DEFINING PARKOUR

Parkour’s  emergence  as  an  internationally  recognised  activity  throughout  the  first  decade   of   the   twenty–first   century,   both   expresses   the   growing   influence   of   communication   technology  on  everyday  life,  and  the  re–envisaging  of  the  spaces  in  which  it  is  situated.  The   activity  is  largely  associated  with  developing  innovative  ways  to  express  physical  mobility  in   order   to   transform   the   urban   environment   into   an   ever–evolving   terrain   of   challenges,   which  are  to  be  creatively  negotiated.  Consequently,  on  the  surface  it  appears  to  parallel   other   thrill   seeking   activities   such   as   skateboarding   or   surfboarding,   however,   as   the   following  investigation  suggests  it  has  many  underlying  differences.  I  argue  that  the  distinct   nature  of  parkour  as  a  practice  that  requires  a  minimal  amount  of  equipment  makes  it  an   appropriate   subject   for   the   human   body’s   connection   to   the   conditions   of   contemporary   urban  space.  As  the  term  parkour  has  only  been  in  use  by  a  relatively  small  group  of  people   up  until  the  last  decade,  it  has  yet  to  be  included  into  a  formal  dictionary.  When  discussing   the  nature  of  parkour  Dan  Edwardes  a  coach  in  the  discipline  explains,  

On  the  physical  level,  parkour  aims  to  enable  you  to  move  freely  through  and  over   any  terrain,  in  any  conditions.  In  practice,  it  focuses  on  developing  the  fundamental   attributes  required  for  such  movement  –  balance,  strength,  dynamism,  endurance,   spatial  awareness  and  creative  vision.  The  discipline  is  a  way  of  training  your  body   and   mind   in   order   to   be   as   completely   functional,   effective   and   liberated   as   possible  in  the  physical  realm.  It  is  also  a  way  of  thinking,  based  on  rigorous  self– discipline,  autonomous  action  and  self–will  (2009,  pp  10–11).  

Edwardes   also   explains   that   ‘running,   jumping   and   climbing’   are   essentially   the   building   blocks   that   are   at   the   core   of   developing   movement   within   parkour.  Although   these   movements  can  be  found  within  other  formalised  physical  activities  such  as  martial  arts,  it   is  regarded  as  a  distinctly  different  practice  due  to  the  focus  on  individuals  establishing  an   individualised   character   of   movement.   Practitioners   also   focus   upon   overcoming   personalised  goals  rather  than  working  within  a  system  of  contest.  As  parkour  emphasises   the  internal  aims  and  objectives  of  individuals  rather  than  predefined  rules,  as  in  a  game  or   other  form  of  competition,  the  boundaries  of  what  exactly  constitutes  parkour  are  not  easy   to  delineate.    The  practice  thus  becomes  not  simply  established  by  events  but  by  a  process   of  learning  that  is  prompted  by  examining  the  mobility  of  the  body  and  a  questioning  of  the   meaning  of  the  environment  that  surrounds  it.  As  Edwardes  points  out;    

Parkour   has   existed   for   as   long   as   man   has   moved   either   out   of   necessity,   for   enjoyment  or  for  practice.  It  exists  as  the  basis  of  all  human  movement,  from  the   play   of   children   to   the   lifestyles   of   tribal   cultures   and   from   the   discipline   of   the   traditional  martial  arts  to  the  methodology  of  modern  athletics  (Edwardes  2009,  p.   8).    

Parkour  or  L’art  du  déplacement  as  it  is  also  known  should  therefore  be  seen  as  a  primitive   investigation  of  bodily  movement  that  defies  the  governance  of  conventional  social  codes   to   examine   the   potential   of   spatial   conditions.   The   linguistic   connotations   of   the   term   déplacement   or   its   English   translation  displacement   are   of   particular   importance   for   this   study.   From   a   social   science   perspective   the   notion   of   displacement   is   associated   with   a   migration   of   peoples   on   a   global   scale,   which   puts   them   into   an   unfamiliar   context.   The   notion  of  displacement,  unlike  mobility,  the  term  suggests  a  sense  of  being  out  of  place,  and   a  ‘reaching  beyond  the  boundaries  of  residence  to  include  that  wider   sense  of   belonging   more  usually  described  as  a  “sense  of  place”’  (Cresswell  2004,  p  .116).    

