Big Boys, Physical Education, and the Ethics of Bodily Difference: a Poststructural Analysis
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Big Boys, Physical Education, and the Ethics of Bodily Difference: A Poststructural Analysis by Rogerio Paulo Pinto Bernardes A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Curriculum, Teaching & Learning Ontario Institute for Studies in Education University of Toronto © Copyright by Rogerio Paulo Pinto Bernardes (2019) Big Boys, Physical Education, and the Ethics of Bodily Difference: A Poststructural Analysis Rogerio Paulo Pinto Bernardes Doctor of Philosophy Department of Curriculum, Teaching & Learning Ontario Institute for Studies in Education University of Toronto 2019 Abstract The purpose of this thesis was to explore: 1) body, health, and movement discourses – particularly those advanced by the physical education and biomedical health communities – that shaped the embodied movement experiences of boys, with a focus on bigger boys; 2) how boys negotiated accusations of fatness, discourses of health, and what I have termed physical education-through-sport; and, 3) how we might move forward ethically in the conceptualization of embodiment and encounters with bodily difference. Making selective use of authors and theories in the process of plugging in (Jackson & Mazzei, 2012), I used a theoretical framework informed by poststructuralist theory and a philosophy of the limit (Cornell, 1992; Pronger, 2002). Working with six boys ages 12 to 14 years old, I employed semi-structured interviews, participant observation sessions (developed as part of a physical activity program specific to this study), and focus groups to theorize a shift from fatness to bigness that redeemed oversized bodies as intelligible in gendered constructions of masculinity. For the boys in this study, constructions of health and physical activity were more strongly connected to mental health concerns and maintaining positive social relations than to disease prevention and ill-health. These understandings opened up a space to conceptualize ethical encounters with bodily ii difference that challenged dominant constructions of the individual, separate, independent, sovereign self. Drawing on a philosophy of the limit (Cornell, 1992), a conceptualization of the connected, self-in-relation was proposed in terms of the ethic of alterity (Cornell, 1992; Pronger, 2002). This is an ethic of compassionate openness that endorses encounters with ‘difference’ without fear of otherness. In this view, this ethic of alterity confronts the territorialisation of difference present in discourses of (systemic) inclusion by conceptualizing an already interrelated and interdependent self as a condition of subjectivity. iii Acknowledgments I thank my participants without whom this work would not be possible. Your trust in me, in the activities we did together, and your willingness to share your personal experiences and ideas will always be a source of gratitude. May your embodiment continue to unfold in positive ways. I am forever grateful to my supervisor, Dr. Heather Sykes. I have been blessed by your guidance, knowledge, wisdom, gentle support, and understanding. You have shaped not only my academic progress but also my becoming. My once positivist eyes now see the world in different colours because of you. Many blessings. I am grateful to Dr. Margaret MacNeill and Dr. Michael Atkinson for agreeing to serve on my committee. Your support and feedback throughout my process have been invaluable. Our meetings and discussions have helped me envision different possibilities and future directions. I thank and admire you both. Thank you to my examiners, Dr. Carla Rice and Dr. Stephanie Springgay. To Dr. Rice: your thoughtful, knowledgeable, generous, and insightful review of my thesis supported my work and guided me to extend my thinking in a masterful balance. Your feedback provided both energy and direction, without reproach, and is an example that I will seek to emulate in all interactions with my own students and their work. To Dr. Springgay: I am most appreciative of your attention to embodiment as fractured, and what the ethic of alterity might look like in physical education. Thank you to the brilliant Dr. Brian Pronger whose book, Body Fascism, was the sign post I needed during a difficult time. It was when I read your book that I knew I could finish this work. You handed me the thread to guide me in the mangle of data and theory. Thank you Dr. Nancy Maynes for your amazing editing skills, boundless energy, enthusiasm, and unwavering belief in me and my work. You are a most generous colleague, always willing to give of your expansive knowledge and limited time, and a true friend. Thank you Mom and Dad, Ana and Jose Maria Bernardes, for the unconditional love that has always been the wellspring for my growth and wanderings. Your acceptance of what you did not understand was a teaching I am only now beginning to grasp. It is to your deep, silent strength and perserverance that I return to when things get difficult. iv Thank you to my dear brother and his spouse, Jose Eduardo and Melanie, whose major commitment, in time and effort, to our aging parents provided me with the emotional security to focus on my academic pursuits. I am forever grateful for your support and belief in me and my work. To Kathy, my dear wife and amazing scholar, and our daughter Seraphina: you are always the shining light that can brighten my day. Your love, encouragement, and assistance, in tangible and intangible ways, has sustained me during this long process. Kathy, your thoughtful consideration of my ideas and careful editing is present everywhere in this thesis. Seraphina, the brightness in your eyes and gentleness of your spirit allow me to experience daily what is important in life. Thank you. To Tony Nagee, you are my life-long friend and born philosopher, with whom I can talk poststructuralism and never say the word. Your intellectual brilliance and curiosity are only outdone by the expansiveness and generosity of your spirit. Your unrelenting faith in everyone you meet continue to amaze and inspire me. It takes many hands to write a thesis and here I able to name a few. To my friends at the Toronto District School Board, and especially Mira Nam-Wong, who have supported me emotionally and practically in accessing the time I needed to complete my dissertation, I thank you all. I thank fellow scholar and friend Dr. John Rossini for your reading and supportive feedback of my work. I thank my cousin Paul Simoes for your technical assistance in quickly getting me back up to speed when my computer crashed. To my mother-in-law, Pagona Mantas, for opening your home to us when were are in Toronto, and for your long-term help with childcare. “Ya-ya”, with your love and care, you have made challenging times a lot more manageable. Lastly, I wish to thank all the present and former members of Dr. Sykes’ thesis group. Throughout my journey you have all created for me a space of belonging and security where ideas could be engaged and explored, in non-judgemental ways. Our thesis group is my secure, physical place of connection to the doctoral program and to the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education. I thank you all, and many others that have gone unmentioned, and blessings to all. v Table of Contents ABSTRACT ......................................................................................................................................... II ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................................................................................................... IV LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................................... VIII LIST OF APPENDICES ..................................................................................................................... IX CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY ........................................................................... 1 RATIONALE ............................................................................................................................................. 1 RESEARCH QUESTIONS ........................................................................................................................... 4 THEORETICAL UNDERPINNINGS ............................................................................................................. 5 Orientation to knowledge and reality. ................................................................................................ 5 The researcher and positionality. ....................................................................................................... 8 CONCLUSION AND THESIS ORGANIZATION .......................................................................................... 11 CHAPTER 2. SITUATING THE STUDY IN THE LITERATURE ................................................. 13 REPRESENTATION AND POSTSTRUCTURALISM .................................................................................... 13 EMBODIMENT AND BOUNDARIES .......................................................................................................... 17 SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIONS, SUBJECTIVITIES, AND FAT ......................................................................... 18 Physical capital. ................................................................................................................................ 20 Fat and masculinity. ........................................................................................................................