Bringing the Decolonial into Kinesiology, Health, and Sport Ethics

The field of kinesiology revolves around the moving, healthy body. Only recently have practitioners begun to consider how foundational ideas about the body are linked to colonial histories, eugenics movements, and European standards. Consider ideas of beautiful bodies that centre thin European women, ideas of fitness in which non-disabled bodies reign, and ideas of movement that lead to sports such as (men’s) football and hockey being much more understood, researched, and practiced than bhangra or capoeira. For students and scholars of kinesiology to know what constitutes the notion of fairness, who should be included, how bodies ought to move, and why marginalization continues, discussions of ethics in kinesiology must be decolonized. 

Decolonizing kinesiology requires acknowledging that the judgments of “good” health and “normal” moving bodies are rooted in linear colonial ideas of pursuing higher, faster, stronger. The Decolonizing Kinesiology Ethics Model (DKEM)11J. Joseph and D. Kriger, “Towards a Decolonizing Kinesiology Ethics Model,” Quest 73, no. 3 (2021): 192–208, http://doi.org/10.1080/00336297.2021.1898996. was developed to recognize the ways kinesiology practices reinforce power relations that disproportionately impact the health, liberty, and longevity of people who identify as Black, Indigenous, and people of colour (BIPOC); lesbian, gay, bisexual/biromantic, transgender, queer, intersex, asexual, two-spirit, and other sexual and gender identities (LGBTQIA2S+); neurodivergent; disabled; and women. Through the DKEM, people invested in kinesiology can promote health, sport, and well-being beyond colonial ideas and ideals of excellence and superficial notions of inclusion. For example, personal trainers in leisure and fitness centres who ask their clients how much weight they want to lose may be inadvertently discounting the autonomy of those who believe in health at every size22See, for example, the Health at Every Size website: https://haescommunity.com/. or fat liberation. Decolonial perspectives must be approached as an interdisciplinary, creative, collaborative project among those interested in movement and health at the level of cells, joints, minds, bodies, people, cultures, and policies—starting with recognizing the historically narrow scientific lens through which the body has been viewed, and the broad colonial context in which movement and health are currently situated.

The DKEM proposes six ways to improve ethical work related to movement: (1) social justice, (2) practitioner vulnerability, and (3) relationships in a social-political-historical context, alongside traditional ethical principles of (4) autonomy, (5) beneficence, and (6) non-maleficence. 

As a response to inequality, social justice aims to transform laws, institutions, systems, and professional practices that distribute unequal life chances to members of society from birth—goals that align with the ideals of decolonization. We know negative health outcomes, including higher health risks and shorter life expectancy, are prevalent among marginalized communities such as Black, Indigenous, and disabled groups. What does the colonial history of moving bodies have to do with health? Historically, each of these groups has been formally excluded from sport access and health care. Black people’s bodies were treated as disposable commodities, forced to work (move) to death during the transatlantic slave trade and, today, Black people disproportionately fill manual and menial labour positions. Indigenous children were removed from their homes and forced to assimilate through Western physical activities in residential schools, then as adults were formally excluded from sport due to rules relating to professional-amateur divides based in racism. Disabled groups have been assumed incompetent, institutionalized, and prevented from enjoying access to sport and health in ways that suit them since the advent of Western sports in the 1800s—and little has changed despite the efforts of the Paralympic movement of the 1960s. Paralympic practices have continued to reproduce disabled athletes as “tragic” figures who are medically rescued through sport and rehabilitation and, “in contrast to the claim of empowerment, are implicated in the perpetuation of [exclusionary] practices and unequal power relationships.”33D. Peers, “Patients, Athletes, Freaks: Paralympism and the Reproduction of Disability,” Journal of Sport and Social Issues 36, no. 3 (2012): 295–316, http://doi.org/10.1177/0193723512442201. Black, Indigenous, and disabled groups are often then blamed for their own poor health outcomes, which are, in fact, caused by ongoing colonial structures and processes. 

To avoid reproducing the harms resulting from historical power imbalances, kinesiology practitioners must understand the truths of colonial histories and centre a social justice approach, which entails politicizing care, recognizing self-determination, and supporting underrepresented, under-cared for, and under-resourced people and communities. The beneficent desire to help that often motivates coaches, nurses, recreation professionals, and kinesiology researchers may lead to decisions that reinforce unjust harms by perpetuating what is considered “normal,” “obvious,” and even “excellent.” Kinesiology practitioners who emphasize social justice in their ethical decision-making work with not for the oppressed in their struggles for liberation and see every interaction and space as a potential site for justice, the fair distribution of resources, and demonstrating vulnerability to achieve the goals of improving health and sport inclusion.

Attention to vulnerability in kinesiology-related professions has focused on the ways certain populations have been taken advantage of in the name of health research, clinical intervention, and sports competition (for example, vulnerable child gymnasts in relation to abusive coaches).44A. Stirling and G. A. Kerr, “Initiating and Sustaining Emotional Abuse in the Coach–Athlete Relationship: An Ecological Transactional Model of Vulnerability,” Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma 23, no. 2 (2014): 116–35, http://doi.org/10.1080/10926771.2014.872747. Decolonial practice means adding attention to the ways practitioners have vulnerabilities too. Experts may be trained to know everything about bodily systems and experiences from a Euro-scientific perspective, but considering vulnerability means, rather, entertaining not-knowing, showing humility, and learning from those who are served—students, clients, athletes, patients—to improve relationships. To practice vulnerability, a kinesiology practitioner must reflect on their personal histories, acknowledge their prejudices, and discover the values that undergird certain privileges (e.g., weight loss is “always” the goal of personal training and is something “good”). Vulnerability requires believing what people seeking service say, sometimes conceding being wrong, and apologizing when necessary. In contrast to the modern, human-centred, colonial paradigm that regards teachers, coaches, and athletic trainers as infallible experts (they have degrees in post-secondary education, after all), the DKEM reminds the practitioner to demonstrate vulnerability within a context of relationality to others.

The focus on context and relationships in the DKEM outlines a norm of considering the ancient, colonial, and intergenerational legacies that create our current social structures. Relationships are at the core of all ethics models, but decolonial practices, by contrast, situate relationships as intimate connections to people, land, air, water, space, and time. Narrow ideas of the medicalized, (un)fit, or (un)athletic body normalized through time and space can be perpetuated or challenged. The DKEM invites practitioners to consider their relationships with previous generations of scholars and experts and multiple ways of knowing and being.

Most ethics models reference principles of autonomy, beneficence, and non-maleficence. Kinesiology practitioners too have an obligation to respect autonomy through discerning whether the people they serve can make their own decisions about their bodies, have the necessary information to make those decisions, and are not coerced. The DKEM offers a decolonizing expansion to the principle of autonomy. The concept of an autonomous individual as one embodied person is a Eurocentric definition reinforced through colonial sport and health practices. “Autonomous” students, clients, athletes, and patients may not understand the medical information in the way it is presented, may not want to be informed of risks, or may not see themselves as solely responsible for their decision-making. If the goal of respecting autonomy is to maximize benefits (beneficence) and do no harm (non-maleficence) then it is possible that family or community, rather than individual, definitions of “benefits” and “harms” should be adhered to. Critical questions must be asked of each interaction to reflect on how the practitioner has decided what the “best” outcomes are. Many sport for development programs, for example, involve outsiders entering under-resourced communities to teach and create access to Western sports. While the objectives may include girls’ empowerment or HIV/AIDS education through sport, the methods mirror colonial missions of the 1800s to “civilize” natives. What is considered “harm” ought to be contextualized and defined from a particular community’s perspective. The terms “benefits” and “harms” are neither universal nor neutral.

The DKEM can serve as a foundation to shift sport and health practitioners toward more equitable practices and improve movement and well-being opportunities and outcomes. The importance of vulnerability, context, relationships, autonomy, beneficence, and non-maleficence in the social justice framework of the DKEM challenges practitioners to link individuals’ lived experiences to broader systems, histories, and populations to provide better care and transform how bodies, health, and movement are understood.