Bodily practices/physical activities considered as privilege and not a choice: analysis in the light of Brazilian inequalities

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.1590/S0104-12902021200363

Keywords:

Health Policy, Socioeconomic Factors, Motor Activity

Abstract

Our article seeks to denounce bodily practices/ physical activities as another privilege in Brazil, refuting the hegemonic notion that physical activity practice is simply a choice in health care. To such purpose, we point out discursive evidence and practices influenced by the severe inequality conditions in the country. The toolbox used in this essay brought together Michel Foucault’s views on power relations, Jorge Larrosa’s perspective on essay writing, and the body of research of Collective Health. By assuming that privileges permeate the engagement in bodily practices/ physical activities, we place ourselves as advocates of public policies due to their access status. There is an urgent social challenge, namely, to create decent living conditions, to dramatically reduce inequalities, to strengthen actions towards health care as the right of all people. We concluded that bodily practices/physical activities are complex manifestations affected by the impositions of life. Conditions and ways of living must be observed, refuting the widely disseminated notion that it is enough to accumulate minutes of physical activity to be healthy.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biographies

  • Alan G Knuth, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande

    Universidade Federal do Rio Grande. Instituto de Educação. Rio Grande, RS, Brasil.

  • Priscilla de Cesaro Antunes, Universidade Federal de Goiás

    Universidade Federal de Goiás. Faculdade de Educação Física e Dança. Goiânia, GO, Brasil.

Published

2021-06-02

Issue

Section

Original research articles

How to Cite

Knuth, A. G., & Antunes, P. de C. (2021). Bodily practices/physical activities considered as privilege and not a choice: analysis in the light of Brazilian inequalities. Saúde E Sociedade, 30(2). https://doi.org/10.1590/S0104-12902021200363