Ruin, 2018, p. 159). Despite teachers’ best intentions, a standardised curriculum further reinforces these normative ideals, rather than viewing bodies in a way that promotes and celebrates difference. Moving towards a PE which considers participation, movement and ‘achievement’ in alternative ways necessitates education reform which goes much further than altering one subject discipline. Turning towards difference, instead of viewing it as a deficit, requires a reframing and problematising of what it means to be ‘physical’ in the first place; a (re)consideration of what it means to be ‘fit’, and an emphasis on relationality and community, over individual goals and success measures. Within a fixed curriculum, with limited resources and onerous workload pressures, this is a challenge; but it is one which invites us all to turn away from the universal, normative modes of teaching and adopt process-led practice, grounded in the care of individuals and elevation of different modes of being human (Sidebottom & Bancroft, 2026). From deficit models to promotion of difference So what might posthuman processes of inclusion look like in practice? Petrie, Devcich and Fitzgerald’s (2018) research, which explores the practical experiences of PE teachers, suggests that change begins in dialogue and partnership with students. Inquiring critically together into questions such as ‘what does it mean to be active?’ firstly opens up space for questioning hegemonic ideals of mobility and exploring other notions of what ‘active’ could mean for different bodies (embracing both the diversity present within the class, and in the world more generally). Discovering what students enjoy about the multiple ways that activity occurs then allows for the emergence of new ideas of how to be active both individually and together – highlighting the role of participation, team-working and people skills. Considering mobility differently in this way can then lead on to the introduction of new or adapted games or sports, created as a learning community; activities which embrace difference while not relying on tradition, certain understandings of what a human body can do, or differentiation by gender. Undertaking these forms of dialogic and creative pedagogy require teacher reflexivity and humility, along with the understanding that you are likely to get some things wrong. But by understanding and celebrating what bodies and minds of all kinds can achieve – and what they have the potential to achieve – we can begin to enact new ‘activity imaginaries’. In doing so, we expose and defamiliarise the constraints of neoliberal education systems and open up alternative possibilities.
REFERENCES Braidotti, R. (2013). The posthuman . Polity Press.
QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION 1. In what ways does PE privilege normative ideals of what it means to be human? 2. What kinds of practices are disrupting this in a meaningful way that goes beyond differentiation? 3. What other ways of promoting difference in PE are possible, considering the different levels of policy, curriculum design and individual teachers’ pedagogical practices? Giese, M., & Ruin, S. (2018). Forgotten bodies: An examination of physical education from the perspective of ableism. Sport in Society , 21 (1), 152–165. https://doi.org/10.1080/17430437.2016.122 5857 Petrie, K., Devcich, J., & Fitzgerald, H. (2018). Working towards inclusive physical education in a primary school: ‘Some days I just don’t get it right’, Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy , 23 (4), 345–357. https://doi.org/10.1080/17408989.2018.1441391 Sidebottom, K., & Bancroft, K. (2026). Posthumanism, disability, and physical education. In A. Maher, J. Haegele, & J. Coates (Eds.), Routledge handbook of qualitative methods for researching disability in physical education (pp. 69–82). Routledge.
BERA BITES 15 | EDUCATING FOR ALL
23
Powered by FlippingBook