Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
This article analyzes metaphors in kinesiology and proposes a framework for understanding the athlete's lived experience, suggesting deeper integration of objective and subjective insights.
Modern kinesiology has advanced through multiple ways of making the moving body intelligible, including scientific measurement, interpretive inquiry, and critical analysis. Yet when the body is approached primarily from an external observational stance, the athlete’s lived experience can become obscured. This article critically analyzes three dominant metaphors – “Machine,” “Container,” and “Symbol” – to reveal the ontological incompleteness of treating the sporting body primarily as an object of inquiry. To restore integrity, it proposes a shift toward the “Body-Subject.” Drawing on Merleau-Ponty, the article establishes the body as the ambiguous locus of both scientific measurability and subjective perception. It then introduces “Mutual Reference,” a hermeneutic framework in which objective data and lived experience mutually contextualize each other. This framework connects scientific precision with experiential depth, illuminating the sporting subject’s multidimensional reality.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Long et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: