Physical Literacy, Inclusiveness, and The Spatial Imaginary: A Summer Challenge

At the SHAPE America national convention in Seattle, I finally had the opportunity to meet, and participate in a session with Dr. Brian Culp. Alongside John Strong and Dr. Brandy Lynch, their presentation titled ‘Keys to Unlocking a Diverse and Socially Just HPE Space’ shared resources, provided space for deep self-reflection, and reminded attendees that we should never stop striving to make our classrooms more just and inclusive. I know that Dr. Culp is a very busy man, so when I invited him to share a blog post I was delighted that he accepted. After reading this post you won’t see places and spaces in the same light again.

Introduction

As summer is on the horizon, many of us are making plans to be outside and active. But when is the last time you have taken a moment to make sense of your surroundings and contemplate how these places came to be? Have you ever contemplated who isn’t represented in the spaces you are active in? Likewise, do you have any knowledge of the places where you are active and if the histories of these places have ever made the pursuit of lifespan physical literacy challenging for others? Certainly, physical literacy is a concept open to multiple interpretations. Regardless of philosophical approach, I believe that we can assist in sustaining an ecosystem for physical literacy and health, through a more comprehensive understanding of spatiality, or simply aspects of life involving the nature of space.

The Spatial Imaginary

In a recent keynote address, I challenged attendees to expand the notion of physical literacy in thinking of inclusiveness by opening the door to inclusion through the spatial imaginary, particularly in thinking how access to parks, recreational spaces, and green spaces come to realization. Too often, we have taken for granted that “green is always gettable”, which is a flaw that undermines health outcomes for underrepresented populations. The spatial imaginary is not a new concept. Historically, discourse on the spatial imagination has been in the discipline of geography, defined as a physical context in which one can think and act creatively about one’s environment or space.

In my modified definition, the spatial imaginary refers to an understanding of how we gain literacy about space, movement, and the histories and social forces (i.e., politics, economics, culture, race, gender) that are impactful as we frame our physical literacy journeys. This imaginary also causes us to reflect on factors of influence in our lives that produce our comfort level in any given space, around others who are not like us, and the creation of policy. For example, over the past few years, urban designers and those who work for equitable placemaking have sought to engrain the notion of public spaces being for “everyone.” However, it is a problematic generalization when we recognize that there is a misalignment between the rhetoric of public space being democratic and the experience of marginalized groups in public spaces. In other words, the thought of access for all assumes that every space is equal and negotiated in a neutral fashion. Consider the following recent findings:

Lower socio-economic status (SES), racial and ethnic minorities, and rural populations have more limited access to spaces for children’s play in neighborhoods, parks, and schools, compared to higher SES, non-Hispanic white, and urban groups.

Adverse physical and social conditions in some low-income and racial and ethnic diverse neighborhoods may limit access to recreational spaces, such as limited public and active transportation opportunities, personal safety concerns, lack of inclusion, and low public awareness.

Disparities in access and quality of play spaces could result from historical and contemporary forms of systemic racism, such as racially discriminatory land use and housing policies.

A growing body of research on green space implies that there are significant inequities in green space at the intersection of disability, race, and class, as well as across the urban–rural continuum.

So, what can we do?

Here are four brief ideas that could help us in cultivating a spatial imaginary that is inclusive:

1. Interrogating what physical literacy means.

In thinking of spatial matters, we must recognize that the production of space globally has been heavily consistent with a frame that centers whiteness, heteronormativity, misogyny, ableism, western, and Judeo-Christian values. Often, space develops on class lines in respect to urban vs. rural and funded based on what is considered elite activities vs. recreational ones. While these frames are socially constructed, they have been adhered to as standard operating practice. This adherence to the “standard” has caused distresses such as ethnic and racial redlining, blockbusting, cityhood movements, and privatization of once public land. It has also influenced what is considered “normal” in respect to sport participation.

Certainly, when thinking of spatiality and the spatial imagination, we should remind ourselves that we must continue to critically think about “distance,” particularly the simultaneous creation of hierarchically ordered status and spaces and the myths created to restrict selected groups to keep them subjected. To paraphrase James Baldwin: “who established distance, who is distance designed to protect, and from what is distance designed to offer protection from? Also, for those of us who pay taxes, perhaps we should pay greater attention to whether our contributions are adding to the promotion of physical literacy or inadvertently keeping people from realizing their potential.

2. Gaining knowledge of systems and how they play a role in physical literacy for underrepresented groups.

Cities and communities have become so large now, that we have contained ourselves into rigid constructions. Students navigate different worlds in multiple ecosystems where positionality matters and proxemics – or the use of space in relation to behavior, communication, and social interaction has importance. These are serious matters that need more immersion and observation of groups’ culture and histories to understanding choices. When looking at Bronfrenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory for instance, five systems that espouse how children move and develop in the world are articulated. While the initial scope of the theory spoke little about structural inequalities, race, gender and sexuality, most recently scholars have used the model as a basis for talking about inequality among certain groups (i.e. Indigenous Youth, Black Youth)

3. Understanding our role as Placemakers.

Part of our role as professionals should be to help inspire people to collectively reimagine and reinvent public spaces as the heart of the community. We should also work to strengthen connections between our communities and the places they share. Placemaking refers to a collaborative process that shapes our public realm to maximize value. This concept goes beyond just promoting better urban design principles, placemaking facilitates creative thinking, capitalizes on community assets, and contributes to the community’s health, happiness, and well-being. Part of this is understanding our role as barriers or channels to physical literacy.

4. Situating places as humanizing, affirming, and liberatory sites of care.

Finally, when we talk to others about physical literacy and the spaces where activities happen, are we situating these as sites of care? Kelman (1973) noted that dehumanization is a violation of identity and community. The loss of identity is a significant occurrence for victims of dehumanization. Not only is agency (the capacity for a person to act individually and freely) lost but, effectively, a dehumanized individual excluded from community and the promise of what it has to offer. Given your experience, would you consider the spaces you interact in to be spaces humanizing, affirming and liberatory for others? When assessing activities, are these spaces representative of a positive meaning for people where human self-development and self-identity exist? Finally, can individuals produce results and relate to others who are there with them?

I challenge all of us over the next few months to expand our spatial imagination. A more expansive discussion of these ideas can be heard here.

Dr. Brian Culp is an author and Professor at Kennesaw State University who specializes in youth physical activity, social climate, anti-racism, spatial justice, and leadership. His most recent projects focus on new approaches to equity in movement, based on concepts from his (ABSOLUTE MUST-READ) book Critical Race Studies in Physical Education, which he co-authored with Dr. Tara Blackshear.

Hear Dr. Culp and Dr. Blackshear on the Shapes of Identity podcast.