The main inspiration that catapulted society as a whole in the early eighteenth century to walk as a leisure pursuit can be traced back to romantic literature written by poet William Wordsmouth. His writings appreciated the observation of nature through long distance walking. Popular novelist Jane Austen also made a large contribution during this time when she began introducing in her novels walking as a leisure pursuit. In her context, it was used to get away from unpleasant situations at home, a notion that still exists in today’s society (Hall & Page 2006:53).
The term, ‘parkour’ coined in the suburbs of Paris by Frenchman David Belle in the 1980’s can be defined as, ‘the art of movement, when one’s body and mind are trained to overcome obstacles efficiently, with the goal of moving from one point to another as quickly and gracefully as possible’. A few of the obstacles ‘traceurs’ (the term used to refer to participants of parkour) have to navigate past include buildings, park-benches and trees (Friedland & Lallanilla & Swetzoff & O’Malley 2010:314). What parkour does which is fascinating is that it challenges the use of space and objects. This is something that walking as a leisure activity never did.
Were buildings designed for people to jump from one space to another from?
Parkour breaches traditional boundaries and borders as it repurposes landscapes and modifies them for its hybridized leisure activity thus creating its own play space. Unlike walking in general, environments are not created for parkour. Parkour creates its own space/environment within an outdoor landscape.
Conversely though, national parks and street paths just to name a few things were established to assist those who wanted to walk leisurely through space. Street paths built around and in cities allowed individuals the ability to walk leisurely around while encompassing not only the landscape but the facilities (shops) as well. Street paths provided people in the early eighteenth century with directions and helped reproduce social life, while parkour is embraced by a creative culture where individuals craft their own routes rather than wait for directions. Interaction with other people is not of importance to those practicing parkour, however the activity of walking leisurely was something that was crucial in building and creating relationships with other people.
Parkour is, ‘a philosophy of action based-movement in an urban environment’ (Hunt & Fai 2008) though the activity of walking leisurely was and is still something that is executed both in city and rural areas.
Walking leisurely in rural areas was a little different than that of city areas where infrastructure was much more developed. In many of these rural areas, roads could not be built through a lack of infrastructure, as these areas were quite distant to the main cities. Compared to parkour, societies who lived in these rural areas had little control over their movement. Rather than challenging the space, those living in rural areas were confined to a specific space and routine.
Let us not forget that prior to the introduction of walking trails in rural communities, those living within them would find it hard to explore these spaces around them as individuals would get lost very easily because there was no way of creating a ‘sense of place’ . Walking trails/paths provided individuals in rural areas the availability of places to walk leisurely in. (Brownson etc 2000:1). It helped release the isolation that previously existed and even though rural areas were still confined to a certain space as geographically they were away from main cities, this increased interaction helped reconfigure social and other relations. Finally people living in rural areas could also feel safe when walking leisurely as structures were now in place that helped provide a sense of location.
On the other hand, those who practice parkour, live in a society where different sub-cultures exists who pride themselves on exceeding human boundaries as television shows such as ‘Jackass’ suggest. Parkour ‘deconstructs the city’, so that ‘traditional conceptions of architecture and its role within society are no longer assumed or taken for granted’ (Lindley & McMahon 2008). Parkour breaks free from the formation and structure of environments and their normal uses. The activity of walking leisurely quite obviously does the opposite of parkour and ‘stabilises the city’ as it uses the spaces provided efficiently and does not break down traditional boundaries.
The speed that both these practices of mobility undertake is also of significant importance, considering it reflects quite well to the societies that developed them. For example, if somebody were to say that the pen/paper was the most efficient way to communicate with others, you can easily say that it does not reflect the society we are living in, as the pen/paper is an expired form of communication that due to its geographical and speed disadvantages you wouldn’t quite necessarily use. While ones speed of movement was not something that was greatly considered of importance in the eighteenth century, in today’s society the world as a whole are continuously trying to become quicker in many aspects. Today, people want to get to places as quick as possible and the parkour reflects this notion, as it continuously pushes to increase its speed. The act of parkour is not something that can and should be done at a slow speed.
One of the other big differences between these two forms of pedestrian mobility is that while walking leisurely is an activity most humans can physically do unless they are severely disabled or obese, the art of Parkour requires intense training to master, thus it has a sense of exclusivity and restriction as not the average individual can physically perform it.
The negative thing about Parkour comes from the fact that only a certain amount of society practices it (Sager 2006:466). The reason for this is based from the fact that culturally it is regarded as an extreme activity that challenges social norms.
How parkour is executed is also of significant importance to those specifically within society who practice it. Culturally it is accepted that one’s experience of parkour must be, ‘fluid like water’ (Jones 2005). That means that one’s navigation through the city must be done smoothly. Unlike parkour and the disciplines it requires in terms of technique, walking as a leisure activity never and still doesn’t in current society have any constraints in regards to the way it has to be performed.
In conclusion, it is evident that while walking as a leisure activity and parkour have some similarities, they are both regarded quite differently in the society’s that produced them. While walking as a leisure activity helped much of society easily travel from space to space which the example examining rural community’s highlights, the parkour was vastly different as it is not something that can be easily integrated into society so its value within current society is quite unique. It is important to remember that cultural beliefs and values are instantly changing within society. Pedestrian and other forms of mobility like virtual will always introduce new ways for society to interact with the world. It is up to society to adapt to these changes and integrate it within their own every-day lives.
Reference List
Brownson, R. C & Housemann, R. A., & Brown, D. R &. Jackson-Thompson, J. & King, A. C. & Malone, B. R & Sallis, J. F (2000), American Journal of Preventive Medicine Volume 20: Promoting physical activity in rural communities, Raven Press, USA.
Friedland, L & Lallanilla, M & Swetzoff, J & O’Malley, C (2010), Frommer’s 500 Adrenaline Adventures, Frommer’s.
Hall, M & Page, S (2006), The geography of tourism and recreation: environment, place and space, Routledge.
Hunt, L & Fai, L (2008), Exploring Transnational Connections on Film, I.B. Tauris.
Jamal, T & Robinson, M (2009), The SAGE Handbook of Tourism Studies.
Jones, D (2005), Parkour: A natural perspective – The Urban Freeflow Network, accessed on Sunday October 24th at <http://www.urbanfreeflow.com/articles/articles.htm>
Lindley, E & McMahon L (2008), Rhythms: essays in French literature, thought and culture, Peter Lang.
Preiser, W & Ostroff E (2001), Universal design handbook, McGraw-Hill Professional.
Sager, T (2006), Freedom as mobility: implications of the distinction between actual and potential travelling, California: University of California Press.
Schneider, W & Spring, H & Tritschler T (1992), Mobility: theory and practice, Thieme.
Urry, John (2007), Mobilities, Cambridge: Polity Press.
Walker, J (2009), Le Parkour: The body of politics, accessed on Sunday October 24th at <http://thepublicsphere.com/2009/12/parkour-body-politics/>
