Religion as an other(ed) identity within physical education: A scoping review of relevant literature and suggestions for practice and inquiry

Christianity’s foundational influence and ongoing privilege

Physical education within many Western nations has been largely influenced by the orthodoxies and tenets of muscular Christianity (Dewar, 1990; Kidd, 2006; MacAloon, 2006) and Protestant morality (Kirk, 1993). This has been particularly true for male students, though female students’ exclusion from PE in earlier times was also shaped by these same influences (Watson et al., 2005). Few researchers and scholars have considered Christianity when researching and/or contemplating the relationship between religiosity and PE. These few include Elliot and Hoyle (2014), Macdonald and Kirk (1999), McCuaig et al. (2013), McInerney et al. (2000), Pastor-Vicedo et al. (2016) and Twietmeyer (2008).

Twietmeyer (2008) questioned what he sees as Christianity’s historical tensions within PE. He suggested that one of Christian theology’s lasting impressions upon PE has been its perceived rigid metaphysical dualism. He and others (e.g. Mechikoff and Estes, 2005) indicated that improving upon PE will require an abandonment of this rigid dualism – something Watson and Parker (2004: 21) characterized as Western theology’s ‘epistemological and theological error’ – in favour of a unified or monist perspective. In fact, he challenged the common conception, offering that Christians might instead recognize the unity of the mind and body. Twietmeyer suggested that (some people’s) modern interpretations of Christianity have embraced a more embodied position on the human person; he sees more congruence than what was perhaps easily visible, or understood, by Christians in the past. It is worth noting, however, that Twietmeyer and others suggested that contemporary Christianity and PE might find a ‘common ground’ in monist or holistic conceptions instead of leaning upon agreeable conceptions that already exist and might then be offered by other faiths or cultures. For example, one might instead look for congruency between contemporary monist conceptions within PE (e.g. all physical literacy conceptions; Whitehead, 2001, 2007, 2010) and Aboriginal worldviews (see Halas et al., 2013; Sport for Life, n.d.) or Eastern Movement Traditions’ (EMTs) worldviews (see Brown and Johnson, 2012; Lu, 2012).

Elliot and Hoyle (2014) researched barriers to PE for Christian (and Muslim) girls. The impetus for their work was based partly on their observations that they could not uncover any research that explicitly assessed potential barriers to PE for Christian girls. I suggest that the absence of such research literature, alone, speaks to the privileged position Christians have within most Western (physical) education contexts. Still, this point notwithstanding, they investigated this scenario. Unsurprisingly, they found that there were few-to-no constraints to participation from ‘mainstream’ Christianity (something that differs from mainstream Islam). That is, and as those most familiar with both mainstream Christianity and contemporary PE contexts would recognize, Christianity lacks the same dress requirements or gender-related prohibitions that are more common in some other religions (and, again, remember that PE’s introduction was largely shaped by Christian ideals).

Drawing upon Foucault (1994), McCuaig et al. (2013) theorized about Christianity’s early and ongoing influence in PE. Borrowing from Foucault’s ‘pastoral power’, McCuaig et al. suggested that objectives related to leading people to salvation in the next world have been replaced by objectives related to leading people to salvation within this world. Such salvation is possible with the ‘acquisition of “worldly” rewards such as health, well-being, security and protection’ (McCuaig et al., 2013: 791). In this endeavour, a religious pastorate has been replaced by a secular political one – public schools and the physical and health education teachers within them (McCuaig et al., 2013). The application of Christianity’s old power technique, through acts of ‘surveillance and self-examination, obedience and self-regulation’ (McCuaig et al., 2013: 791), has given PE the necessary framework and tools to produce healthy and active citizens today (see also Hunter, 1994).

Macdonald and Kirk (1999) investigated their own university’s Christian PE teacher education (PETE) students and considered how their religious beliefs might relate to their own ideas about teaching PE. They found that despite their participants’ self-observations that some of their social justice priorities were aligned with their Christian moral obligations, dissonance was unavoidable with some issues. Opportunities for such dissonance were especially charged, given that PE teachers were responsible for delivering a then-new health and PE curriculum. Some of the curriculum topics that were explicitly contentious and out-of-line with the PETE students’ religious beliefs were related, for example, to sexual expression, contraception or abortion. Anticipated responses in the field would be for some of these PETE students to attend to their moral Christian duties rather than their moral pedagogical consequences (some of these are wholly incompatible) or suffer the consequences of abdicating one’s religious duties.

