1. 1
‘Embodied Space: Parkour and the
Insertion of Play into Urban
Environments’
George Maguire
Anthropology BSc
April 26th 2016
Word Count: 10,988
Supervisor: Alison Macdonald
The above word count is accurate and the work contained in thesis is solely mine:

2. 2
Abstract:
Parkour is an emerging and modern practice which challenges participants or ‘traceurs’ to move
smoothly in urban environments as they traverse commonplace obstacles in creative ways. The
intentions of such movement differ among followers but a child-like, ludic, and playful quality is
consistently present in the way parkour is embodied, encouraged and learnt. The traceurs in this study
were members of University College London Union’s parkour society and club. Ethnography took
place in unconventional spots across London due to the material environment requirements that are
sought in parkour; that of concrete, railings and walls. Based on a combination of empirical and
literature insight, this study yielded several observations. Firstly, parkour is not just a physical pursuit
but a moral activity that is self and community affirming. Parkour is therefore distinct from youth
activities such as vandalism, gang participation and drug consumption. It is a positive Lévi-Straussian
‘bricoleur’ approach to urban usage, offering very little to lose and significant benefits to gain in
terms of fitness, personal development and social cohesion. Parkour is set to expand rapidly due to
its unique characteristics; an absence of necessary equipment, an abundance of unused, urban space
and a philosophy of carefully cultivated risk that is so contagious to youth. This thesis will therefore
progress from an individualistic to a global perspective in order to ascertain parkour’s utility in
modernity.

3. 3
Table of Contents:
0 Introduction: Parkour.................................................................................................................... 4
1 The Practice of Parkour (Play and the Body)………..…………………………………... ....... 13
1.1 Initiation ................................................................................................................................... 13
1.2 Learning.................................................................................................................................... 16
1.3 Mastery, Flow and Ludic Play.................................................................................................. 23
2 Urban Bricolage (London) ........................................................................................................... 26
2.1 Relegated Locations ................................................................................................................. 26
2.2 Parkour Vision and Bricolage .................................................................................................. 32
3 Parkour: Our-Park (Global Potential) ...................................................................................... 36
3.1 Parkour Unity ........................................................................................................................... 36
3.2 Play for Health.......................................................................................................................... 37
3.3 Political Parkour ....................................................................................................................... 39
4 Conclusion: What Does Parkour Do?......................................................................................... 42
5 Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................................... 45
6 References...................................................................................................................................... 46
7 Appendices..................................................................................................................................... 53

4. 4
Image 1: UCLU Parkour Society taster session at the Vauxhall Estate. 2015. Facebook. Not my own image.
0. Introduction: Parkour.
‘Parkour culture constitutes an organic, evolving flux of individuals simultaneously exploring their
autonomy through networks and communities of shared interests; choosing to train, discuss online, travel and
share experiences and knowledge together.’
(Julie Angel, 2011:238)
Parkour Origins & Context:
Parkour is a relatively new discipline, developed by a group of youths in the French suburban town
of Lisse in the late 20th Century. The term ‘parkour’ is derived from the French term ‘parcours’ which
translates to ‘course’ or ‘route’1. Visually, the practice has been described as ‘street gymnastics,
skateboarding without a board, a non-martial art’ (Kidder, 2012:235; See Appendix for videos).
1
Within my fieldwork in London, ‘parkour’ was pronounced like ‘Park-ore’ but in one word.

5. 5
Those who practice parkour are known as ‘traceurs’ (from the French translation of ‘tracers’) in
communities across the globe2. Traceurs practice alone or in group sessions (called jams) in which
participants show and teach each other techniques and ideas that they have picked up. Origins of the
practice go back to the work of the physical educator Georges Hébert, who developed ‘la méthode
naturelle’, a training regime designed for the French army. Hébert’s method focused on three main
forces; the energetic, moral and physical (Hébert, 1912), emphasising that the athlete or soldier
needed to ‘be strong to be useful’ (Brown, 2007:2). Hébert’s approach influenced a French firefighter,
Raymond Belle and his son David Belle who would go on to found the original parkour group
‘Yamakasi’ with a group of his closest and most dedicated friends. Yamakasi operated on a
mentorship basis, offering guidance to only the most committed of students.
From its inception, parkour or ‘l’art du déplacement’ (art of movement) has been a holistic
practice that encapsulates mental qualities such as determination, patience and bravery alongside
physical traits such as aesthetic movement, skill, strength and accuracy. Through these physical
pursuits, traceurs engage in the ‘service of the heart, not the dictatorship of the ego’ (Thibault,
2013:30), to be creative and build strong local and international communities. With the mental aspects
of parkour, traceurs develop what Foucault refers to as ‘techniques of the self’, the ‘thoughts, conduct,
and way of being’ (Foucault, 1988:18) that pre-date the body’s eventual movements and behaviours.
The practice has shared origins with the almost identical ‘freerunning’ which originated from the
same group of French youths. Freerunning and ‘tricking’ are commonly thought of as emphasising
skill and acrobatic maneuvers whereas parkour has a more introspective and philosophical nature.
This thesis will condense freerunning into parkour due to their close similarities or ‘boundary work’
(Puchucki et al. 2007) alongside the fact that almost all of my informants and literature sources used
‘parkour’ to describe their personal practice.
2
In some parkour communities ‘traceur’ is used for males whilst ‘traceuse’ is used for females. This thesis
will use traceur only for the sake of simplicity. ‘Traceur’ is pronounced differently dependent on local
dialect. The term was rarely used explicitly in fieldwork, it was instead implied.

6. 6
The Philosophy of Parkour:
Parkour's overarching philosophy was formed by the original members of
‘Yamakasi’. Yamakasi saw parkour as a means of forging together the antithetical qualities of
toughness and suppleness, to be able to sustain hardships such as seemingly impossible challenges in
a casual effortless manner. The traceur was therefore bulletproof whilst ‘flaneur-like’ (Benjamin,
1999) in their exploration abilities of a chosen and useable environment: the urban topography.
Parkour is therefore unique in that it encapsulates stereotypical masculine (aggression, explosive) and
feminine (balance, grace, agility and creativity) traits (Wheaton, 2010) in forging athletic yet artistic
traceurs.
Since the 1990’s, parkour has become increasingly well-known by mainstream audiences
thanks to the efforts of various television adverts and documentaries which feature traceurs traversing
the urban environment in fresh and intriguing ways (BBC’s Rush Hour Commercial, 2002, Jump
London, 2003 & Jump Britain, 2005). Awareness of parkour has also spread through promotional
live performances for films such as the Jungle Book (The Upcoming, 2016). Although parkour
involves many sport-like qualities such as running, jumping (athletics) or climbing, many traceurs
insist that it is not a sport, instead affirming that traceurs should focus on a ‘altruistic core of self-
development’ (Le Corre, 2007). Parkour therefore, at least in part, rejects the general trend of sports
to ‘correspond to the patterns of Western industrialised capitalist societies' (Eichberg, 1998:101) such
as competitive ‘fields’ (Bourdieu, 1990), athlete ratings and the introduction of significant monetary
incentives. The intrusion of the capitalist model has created tension for some ambitious traceurs as
parkour is highly marketable (Brunner, 2011:143) and has very low investment or upfront costs.
Palmer’s theory of commodified risk in extreme sports where ‘made-for-media versions of extreme
sports are short-lived imitations of risk, rather than serious sporting initiations’ (Palmer, 2002:58) are
particularly prudent in parkour as the amount of competition and sponsorship opportunities are set to
increase despite parkour’s autotelic, humble origins. Ultimately, this ‘parkour paradox’ (Angel, J.

7. 7
2011:195) which places the practice as either a sport or a performance is left for the traceur to
determine themselves.
Image 2: Practicing precision jumps in March 2016. Facebook Group. Not my own image.
My Research: UCLU Parkour Club:
My research took place within the University College London Union’s (UCLU) Parkour
Club, a group set up and run by UCL students. Activities took place in London between the months
of October, 2015 and April, 2016. Activities varied in duration but averaged between two to three
hours, occurring exclusively on Wednesday and Saturday afternoons. These sessions (or ‘jams’)
varied in size from around 20 individuals to the high 40s (in the introductory sessions). A typical
fieldwork session consisted of riding the underground to a station where the members of the club
would meet and chat informally before walking together to a predetermined (via Facebook) location.
The ‘traceurs’ that took part were a combination of 1st, 2nd, 3rd and post graduate students, although

