{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01686217008797654, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.378504672897196, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Bodies, Meanings and Movement: A Comparison of the Language of a Physical Education Lesson and a Feldenkrais Movement Class

In Western societies since (and probably before) Descartes, the human body has been objectified and alienated from the self, something to be subdued, managed and more recently worked upon as symbol of self-value. Sport and exercise are sites where the objectification of the body has been traditionally promoted. In recent times with the scientisation of elite sport and the commodification of bodies in sport, the objectification of the body has taken new forms and achieved greater prominence. Physical education as the school site for body work has been implicated in the process of objectification and alienation. The traditional practices of physical education, including choices in teacher language, position bodies as objects, and movement as an instrumental outcome of practice. Not all movement practices, however, subscribe to this approach. This paper will compare the language practices of teachers in a physical education lesson and a Feldenkrais movement class as these constitute different forms of embodiment, different selves. Its purpose is to provide further resources for critical reflection on the ways in which pedagogical practices position students and contribute to the shaping of particular forms of subjectivity.