Pastor-Vicedo et al. (2016) investigated Spanish pre-service PE teachers’ (PPETs) attitudes towards immigrant students through a large sample survey design. When the religion of the PPETs was considered, those who were Catholic demonstrated statistically significant more negative perspectives than did their ‘non-believer’ counterparts. For example, they were more likely to view immigrants as a problem, they were more likely to harbour stereotypes of non-immigrant superiority, they were more likely to have negative attitudes towards immigrants and they were less likely to believe that multiculturalism was a good thing. Pastor-Vicedo et al. (2016: 133) suggested that an explanation for this finding might be found in the idea of Hispanidad, ‘which is a political discourse of exclusion based on the idea of a community linked together by linguistic (Spanish) and religious (Catholic) criteria’. Moreover (and recognizing that second language limitations may be partly to blame), I note, too, that Pastor-Vicedo et al.’s (2016: 132) use of language was somewhat discriminatory (e.g. ‘immigration in Spain is perceived as one on [sic] most important problems’, ‘illegal aliens’, ‘Muslim or immigrant pupils present several problems…particularly for inflexible cultural or dress codes’ [emphasis added]). Evidently, Catholic privilege remains within this context.

Broad, multi- or non-denominational considerations of religion

Some researchers and scholars have considered religion, broadly, when researching and/or contemplating the relationship between religion and PE. These scholars include Araki et al. (2013), Culp (2011), Elliot and Hoyle (2014), Kahan (2011) and McInerney et al. (2000).

Araki et al. (2013) investigated why the participation rates for physical activities among adolescent girls was lower than those of boys within Japan and Singapore. Their investigation sought out knowledge and understanding about the sociocultural factors that might contribute to this problematic and gendered observation. Religious identities that were identified and then considered included Buddhists from Japan and Hindu Indians and Christian Chinese from Singapore. Japanese Buddhist students had seen no issues related to their Buddhist identities (and did not seem to ascribe, strongly, to those identities). Though Singaporean Hindu (Indian) students shared some unhappy PE experiences, they were unwilling to discuss, with school personnel, how their own religious practice might not be respected at school. Araki et al. (2013: S47) added that ‘racial harmony promotion from Singapore’s government may prevent girls from feeling they have the freedom to share their thoughts and experiences regarding race, ethnicity and religion, especially for Chinese Christian girls’.

Kahan (2011: 20) also suggested that less consideration is given by PE teachers to religion than to a host of other more familiar demographics, including ‘gender, ethnicity, race, ability, [and] sexual orientation’. Kahan’s response to this was to offer a conceptual article that did four things: it provided religious demographics for the United States; it articulated the relationship between religion and health; it offered accommodations for some students’ religions; and it suggested resources and techniques that would help PE teachers better understand their students’ religious beliefs. Data at the time suggested that 78.4% were Christian, 16.1% were unaffiliated and 4.7% were ‘other’. Kahan did offer some PE-specific curriculum models that might enable religious ‘difference’ to be more appropriately welcomed in PE (e.g. Teaching for Personal and Social Responsibility and Sport for Peace). Lastly, Kahan also addressed coeducational PE, reminding readers that such a structure can pose a problem for some religious students, particularly female Muslim and Jewish students.

Despite any real or imagined barriers to considering religion within secular schools and societies, some have recognized that PE ought to nonetheless provide a space for the realization of spiritual connections and considerations (e.g. see Benn et al., 2011). Believing, for example, that the concept of embodiment is especially appropriate within PE (Flintoff et al., 2008), Benn et al. (2011: 23) suggested that ‘what has been underdeveloped in current debate is any sense of spiritual self, for example, or religious identity and the struggles of people in different faiths for the basic human right’ to manifest one’s spiritual or religious beliefs.

Today’s focus: Muslim students within PE

Almost all research and conceptual articles related to religion have focused upon Islam/Muslims. In addition to the previously notable contributions from Benn and Dagkas, others who have focused upon Islam/Muslims include (but are not limited to) Arar and Rigbi (2009), Carroll and Hollinshead (1993), Davis (2010), Farooq and Parker (2009), Kahan (2003), Lucas and Block (2008) and Stride (2016).

