Gregg Twietmeyer

What is Kinesiology? Historical and Philosophical Insights

Twenty years ago Karl Newell suggested in Quest that the proper name for the field was “kinesiology” and that its proper subject was “physical activity.” Yet, despite his success, for many the purpose of the field remains enigmatic. This has led to a lack of clarity in programs, as well as tensions between scientists and humanists in the field. This tension was conveniently summarized by C. P. Snows famous “two cultures” thesis. Dissonance within the field is born of faulty and unexamined philosophic commitments. This article reviews the historical and contemporary state of kinesiology in an attempt to introduce readers to two of these unexamined philosophic commitments. The first misunderstanding is metaphysical and regards the questions, “What is the nature of kinesis?” The second misunderstanding is epistemological and regards the question, “What counts as knowledge?” Answers to both questions—sometimes implicit, sometimes explicit—have had a great impact on the field. This history deserves further attention.

Kinesis and the Nature of the Human Person

Human movement is a matter of beings, not mere bodies. Motion is not something external to human beings. It is not just something we do, but something we are. Building on the work of Aristotle, Brague, and Polanyi, I will argue that human beings are beings-at-work. Being is not so much a “what” as it is a “how.” Human beings are organic not static. Human beings are beings that grow, mature, value, desire and learn. Human beings are beings that metabolize, breathe, run, and jump. Such motion is life. To properly understand human beings one must understand kinesis in this richer sense. In turn, to properly understand human movement, one must understand human beings. The study of “human movement” is irreparably damaged if one cannot begin to articulate what the “human” in “human movement” means. But what is a human being? Why should the human person be understood as more than a mere lump of water and chemicals? Aristotles conception of the human person, found in On the Soul, provides an intriguing answer to this question with profound implications for kinesiology. He argues that human beings are wholes rather than mere “bodies.” The human person is a unity of body and soul. The souls work allows the body to remain an organized whole, while the body as a living organism is literally the manifestation of the soul at work.

A theology of inferiority: is christianity the source of kinesiology's second-class status in the academy?

What influence has Christianity had on kinesiology and physical educations status in the Academy? Conventional wisdom within kinesiology often seems to argue that the influence has been quite negative. These critics allege that Christianity is a fundamentally dualistic religion. They allege that, at its best, Christianity is suspicious of the body and that, at its worst, Christianity openly proclaims that the body is evil. Despite the popularity of such assertions, there is abundant evidence in both historical and contemporary theology to show that Christianity is a religion in which corporeality plays a central, defining, and positive role. From Saint Paul to Saint Augustine, from Saint Aquinas to the present day, it has been a central doctrine of Christianity that the human body is good and, furthermore, that corporeality plays a vital role in salvation. Consequently, any blanket assertion that Christianity is the source of physical education and kinesiologys ills is fundamentally misleading and mistaken.

The Cardinal Virtues and Kinesiology

What is a good kinesiologist? Is it possible that the ancient and medieval tradition of the Cardinal Virtues sheds light on this question? The four Cardinal Virtues of prudence, justice, courage, and temperance are so called from the Latin cardo meaning “hinge.” The Cardinal Virtues are said to be the hinge upon which all the other virtues rest or turn. They are the foundation of good character. If this is right, then the answer to the question posed is simple. The good kinesiologist is prudent, just, courageous, and temperate. Therefore, to move the field forward, even on a practical level, kinesiologists must give due attention to the virtues.

The Four Marks of Holistic Kinesiology.

What, to borrow a theological phrase, are the marks of a truly holistic kinesiology department? In Kinesis and the Nature of the Human Person (2010), I examined the theoretical impact of Aristotles definition of kinesis and Polanyis theory of tacit knowledge on kinesiology. The intention here, however, is practical rather than theoretical. How would a holistic philosophy impact the day-to-day activities within the discipline of kinesiology? What tenets would a holistic department of kinesiology hold? What direction and aims would such a department have? Four areas of impact and reform are offered. First, kinesiologists should engage the humanities. A vibrant humanistic presence in the field will not only make kinesiology more holistic; it will give kinesiologists the tools to articulate a holistic understanding of the nature of the human person. Second, kinesiologists should recognize the importance of experience, practice, and apprenticeship within the field. Third, departments should embrace rather than shun specificity. Finally, kinesiologists are encouraged to acknowledge that a field dedicated to “physical activity” must require, engage in, and passionately profess the actual practice of “moving well.”

