EMBODYING KINESIS: HOW ARISTOTLE AND POLANYI RESHAPE THE PHILOSOPHY OF KINESIOLOGY
Open Access
- Author:
- Twietmeyer, Gregg
- Graduate Program:
- Kinesiology
- Degree:
- Doctor of Philosophy
- Document Type:
- Dissertation
- Date of Defense:
- May 08, 2008
- Committee Members:
- Robert Scott Kretchmar, Committee Chair/Co-Chair
Doug Anderson, Committee Member
Mark Dyreson, Committee Member
Dagmar Sternad, Committee Member
Christopher P Long, Committee Member - Keywords:
- humanities
sport
play
skills
two cultures
kinesiology
kinesis
tacit
Polanyi
Aristotle
purpose
epistemology
games
physical activity
entelecheia - Abstract:
- What is Kinesiology? While the stock answer, “the study of human movement,” may initially satisfy some, it leaves the content and mission of the field quite vague, perhaps even empty. What type of “movement,” after all, are we talking about; sewing, crossing the street, playing basketball, eating spaghetti? All such movement forms would seem to fit the popular definition of kinesiology, yet intuitively most people would admit that basketball seems much more appropriate than any of the other options. Why? Is such an intuition justified? Or is this obsession with “sport” merely an artifact of the dumb-jock dark ages? Is physical education a coincidental or necessary part of Kinesiology? If kinesiologists cannot give an adequate response to such questions how can the discipline possibly even begin to understand itself? This ambiguity regarding the mission of Kinesiology leads to and informs another problem. What is the proper relationship between the sciences and humanities in Kinesiology? Why are philosophers, historians, physiologists and biomechanists all under the same roof? How should their common discipline of Kinesiology inform their work and define their relationship? There is little doubt that in most contemporary Kinesiology departments the power structure is tilted, (for both pragmatic and philosophical reasons) in favor of the sciences. Whether this is a problem that needs to be remedied or is the proper constitution of a Kinesiology department cannot be fully answered until one has nailed down in more concrete terms what Kinesiology actually is. Until such an understanding has been achieved, articulating the proper relationship between the sciences and the humanities in the field of Kinesiology is a foolhardy quest. Perhaps part of the problem is with the understanding of “motion” itself? An Aristotelian understanding of what the word kinesis actually means reveals a more dynamic and more human understanding of motion. According to Aristotle, kinesis is central to human identity. Motion involves more than merely change of place. In the case of animals (which includes human beings), motion cannot be understood apart from choice and perception. Human locomotion is impossible without the conscious perceptions of the mover. Kinesis is not a mere brute fact of nature, but rather a central aspect of human being. If this is correct then the field of Kinesiology needs to embrace culture as much as it embraces mathematics and measurement. In addition, scientist/philosopher Michael Polanyi argues through his theory of “personal knowledge” that the gulf between the sciences and humanities is in a very real sense imagined. Knowledge is real but requires a conscious and skilled engagement with the world. As such, science is not a self-sufficient or all-encompassing mode of inquiry but is dependent on human culture, language and tradition. Consequently the sciences and humanities should be seen as partners rather than antagonists. Building on the work of both Aristotle and Polanyi I argue that a fresh understanding of both motion and epistemology must be constituted if Kinesiology is to become a coherent and unified academic field.