Arar and Rigbi (2009) observed that PE is often less popular among girls than boys, irrespective of religion and/or culture. Still, they also recognized that such a phenomenon is more true within conservative Muslim Arab–Israeli society. Seeking to find reasons to explain the difference in PE participation between girls and boys, Arar and Rigbi found that societal and cultural influences were related to society (the collective values of the Muslim Arab–Israeli society), religion (the way Islam is practiced) and gender (the way Muslim Arab–Israeli society views gender roles).

Similar findings were also found within the West. For example, Benn and Pfister (2013) observed that Muslim girls in both England and Denmark similarly encountered gender stereotypes, cultural and religious limitations, and interfering parental/community expectations. Plenty of diversity was discovered related to students engagement within PE. For example, while some students within the English or Danish schools would only participate if their teacher was a woman and if the class was single-sex, other (more moderate Muslim) girls harboured little sympathy for their peers requiring such accommodations. Of all PE activities, swimming and dance provided the greatest difficulties. Whatever the issue, Benn and Pfister (2013: 570) suggested that given the variability and diversity between different schooling contexts, ‘any tensions [need] to be resolved with regard to local resources and feasibility’. That is, they recognized that a one-size-fits-all approach is impractical.

A consideration of Walseth’s (2015) research highlights this issue related to contextual importance. Her research with Muslim girls in Norway found that – unlike virtually all other research within this article – gender-segregated PE was not ideal or enjoyable. The few students who shared that they would prefer gender-segregated classes offered familiar gendered responses rather than religiously-motivated ones. It is worth noting, however, that more ambiguity was found when those students were pressed about gender-segregation during swimming activities within PE. Within Walseth’s research, she found that both non-Muslims and less religious Muslims contributed to the othering of the more religious Muslims.

In another study, Benn et al. (2011) also found the importance of considering context when addressing Muslim girls’ PE participation. Moreover, they found that there is insufficient bridging of educational research and practice related to this issue (as well as suitable uptake of intersectional and interdisciplinary approaches by researchers). They also found that the concept of embodied faith was largely absent, both historically within PE and within contemporary considerations of PE as it encounters ‘different’ religions and spiritual possibilities.

Benn and Dagkas (2006) offered a case study and conceptual position related to mixed-sex PE initial teacher training (PEITT) programmes’ incompatibility with recruiting and training Muslim women who wish to adhere to their religious requirements. Normally, such programmes would be characterized by male instructors, mixed-sex classes and requests to remove hijabs for safety reasons. Benn and Dagkas (2006: 186) suggested that there are three possible solutions to such an impasse: ‘make no changes and exclude Muslim women from the practical experience; shift to theoretical provision for all; find a way to change the system to enable Muslim women to participate in single-sex groups with female tutors’. Their case study investigated this third possibility as they created and studied a case in which Muslim women were afforded a single-sex class, taught by a woman. They found that everyone (i.e. students and staff) agreed that the principle of fair access to PEITT was essential and that the Muslim women students finally felt free to participate in PEITT and PEITT-related physical activity. Tensions were found, however, with respect to staff members’ perceived group and individual disadvantages to such grouping (related, for example, to whole-group exposure to difference, Muslim women’s exposure to others, etc.).

Research has suggested that PE teachers’ knowledge, understanding and practices related to teaching Muslim students is limited (Dagkas, 2007). Moreover, such limitations have also been found to lead to difficulties when teaching. Dagkas (2007) suggested that such findings point to the inadequacy of initial teacher training. One manifestation of this inadequacy is the observation that PE teachers are more likely to make allowances (e.g. to forego participation during fasting periods) than they were to demonstrate integration and inclusion practices.

Religion as it intersects with gender and culture, in particular

Many of the scholars who focused upon religion also engaged in discussions that recognized the importance of intersectionality. This was especially true in articles that focused upon Islam/Muslims; these intersectional positions focused, largely, upon gender and culture. Researchers and scholars who have explicitly adopted or recognized these intersectionalities include both Benn and Dagkas, as well as many others (e.g. Araki et al., 2013; Davis, 2010; Walseth, 2015).

