The utility of silos and bunkers in the evolution of kinesiology

Silos and bunkers have been allies in the development of kinesiology for nearly 50 years. Silos of specialization allow us to go toe-to-toe with researchers in parent disciplines, compete for grants, and otherwise spread our academic wings. The bunkers of utility and generic movement provide an important degree of legitimacy for a subject matter that is often denigrated as mere play and games. Nevertheless, both silos and bunkers introduce problems that might well stand in the way of future development. Silos present practical problems related to fractionation, poor communication, and a lack of mutual respect. They also are grounded in a research paradigm that features subdisciplinary independence, a paradigm that is increasingly coming under attack. The bunker of utility might cause us to mistake one part of the value of movement for the whole and thereby produce a profile that is unduly health fixated, sober, and serious. Our tendency to abstract movement from the cultural forms of activity in which we find it drains life and vitality from skillful performances. I conclude by recommending that silos and bunkers will continue to be useful in the years ahead, albeit less so. I recommend a brand of kinesiology whose silo walls are lower and more permeable, whose spirit is more playful, and whose researchers and practitioners interact more democratically, with increasing levels of interdependence and humility and with a higher degree of mutual respect.