This   unfamiliar   relationship   between   individuals   and   environment   creates   a   perception   of   them   and   perspective   from   them   that   is   considered  out–of   –place.   For   the   geographer  Tim  Cresswell,  to  be  out–of–place  is  synonymous  with  transgression,  a  crossing   of  both  a  geographical  and  socio–cultural  line.  Cresswell  suggests  that  just  as  anachronism   defines  things  that  are  out  of  time,  the  term  anachorism  can  be  used  for  discussing  things   in  the  wrong  place  (Cresswell  2004,  p.  103).  Subsequently,  parkour  could  be  seen  as  such  –   not  simply  an  expression  of  mobility,  but  a  movement  which  is  seen  as  being  out–of–place   from  its  socio–cultural/  spatial  context.  This  leads  to  participants  taking  a  viewpoint  that  is   contradictory  to  the  conventions  that  govern  the  environment  in  which  they  are  situated.    

The  term  place  has  long  been  held  as  a  means  of  understanding  the  way  in  which   individuals  develop  an  empathy  with  spaces  in  order  to  define  a  connection  that  creates  a   sense  of  belonging.  Notions  of  place–making  are  therefore  examined  by  scholars  as  a  way   of  understanding  the  connection  human  beings  establish  with  their  surroundings.  Christian   Norberg–Schulz’s  examination  of  the  work  of  Martin  Heidegger  presents  the  argument  that   the   practice   of   place–making   requires   two   psychological   functions;   it   involves  orientation  

and   identification  (Norberg–Schulz   1980,   p.   19).  Through   these   two   functions,   Norberg–

Schulz  argues  that  the  principle  of  dwelling,  a  concept  that  he  defines  as  being  at  ‘peace   within  a  protected  place’  (Norberg–Schulz  1980,  p.  22)  can  be  achieved.  Thus,  I  would  argue   that   although   parkour   is   intertwined   with   the   functions   of   orientation   and   identification,   the  condition  of  dwelling  could  be  seen  as  the  antithesis  of  the  aforementioned  notion  of  

displacement.  Traceurs  preoccupation  with   the   orientation   of   space   in   order   to   create   a  

doing   so,   exiles   them   from   a   state   of   belonging   to   it.   As   a   restless   wanderer   of   space,   a  

homo–viator  so  to  speak,  a  practitioner  of  parkour  seeks  to  identify  with  architecture  in  a  

manner  that  is  at  odds  with  the  values  of  the  society  in  which  it  is  placed.  It  is  therefore   important  to  consider  this  body–building  relationship  is  not  a  negation  of  the  factors  that   constitute  a  sense  place,  but  rather,  it  is  a  means  of  examining  a  sense  of  belonging  that   contradicts   the   hegemonic   identity   associated   with   a   location.   In   doing   so,   parkour   is   inextricably   linked   to   the   notion   of  becoming,   as   it   provokes   practitioners   to   test   the   limitations   of   their   bodily   interaction   with   their   environment.   Parkour’s   challenge   to   normative  forms  of  behaviour  raises  a  number  of  key  questions  regarding  the  evolution  of   human  movement,  and  to  what  extent  it  is  determined  by  human  nature  or  by  man–made   culture.  Parkour’s  reputation  as  an  activity  associated  with  the  built  environment  also  helps   to   examine   arguments,   such   as   that   of   the   anthropologist   Tim   Inglod   (2004),   that   movement  should  be  neither  attributed  to  nature  or  culture  but  rather  to  environmental   context  in  which  individuals  have  a  connection  to.  By  examining  the  urban  context  as  the   environment   in   which   parkour   has   developed,   this   study   raises   questions   about   the   significance  of  the  body’s  mobility  in  understanding  a  sense  of  place.    

By  taking  into  consideration  both  the  historical  accounts  of  traceurs  activities  and   their   visual   representation,   this   study   will   demonstrate   their   importance   as   a   figure   for   understanding   contemporary   urban   space   both   in   terms   of   function   and   in   context   of   contested  ideas  surrounding  the  concept  of  place  and  its  meaning.