8. 8
a majority were physics students of some sort (although this was likely due the clubs president being
a physics student). Participants came from a range of backgrounds and were mostly male (around
75%). The previous athletic backgrounds of members were varied but the most common were in
handstands, acrobatics, calisthenics and gymnastics. The club generally has two coaches per session
who would design warmups, instruct techniques and lead the movement progressions. The coaches
were all ex-members (students) as the club selects and pays for members to receive the necessary
coaching certifications. There was no required uniform but we typically dressed in unrestricting
clothes such tracksuit bottoms, t-shirts and the clubs purple hoodies.
Fieldwork Methodology:
During my fieldwork, I participated fully in the activities carried out by the club, seeking to
progress my own skills alongside developing ideas and a fluency of the practice’s many
components. This approach closely followed the work of the academic turned traceur Julie Angel and
her emphasis on ‘participant observation’ for a thorough understanding of parkour (Angel, J. 2011).
Angel encourages immersion and depth in the practice to truly ‘get’ and understand the motives of
its participants. I acknowledged that as parkour is a dynamic, unspoken and visual practice, this was
the only approach that could yield significant and accurate insight. Fieldwork was considered a
balancing act between active questioning and passive observation (Ameel & Tani, 2012a). Many
realisations would not have otherwise been possible had I adopted a more ‘arm-chair’ type
anthropologist perspective. Members of the general public also provided an excellent service and line
of inquiry. Their questions, concerns and comments showed me public perceptions of our activities
and kept me from becoming too self-engaged in my own practice at the expense of gaining wider
understanding. In ‘getting to know’ parkour, I also made an effort to explore parkour’s solitary aspect,
training alone. This was important as many renowned traceurs emphasise the importance of individual
training in developing different skills to that of group training. Qualitative and personal notes were
immediately taken in a small notebook after attending these sessions. Actual names were not used as

9. 9
there was a lack of continuity of the members at the sessions. Following a session, my observations
were typed up complete with any photos on the note taking application Evernote. This habit of
‘jotting’ allowed the later conversion into ‘longer narratives’ (Spencer, 2009:123) alongside a
development of comparative analysis as I learned more about the practice through my independent
research.
My presence as an ethnographer was announced on Facebook but I tried to remain un-
intrusive and let my eyes and body ‘do the thinking’ as much as possible. The Facebook page proved
to be indispensable in my comprehension of the clubs inner working which was something that I had
not anticipated. Additionally, the active Facebook profiles of prolific traceurs such as Sebastien
Foucan and Dan Edwardes were interesting and stimulating in equal measures. I subsequently had
three channels of information reaching me; in-person fieldwork, online fieldwork (Facebook) and
secondary sources (including literature, documentaries, amateur videos and professionally produced
videos). These inputs sometimes made contrasting statements regarding parkour, its definitions, its
realities and its uses but I determined to remain true to the society’s views as they formed the
cornerstone of my personal analysis. Overall, my methods of participant observation could leave me
vulnerable to certain biases and a weak sense of subjective thinking. Thus, a comprehensive reading
of literature that concerned themes of relevant interest would give me the perspective and alterity that
I needed for a balanced study.
Literature Methodology:
My relatively informal ethnography was consolidated within a literature based analysis of
central themes. Themes included the growing collection of parkour academia itself, sports studies,
body studies and modern city analyses. Engaging with these resources afforded me vital, alternative
perspectives to my own understanding of parkour. My research therefore involved a feedback system
whereby questions from the field and literature were answered from within and outside my

