Obesity, Health and Physical Education:
a Bourdieuean Perspective
by Katie Fitzpatrick (2011)
This article is encompassed by Pierre Bourdieu's notions of field, capital and habitus. The author integrated Bourdieu's framework with her observations in multicultural, low socioeconomic high school in South Auckland. From the two separate classes she observaed, she suggests that the different pedagogy approaches have produced two different fields. They have significant effects on students' views on health.
Pierre Bourdieu's social theory abstractly builds upon multiple social theorists' ideas, the complexity is way beyond my capacity of understanding. But since this article provides examples to explain the notion of field, it improved my understanding on Bourdieu's theory.
Bourdieu's social theory emphasizes the the dynamics of power in society. He analyzed societies by using the concept of field: it is a structured social space of cultural production with its own rules, schemes of domination and legitimate opinions. People struggle to gain capital and there are many forms of capital such as economic, cultural, social, symbolic, etc. Habitus is important for social reproduction, it is a system of perception, thought and action that are taken for granted within a particular field.
From the article's example, Ms W and Mr R have different teaching approaches:
"The first teacher, Ms W, engages her students in the study of the much publicized 'obesity epidemic'. She encourages them to research the topic by drawing uncritically on news media and medicalised accounts of the 'problem' with related statistical; data. As critiques of this 'epidemic' are rare in the news media, they are unlikely to come across a diversity of viewpoints in their research. Mr R, on the other hand, offers his class an overtly political approach to the study of food, by focusing particularly on food production and consumption in global capitalist world. The view of 'health' produced in this class differs significantly from that inherent in media and socially sanctioned obesity discourse" (p. 354)
The difference is due to the background of the teachers, the field that influences their teaching practice, and they are "much more likely to reproduce the field as themselves experience it" (p. 359). The author suggests that: "Ms W's practice is produced by the field of obesity research and intervention, while Mr R's practice is produced by the critical field of health and physical education" (p. 355).
In the field of scientific research and interventions, bodies are both classed and racialised. One of the methods adapted by this field is Body Mass Index (BMI), and it categorize people's bodies as "underweight", "normal", "overweight" and "obese". The latter two categories are deem to be the "bad" side of of the scale, bodies in these categories are "at risk" and "unhealthy". In this field, brown bodies have relatively less symbolic capital, because statistical data shows Maori and Pacifika people are disproportionally "overweight" and "obese". In fact, this phenomena is due to various of factors and errors, but these reports provide people the opportunities to make snap-judgements on certain ethnicity.
Although Ms W reinforces the key features of critical thinking, the students will still draw information from the wrong field (new media). The students conclusions to obesity are likely to be "poor diet" and "lack of physical activities". They may overlook the underlying factors and power relations that create this "epidemic" within the Maori and Pacifika communities. Therefore, the negative image of brown bodies is reproduced in class, and it continues to be marginalized in the society.
In the field of critical health and physical education, scholars question the existing discourse of "traditional" physical education and health education practices. They adapt the critical approach and a sociocultural perspective in viewing health issues. In contrast to Ms W's approach, this field emphasizes "critical inquiry". Critical inquiry involves "assisting students to examine and challenge the status quo, the dominant construction of reality, and the power relations that produce inequalities" (Wright, 2004a, p. 7, cited p.358). Therefore, compare to Ms W approach, Mr R's approach has more potential to promote "social justice" which is frequently mentioned in the New Zealand Curriculum.
As a result, students from Mr R's class have better understanding of the assumptions that circulate in our society. Their critical thinking is align with the critical field of health and physical education. However, on the other hand, Ms W's students understanding only restricted to "personal responsibility", more tendency towards the notion of "individualism". The author also notices, after having Mr R as their HPE teacher in Year 12, they have changed their field when they are taught by Ms W in Year 13. Their field is changing and sometimes overlapping, and thus the dynamics of the society is constantly shifting.
a Bourdieuean Perspective
by Katie Fitzpatrick (2011)
This article is encompassed by Pierre Bourdieu's notions of field, capital and habitus. The author integrated Bourdieu's framework with her observations in multicultural, low socioeconomic high school in South Auckland. From the two separate classes she observaed, she suggests that the different pedagogy approaches have produced two different fields. They have significant effects on students' views on health.
Pierre Bourdieu's social theory abstractly builds upon multiple social theorists' ideas, the complexity is way beyond my capacity of understanding. But since this article provides examples to explain the notion of field, it improved my understanding on Bourdieu's theory.
Bourdieu's social theory emphasizes the the dynamics of power in society. He analyzed societies by using the concept of field: it is a structured social space of cultural production with its own rules, schemes of domination and legitimate opinions. People struggle to gain capital and there are many forms of capital such as economic, cultural, social, symbolic, etc. Habitus is important for social reproduction, it is a system of perception, thought and action that are taken for granted within a particular field.
From the article's example, Ms W and Mr R have different teaching approaches:
"The first teacher, Ms W, engages her students in the study of the much publicized 'obesity epidemic'. She encourages them to research the topic by drawing uncritically on news media and medicalised accounts of the 'problem' with related statistical; data. As critiques of this 'epidemic' are rare in the news media, they are unlikely to come across a diversity of viewpoints in their research. Mr R, on the other hand, offers his class an overtly political approach to the study of food, by focusing particularly on food production and consumption in global capitalist world. The view of 'health' produced in this class differs significantly from that inherent in media and socially sanctioned obesity discourse" (p. 354)
The difference is due to the background of the teachers, the field that influences their teaching practice, and they are "much more likely to reproduce the field as themselves experience it" (p. 359). The author suggests that: "Ms W's practice is produced by the field of obesity research and intervention, while Mr R's practice is produced by the critical field of health and physical education" (p. 355).
In the field of scientific research and interventions, bodies are both classed and racialised. One of the methods adapted by this field is Body Mass Index (BMI), and it categorize people's bodies as "underweight", "normal", "overweight" and "obese". The latter two categories are deem to be the "bad" side of of the scale, bodies in these categories are "at risk" and "unhealthy". In this field, brown bodies have relatively less symbolic capital, because statistical data shows Maori and Pacifika people are disproportionally "overweight" and "obese". In fact, this phenomena is due to various of factors and errors, but these reports provide people the opportunities to make snap-judgements on certain ethnicity.
Although Ms W reinforces the key features of critical thinking, the students will still draw information from the wrong field (new media). The students conclusions to obesity are likely to be "poor diet" and "lack of physical activities". They may overlook the underlying factors and power relations that create this "epidemic" within the Maori and Pacifika communities. Therefore, the negative image of brown bodies is reproduced in class, and it continues to be marginalized in the society.
In the field of critical health and physical education, scholars question the existing discourse of "traditional" physical education and health education practices. They adapt the critical approach and a sociocultural perspective in viewing health issues. In contrast to Ms W's approach, this field emphasizes "critical inquiry". Critical inquiry involves "assisting students to examine and challenge the status quo, the dominant construction of reality, and the power relations that produce inequalities" (Wright, 2004a, p. 7, cited p.358). Therefore, compare to Ms W approach, Mr R's approach has more potential to promote "social justice" which is frequently mentioned in the New Zealand Curriculum.
As a result, students from Mr R's class have better understanding of the assumptions that circulate in our society. Their critical thinking is align with the critical field of health and physical education. However, on the other hand, Ms W's students understanding only restricted to "personal responsibility", more tendency towards the notion of "individualism". The author also notices, after having Mr R as their HPE teacher in Year 12, they have changed their field when they are taught by Ms W in Year 13. Their field is changing and sometimes overlapping, and thus the dynamics of the society is constantly shifting.