From Obstacle to Opportunity, Essay Example

How do you feel that Dyson links the connection between knowledge and power? Why does Dyson feel there is there a need to justify my story? What is auto ethnography? What Dyson feel is an appropriate methodological approach for a particular study? Does he feel it can that one can associate with an outsider and an insider within the culture that I was investigating? Does Dyson feel that auto ethnographic writing require the author to reveal their voice up front? Can auto ethnography be used as a narrative? Does Dyson feel that metaphors important in writing? Does Dyson use a journey metaphor? How does Dyson explain deep pools? How does Dyson describe overhanging branches? How does Dyson describe rapids? What does he highlight as the benefit of using landscape of transformation in writing? What does Dyson feel is the power of auto ethnography?

What are Bavinton’s view about leisure practices? How does Bavinton explain the spaces of urban environment? What are the leisure constraints of the post-structural theorization of power? What are the leisure constraints of the post-structural theorization of resistance? What are the leisure constraints of the post-structural theorization of organization of public space? How does Bavinton explain these constraints? What is the spatial-cognitive process? Does Bavinton support this theory? Why do you think that Bavinton focus so much on leisure and its importance on constraints and resistance?

When I was reviewing Nathaniel Bavinton several questions came into the equation: How does Bavinton explain the leisure constraints? Why is leisure such an important concept? Is it vital that I understand leisure in a general sense to understand the extensive potential meaning? “Leisure is recognized as a domain of social life in which power is negotiated, won, and lost, and in this regard is no less important than any other field of power relations” (Bavinton, 2011: p.3).  Theorist explain the ides of operating in such a social perspective typically emphasize the leisure as a form of cultural constraint between subordinate dominate groups. It can serve a justification for discrimination and thus spreading control through ideology.

Bavinton supports the idea that there a method to navigate the space and objects of urban environments. Research has validate that there is an itemized understanding which is focused on accounting for the experience of negotiation and leisure constraints. I have drawn the conclusion that there is an issue with resistance and power that must be considered in the discussing organizations and their leisure settings. This is a complex process which that requires an individual to negotiate within certain constraints. I have drawn the conclusion through Bavinton’s writings that the creative and fun characteristic  is no necessarily gained by removing constraints, but by finding a new meaning and utilization of such believed constraints. The empowerment of individual to gain control through the power of relations which are built and strongly embedded in the public urban spaces. I understand that Bavinton puts significant responsibility on the individual to bypass any believed constraints.

I also conclude that Bavinton supports the idea of power can be industrious and is also current in all social associations. Shogun, 2002 dictates that understanding leisure constraints, the rules of the game, determines the parameters for which actions and experiences can occur. They advise that specific actions, banning other actions, while mandating the boundaries for which the action are justifiable and they make sense. A big part of this theory is based upon how the user, myself, understand and implement these limitations. For example, in order for women to step outside of the stereotype such as their physical ability and limitation, they have to implement the skills necessary for such development. Supporting this idea, Wearing (1998) would advise women to utilize the leisure spaces which are traditionally dominated by the men. For example, women should participate in weight lifting, car repair, maintenance, and rock climbing. This allows their mind and body to adapt to a new, non-traditional way of life. By using such a practice, they wake their body to what they call bodily potential. Britzman (2003) supported this as well by dictating the important of education. “For education belongs among the most elementary and necessary activities of human society, which never remains as it is but continuously renews itself through birth through the arrival of new humans beings. These newcomers, moreover are not finished but in a state of becoming” (Britzman, 2003: p.9). There is substantial validity behind Nathaniel Bavinton’s ideas of leisure constraints, and   a further study will provide a much more substantial understanding and implementation. Power and knowledge are important, how things are perceived and how they are really is not necessary accurate. Denying evidence that is clearly visible, also takes away from the potential outcome. As shown, the perception of women can be altered by merely             encroaching on the male dominated activities. Refusing socially constructed meanings is to limit the objective qualities and its true potential uses. Going beyond the limits justifies that there is always more than one usage for any giving thing.

References

Bavinton, Nathaniel. “From Obstacle to Opportunity: Parkour, leisure, and the Reinterpretation  of Constraints.” Annals of Leisure Research, 2011, 10, pp, 391-412.

Borden, Iain. “Skateboarding and Found Space.” Skateboarding, Space, and the City: Architecture and the Body, 2001, pp 1-12, 27-55.

Britzman, D. Practice makes Practice. 2003.  New York: State University of New York.

Dyson, Michael. “My Story in a Profession of Stories: Auto Ethnography – an Empowering Methodology for Educator.” Austrailian Journal of Teacher Education, 2007. Volume 32, Issue 1.

Shogun, D. “Characterizing constraints of leisure: A Foucaultian analysis of Leisure Constraints.” Leisure Studies, 2002, 21(1), 27-38.

Wearing, B. Leisure and Feminist Theory. 1998. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage