Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T03:21:34.471Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Crossing the symbolic boundaries: parkour, gender and urban spaces in Genoa

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 February 2016

Luisa Stagi
Luisa Stagi*
Affiliation:
DISFOR, University of Genoa, Genoa, Italy
*
∗Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper shows how girls and women who practise parkour cross the gendered divisions of space, sport and other symbolic territories that are brought into play by so-called risk-taking sports, and how it may therefore be considered a subversive action. The strategies of negotiation produced by such symbolic crossings are examined via the concepts of reproductive and resistant agency and of gender manoeuvring. In particular the concept of gender manoeuvring will be used to examine the mechanisms of inter- and intra-gender inclusion and exclusion which, within subcultures, pass through a recognition of authenticity. Indeed, in the culture of parkour the question of authenticity emerges when media dissemination produces a split into two distinct practices: art du déplacement and freerunning. The traceuses cross this boundary because of their different origin (they are from the streets as opposed to the gym), thereby building within their gender further discourses on authenticity.

Utilizzando la prospettiva analitica del paradigma eteronormativo, in questo articolo si tratta di come la pratica femminile del parkour attraversi la divisione sessuata dello spazio, dello sport e degli altri territori simbolici che vengono messi in gioco dalle pratiche cosiddette a rischio, e di come, per questo, possa essere considerata un'azione sovversiva. Le strategie di adattamento e di negoziazione generate da tali rotture simboliche sono trattate attraverso i concetti di reproductive e resistant agency e di gender manoevring. Il concetto di gender manoevring, in particolare, è utilizzato per trattare dei meccanismi di inclusione e di esclusione inter e intra genere che, all'interno delle subculture, passano attraverso il riconoscimento di autenticità. Nella cultura del parkour, infatti, la questione dell'autenticità emerge quando la diffusione mediatica, radicalizzando le differenze iniziali, produce la divisione in due pratiche distinte: l'ADD (Art du dèplacement) e il Free Running. Le ragazze e le donne che praticano PK incrociano questa divisione con la variabile provenienza (dalla strada Vs dalla palestra) rinegoziando diversi capitali simbolici e producendo così, all'interno del genere, ulteriori discorsi sull'autenticità.

Keywords

parkourgendersymbolic boundaries
Type
Research Article
Information
Modern Italy , Volume 20 , Issue 3 , August 2015 , pp. 295 - 305
Copyright
Copyright © 2015 Association for the study of Modern Italy 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anderson, Kl. 1999. “Snowboarding: The Construction of Gender in an Emerging Sport.” Journal of Sport & Social Issues 23 (1): 55–79. doi:10.1177/0193723599231005.Google Scholar
Atencio, M., Beal, B., and Wilson, C.. 2009. “The Distinction of Risk: Urban Skateboarding, Street Habitus and the Construction of Hierarchical Gender Relations.” Qualitative Research in Sport and Exercise 1 (1): 3–20. doi:10.1080/19398440802567907.Google Scholar
Atkinson, M. 2009. “Parkour, Anarcho-Environmentalism, and Poiesis.” Journal of Sport & Social Issues 33 (2): 169–194. doi:10.1177/0193723509332582.Google Scholar
Bäckström, Å. 2013. “Gender Manoeuvring in Swedish Skateboarding: Negotiations of Femininities and the Hierarchical Gender Structure.” Young 21 (1): 29–53. doi:10.1177/1103308812467670.Google Scholar
Benasso, S., and Stagi, L.. 2013. “Tracce di corpi urbani.” Lo Squaderno 27: 9–15, http://www.losquaderno.professionaldreamers.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/losquaderno27.pdf.Google Scholar
Blidon, M. 2011. “La città e gli effetti dell'eteronormatività. Emancipazione, normalizzazione e produzione di soggetti gay.” Bollettino della società geografica italiana (XIII) IV: 31–40.Google Scholar
Borghi, R. 2010. “Generi urbani: la città eteronormata”.” In In È successo qualcosa alla città. Manuale di antropologia urbana, edited by Barbieri, P., 187–191. Roma: Donzelli.Google Scholar
Borghi, R., and Dell'Agnese, E.. 2009. “Genere.” In Geografia: strumenti e parole, edited by Dell'Agnese, E., 291–312. Milan: Unicopli.Google Scholar
Borghi, R., and Schmidt Di Friedberg, M.. 2011. “Introduzione.” Bollettino della società geografica italiana (XIII) IV: 7–12.Google Scholar
Bourdieu, P. 1979. La distinction. Critique sociale du jugement. Paris: Éditions de Minuit.Google Scholar
Bourdieu, P. 1998. La domination masculine. Paris: Éditions du Seuil.Google Scholar
Butler, J. 1990. Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Christie, M. 2003. Jump London. London: BBC, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8fSXGP9wvQ.Google Scholar
Ciccone, S. 2009. Essere maschi tra potere e libertà. Torino: Rosemberg e Sellier.Google Scholar
Connell, R. 1995. Masculinities. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Dunning, E. 1999. Sport Matters: Sociological Studies of Sport, Violence and Civilization. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kidder, J. 2013. “Parkour, Masculinity, and the City.” Sociology of Sport Journal 30: 1–23.Google Scholar
Kolnes, L-J. 1995. “Heterosexuality as an Organizing Principle in Women's Sport.” International Review for the Sociology of Sport 30 (1): 61–77. doi:10.1177/101269029503000104.Google Scholar
Laurendeau, J., and Sharara, N.. 2008. “Women Could be Every Bit as Good as Guys: Reproductive and Resistant Agency in Two ‘Action’ Sports.” Journal of Sport & Social Issues 32 (1): 24–47. doi:10.1177/0193723507307819.Google Scholar
Lenskyj, Hj. 2013. “Reflections on Communication and Sport: On Heteronormativity and Gender Identities.” Communication and Sport 1 (1–2): 138–150. doi:10.1177/2167479512467327.Google Scholar
Lyng, S. 1990. “Edgework: A Social Psychological Analysis of Voluntary Risk Taking.” American Journal of Sociology 95 (4): 851–886. doi:10.1086/229379.Google Scholar
Newmahr, S. 2011. “Chaos, Order, and Collaboration: Toward a Feminist Conceptualization of Edgework.” Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 40 (6): 682–712. doi:10.1177/0891241611425177.Google Scholar
Peignist, M. 2009. “Homo acrobaticus et corps des extrémités.” Magma 7 (3). http://www.analisiqualitativa.com/magma/0703/article_13.htm.Google Scholar
Pringle, R. 2005. “Masculinities, Sport, and Power: A Critical Comparison of Gramscian and Foucauldian Inspired Theoretical Tools.” Journal of Sport and Social Issues 29 (3): 256–278. doi:10.1177/0193723505276228.Google Scholar
Schippers, M. 2002. Rockin' Out of the Box: Gender Maneuvering in Alternative Hard Rock. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
Stoddart, Mc. 2011. “Constructing Masculinized Sportscapes: Skiing, Gender and Nature in British Columbia, Canada.” International Review for the Sociology of Sport 46 (1): 108–124. doi:10.1177/1012690210373541.Google Scholar
Thornton, S. 1995. Club Cultures: Music, Media and Subcultural Capital. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Thorpe, H. 2006. “Beyond ‘Decorative Sociology’: Contextualizing Female Surf, Skate, and Snowboarding.” Sociology of Sport Journal 23: 205–228.Google Scholar
Thorpe, H. 2010. “Bourdieu, Gender Reflexivity, and Physical Culture: A Case of Masculinities in the Snowboarding Field.” Journal of Sport & Social Issues 34 (2): 176–214. doi:10.1177/0193723510367770.Google Scholar
Vivoni, F. 2009. “Spots of Spatial Desire: Skateparks, Skateplazas, and Urban Politics.” Journal of Sport & Social Issues 33 (2): 130–149. doi:10.1177/0193723509332580.Google Scholar
Wheaton, B. 2007. “After Sport Culture: Rethinking Sport and Post-Subcultural Theory.” Journal of Sport & Social Issues 31 (3): 283–307. doi:10.1177/0193723507301049.Google Scholar