10. 10
ethnography. Due to parkour’s infancy and general introversion, anthropological and sociological
studies are only beginning to understand the workings and impacts of its practice. Luckily however,
investigations of the body itself have a much richer literature on which to draw from. The body and
its practices have been central in sociology since the mid-1900’s (Elias, 1939). Central to my ideas
were the notions of ‘techniques of the body’ (Mauss, 1934), the perspective of phenomenology
(Merleau-Ponty, 1962; Abram, 1997) and the efficacy of heritable ‘habitus’ (Bourdieu, 1977).
Bourdieu inspired ethnographies of aggressive sports such as mixed martial arts (Spencer, 2009) and
boxing (Wacquant, 2006) proved to be inspirational in locating the body's role in social as well as
physical performance. As I located the socio-cultural body in the city, the work of Lefebvre (1996),
Simmel, (1971 [1903]) and de Certeau (1984) provided me with the analytical tools that I needed.
Additionally, the modern urbanite concepts of ‘striated space’ (Deleuze & Guittari, 1987) ‘dérive’
(Debord, 1956) and the architectural body (Gins & Arakawa, 2002) offered similar insight. Lastly,
Ingold’s model of creativity which emphasises the flows of materials, things and people as opposed
to the traditional attention to form (Ingold, 2007), gave me a new way of looking at the potential of
parkour’s diverse movement.
In recent years, parkour have begun to receive significant attention in the sociological world.
As a new practice, parkour offers novel ways in which the all-consuming city can be understood.
Specifically, Julie Angel’s seminal piece ‘Cine Parkour’ was invaluable in breaking down the
everyday realities of parkour. Angel’s hard earned perspective (a traceur herself) locates and accounts
for elements such as embodiment, motivation, politics, use of space, imagination and
commercialisation of parkour (Angel, J. 2011). Other intriguing studies have focused on parkour’s
history (Atkinson, 2009), ‘everyday aesthetics' (Ameel & Tani, 2012a), ‘deterritorialisation’
(Brunner, 2011), appropriation of urban space (Kidder, 2012), emotional fear (Saville, 2008)
technicality (Thibault, 2013) and social benefits (Grabowski & Thomsen, 2015 & Thorpe & Ahmed,
2015). I have also delved into various parkour documentaries (e.g. Jump London, 2003) with

11. 11
excitement, yet a reasonable amount of skepticism. I understood that documentaries, whilst focusing
on clear subjects, still have multiple agendas which may detract from the philosophies and ideas of
the traceurs themselves. In congruence with my fieldwork, the literature presents a general agreement
that parkour is both here to stay and largely beneficial to societies that support it and allow it to thrive.
Research Question:
This thesis revolves around the central inquiries of ‘what do people do with parkour’ and the
inseparably linked ‘what does parkour do to people’ in modern society. Whilst initially focusing on
the individuals of parkour, I decided to expand this, also examining parkour as a globalising entity.
With these questions I hoped to firstly elucidate the essence of everyday life of parkour (Angel, J.
2011) for UCLU traceurs and then the community at a global level. This analysis is set in world that
is fixed on rapid urban sprawl in the US (Gonzales, 2005) and on a global scale (Angel, S et al. 2011)
Parkour seems to be a rare vessel that can work symbiotically with modernity instead of against it. It
offers release where there is tension and exploration where there is objection (physically and
permissively). After all, ‘the opposite of play…is not a present reality or work, it is a vacillation, or
worse, it is depression’ (Sutton-Smith, 1997:198). Society can succumb to the greyness and
‘depression’ of concrete walls or it can ascend it with the playful and creative arts; those of
architecture, fine art, sculpture and parkour. A central theme will be that of ‘bricolage’ (Lévi-Strauss,
1962) or ‘restructuring and reshuffling pre-existing materials’ (Eriksen, 2003:230). With an analysis
of bricolage and the potentials of ‘everyday’ parkour (Hubbard, 2006:95) it is seen that the parkour
brings collaboration to modernity’s most relegated, ugly and forgotten areas. These may include
car parks, post world war two estates and looming concrete walls. This thesis will not concern itself
over the abstract or philosophical aspects of modernity (See Latour, 1993), preferring instead to focus
on the material characteristics and political qualities of the world we presently live in.

12. 12
Contents of Dissertation:
Chapter one deals with the ‘The Practice of Parkour’, detailing the processes that traceurs undergo to
develop themselves and enable play. Next, ‘Urban Bricolage’ contextualises the practical and
theoretical insights from the previous chapter in a modern and predominantly urban cosmopolitan
location; London. If the ‘house is a body for the body’ (Gell, 1997:253) this thesis will question what
kind of container the city is for those who practice parkour. Particular attention will be paid to the
relegated locations that parkour relies on. Following this, a synthesis of the parkour body, philosophy
and culture will ascertain the utility of parkour in a world that is rapidly increasing in both urban
sprawl and population. Parkour is undeniably linked to modernity, its properties, its expansion and
its divisions. Throughout these chapters, the question ‘what does parkour do?’ will be continuously
revisited from a singular (individual) to a multiple (global) perspective. In doing so, dichotomies such
as adult/ child, closed/ free and technique/ art are revealed and affirmed or challenged. In the
conclusion, it is evident that ‘playing’ in this manner has many advantages for a global urbanite
society.