Araki et al. (2013: S46) found that culture and religion were so integrated with one another within Japan (where there is less diversity than within Singapore) that their Buddhist Japanese participants asked, ‘What is a Buddhist?’. For these girls, separating cultural identities from religious identities was both difficult and illogical. They also suggested that aggressive engagement or overt assertiveness within PE would not be culturally appropriate. This aligned, closely, with their ‘common sensibility as a Buddhist…that aggressive play is not well-received’ (Araki et al., 2013: S46). Their Singaporean participants did not identify as such, instead identifying with their Hindu Indian cultural identities. Within PE, these Indian girls found that a lack of understanding about their religious practices by others caused them to suffer. For example, during a PE camping trip, seafood was served to them as an alternative to meat (Hindus are vegetarian); this caused them to both cry and not eat. They also felt powerless to invite or participate in any in-school discussions about (their) religious and cultural identities or differences, lest they be subject to further discomfort. Interestingly, the majority of Christian Chinese students within Singapore also felt uneasy when discussing ‘difference’. They both rejected the notion that difference existed and suggested that such discussions should not occur. Though these sorts of group-specific perspectives were offered, these Asian girls, collectively, offered accounts detailing their cultures’ conservative influences upon them. Manifestations of these influences included limitations related to appropriate movement activities and clothing for PE/physical activity.

Stride (2014: 398) recognized that most research focusing upon gender issues within PE has been largely concerned with ‘White, middle class, non-disabled girls’ experiences’, something that disregards marginalized girls outside of these sorts of parameters. Her attention, then, to the intersection of gender and religion provides necessary knowledge to those who also recognize the need to view these othered identities alongside one another. There are few others who have taken on this task. As Stride (2014: 402) also observed, such ‘studies are in the minority, when compared to the vast amount of work that explores the experiences of White girls’.

Flintoff’s (2015) research into racialized identities and religions, particularly as they are interwoven with gender, provided one of the more compelling contributions related to the othering that occurs when intersectional and compounding identities disadvantage Muslim girls in ‘White’ PETE programmes. In a most honest fashion, Flintoff recognized that much of her own (as well as others’) previous research focused on one aspect of identify (in her case, gender). Similarly, Benn (1996) and Benn and Dagkas (2006) explored the complex inter-relationality of religion with both culture and gender in their research.

Some of these intersectional research or conceptual approaches discovered that women who were subject to racial or religious prejudice could find success by denying an important part of their identity (Benn, 2002; Flintoff, 2015). Manifestations of such denials might include not admitting one’s faith or abdicating religious requirements in the presence of others (e.g. not wearing a hijab).

Research-based and conceptual positions on accommodation(s)

Many articles detailed accommodations that might be adopted for PE instruction to be more religiously appropriate and PE learning spaces more welcoming. Some of the scholars that were most clear on potential accommodation(s) include Benn and Dagkas (2006; related to PETE), Benn et al. (2011), Elliot and Hoyle (2014), Lucas and Block (2008), McInerney et al. (2000) and Nicaise and Kahan (2013).

Common, familiar and relatively simplistic accommodations were most often related to accommodations for female Muslim students, in both PE and in PETE. For example, mixed-sex activities or male instructors were presented as non-negotiable barriers by some female students (e.g. see Lucas and Block, 2008; McInerney et al., 2000). One response to this barrier would be to have PE teachers (or PETE instructors) make this accommodation if it was possible (as did Benn and Dagkas, 2006).

Modesty concerns were, again, related to female Muslim students and they were generally related to wearing a hijab, revealing/inadequate PE kits, or swimming (e.g. see Benn et al., 2011; Walseth, 2015). Some of these might be addressed by straightforward and commonsensical responses (e.g. allowing students to wear a hijab and adopting/allowing more modest PE kits). Other religious-based accommodations that applied equally to female and male students were related to religious observances that required fasting (e.g. during Ramadan). Though ‘sitting out’ was suggested by some (e.g. see Dagkas, 2007) as an accommodation for Muslim students during Ramadan, to me this amounts to excused exclusion. Without having to make any instructional accommodations, PE teachers and/or school administrators are missing an opportunity to be culturally responsive.