation of the embodied (“Physical”) capabilities of the entangled personal, social, and ecological bodies that constitute a community and world, and in the service of collective well-being…

{It is not primarily about and for a long life of physical activity. It is much, much better and more than that.}

What about the HOW?

This series has mostly been about the WHAT and WHY of Physical Education in Public Schools that live in societies explicitly oriented around Democratic Principles. The HOW of P.E. requires another article. Until I write that article, I will say this: the HOW should ultimately prioritize meaning and relevance, and be more Democratic (than it usually is).

A Recap

All organisms (including people) want to be and live well. We all aim to respond to the demands and possibilities of life in such a way that we feel well. And we always do this together. We are attached!

The general point of (most) Democratic societies is to live well, together — To be Well-Attached. Most modern Democratic societies recognize that we are all equal with regards to our quest to live well, and so they prioritize arrangements that help us to respond responsibly to the demands and possibilities of life.

Public Education is one such arrangement that expresses and expands our capabilities to respond responsibly, and thus live well, together. Or, be Well-Attached. It should not be primarily for economic or professional success.

Physical Education, in schools, is a set of practices and exercises that primarily involves our embodied, physical dimension, the cultivation of which enhances our ability to respond responsibly and live well, together. Or, to be Well-Attached. It should not primarily be “movement” for the sake of “health.”

**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 taken 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.