God, Sport Philosophy, Kinesiology: A MacIntyrean Examination.

Sport philosophy is in crisis. This subdiscipline of kinesiology garners little to no respect and few tenure track lines in kinesiology departments. Why is this the case? Why isn’t philosophy held in greater esteem? Is it possible that philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre’s (2009) diagnosis found in “God, Philosophy, Universities” could actually be fruitfully applied to kinesiology? MacIntyre argued that philosophy’s fall from grace parallels the decline of theology in universities. This is the case for two simple reasons. First, philosophy was traditionally charged with giving an account of how the different disciplines fit together on the presumption that an orderly account of the universe could be given. However, the imperative for, as well the intelligibility of, such an account is hard to defend absent God. Second, without God, it becomes very difficult to argue that the philosophic enterprise is fundamentally human. Instead, philosophy becomes an esoteric enterprise meant for specialists. If this is right, then the sanitization of God from the modern university can also explain the plight of sport philosophy. To put it simply, theology must be taken seriously if philosophy is to be taken seriously. God must be admissible in the classroom. This does not mean that students should be catechized, but rather it is to insist that scholars must acknowledge (rather than hide from or dismiss) the legitimacy of theological questions.

The Merits and Demerits of Pleasure in Kinesiology

What role should pleasure play in kinesiology? Although pleasure is an important concept in kinesiology, the strengths, weaknesses, and dangers of this concept have not been properly clarified. Douglas Booth and Richard Pringle have both recently scolded kinesiologists over the issue of pleasure in kinesiology with decidedly mixed results. They insist that the importance of pleasure has been neglected, and that the role that human culture plays in properly understanding pleasure in kinesiology, has been underestimated. Booth (2009) argues that “puritanical” prohibitions have made pleasure suspect. Pringle (2010) argues that kinesiologists must remember that “many students are not currently gaining a love for movement in their [physical education] experiences” (p. 130). Each scholars suspicion of traditional distinctions between “good and bad physical pleasures” (Booth, 2009, p. 148) results in an untenable commitment to pleasure as an intrinsic good. In short, their views are hedonistic. Although Booth and Pringle are right that pleasure is good, it is not an end in itself.

The Necessity of Physical Activity in Kinesiology Degree Programs

The term “the practice of physical activity” was recently introduced as one of the four elements of the American Kinesiology Association undergraduate core curriculum. The purpose of this article is to articulate the nature of the term by offering a philosophical justification (other than health) for including physical activity coursework and/or experiences in kinesiology degree programs, specifying a definition of physical activity, and examining what it means to “practice” physical activity. Using three major themes from the relevant literature and a clarified meaning of the term, it is concluded that to practice physical activity means to participate in dance, exercise, games, play or sport regularly with the intent to maintain or improve fitness or skill proficiency. Two approaches — (1) physical activity for fitness and health and (2) physical activity for skillful performance — are presented to guide the curriculum design process in kinesiology.

Hope & kinesiology: the hopelessness of health-centered kinesiology

Abstract Hope is necessary for kinesiology. Hope is profoundly human, because it is a fact of our nature. Human life is organic. We hope because we are by nature oriented to the future. Motion, growth, development and temporality are at the core of our lives. The great Thomistic philosopher Josef Pieper puts it this way: ‘man finds himself, even until the moment of death, in the status viatoris, in the state of being on the way’ (92). Hope, therefore, is a longing for and expectation of fulfillment. An anticipation that the good will triumph in the end. What implications does this have for kinesiology? As I have often said before, kinesiology is a human discipline. The nature of man cannot help but impact our field. More pertinent for our present purposes however is this; the future of kinesiology is not about organization or rational planning. Nor, at the end of the day, is it merely about promoting health, or physical activity, or even play. Decontextualized from a larger vision of nature, purpose and end of human life, even play becomes mere therapy. Such an isolated vision of the future of kinesiology is emaciated. It is born of hopelessness. That is, either the presumption that ‘health’ is all we need, or the despair that ‘health’ is all there is.

What Kinesiology Can Learn from Music

As a multidisciplinary field of study, kinesiology continues to be influenced by various academic disciplines such as biology, chemistry, education, history, math, philosophy, physics, psychology and sociology. This article highlights two important lessons that kinesiology can learn from the discipline of music.