13. 13
1. The Practice of Parkour:(Play and the Body)
In order to locate parkour in the urban environment, it is first necessary to explore issues such as the
realities of parkour, the details of motivation and the modification of fear. By focusing on individual
traceurs and their internal worlds, I hope to find that ‘micro-research is at once macro-research, in
which a precise understanding of the macro-structures of social life can, and often does, reside in at
first inspection insignificant details of people’s social behaviour’ (Blommaert, 2015:9). The small,
personal and embodied details of ‘parkour play’ will therefore aid me in building a comprehensive
understanding of parkour’s global efficacy.
1.1: Initiation:
‘Tarzan does parkour’
(Sebastien Foucan, 2012, London Real Youtube channel)
Parkour Realities:
Although arguably distinguishable from a larger category of human movement, parkour is formed
out of primal movement patterns that are as ancient as mammals are. As suggested with ‘Tarzan does
parkour’ (Foucan, 2012), parkour is elemental and physical, involving running, jumping and swinging
yet also mental with the hypothesising and testing of actions. Parkour has clear similarities with the
urban techniques of the ‘flâneur’ explorer whom aims to look at movement within a city without a
sense of competition, preferring instead to simply enjoy what is there (Benjamin, 1999). For UCLU
Parkour Society members, personal objectives for participating in parkour followed this aesthetic in
that people seemed to want to participate in a journey (literally and metaphorically). Like the martial
arts, parkour has many reasons for participation including health, harmony, defence, aggression and
expression (Thibault, 2013:23). Some traceurs are attracted to the more flashy moves and elements

14. 14
often associated with ‘freerunning’ and acrobatics which differ greatly from the philosophies of
original Yamakasi traceurs. Variations in approach are not surprising as all groups and nationalities
have assert different qualities relative to the vast and divergent populations that practices them. In
general then, individual traceurs have unique philosophies in their practices. Subsequently, there is
significant variation in outlooks and motivation for traceurs. Some well-known traceurs such as
Sebastien Foucan are spiritual and holistic whilst others such as Kie Willis (See Willis, 2015) practice
parkour for its physicality and reject philosophical connotations. Ultimately then, parkour offers a
clear, verifiable means of self-improvement whether this is purely physical, purely mental or more
commonly, a combination of the two.
Real Dangers:
Although my fieldwork gave me an overwhelming sense of positivity regarding parkour’s
place in London, this would not be a complete or just analysis of parkour without discussing the
potential and real downsides of the practice. Firstly, as parkour takes place in the public sphere, it can
upset locals that perceive parkour as a ‘misuse’ of space. Potential issues include trespassing, damage
of property and the intimidating qualities of large groups of hooded young people (Armando, 2005).
There are also concerns over injuries in parkour as police and other governing forces fear that the
risks of parkour are not worth the benefits (Rawe, 2008). Parkour also has some cases where
neophytes have imitated their elder practitioners and attempted feats beyond their capabilities
resulting in death (see Black & Knight, 2013). Whilst these cases are indeed tragic and detrimental
to parkour’s culture, they are sombre examples of individuals deviating from the guidelines set by the
Yamakasi group’s philosophy of progression and awareness. Upset locals, injury and death are results
that can only occur when sufficient care is not found in the practice. Furthermore, the perception of
parkour projected by media is mutually based on a misunderstanding of these very same core values.

15. 15
Edgework:
The aesthetics of parkour as an activity are fairly well known in the public eye, yet seldom
understood. A common perception is that traceurs are ‘adrenaline junkies’, intent on self-destruction
and death defying acts such as leaping across rooftops or climbing impossibly tall walls. Certainly,
danger and risk are essential parts of parkour, yet the popular media (See MTV’s Ultimate Parkour
Challenge, 2009) gaming industry (Ubisoft's Assassins Creed, 2007), film industry (Casino Royale,
2006) and parkour based advertising campaigns on mainstream television (Toyota, 2006, Nike, 2009
& Coca-Cola, 2010) have blown their relative importance out of proportion. In actuality, parkour is
a progressive and slow process in which the basics are worshipped. A perception of chronic risk-
taking can label parkour as what sociologists call ‘edgework’ (Lyng, 2005). Edgework is voluntary
behaviour that is considered extreme or radical in relation to the general population. It incorporates a
combination of emotional involvement and intense awareness of oneself with the execution of
technical skills. As seen sports in other solitary sports such as trial cycling (Ranscombe, 2015) and
solo-bouldering (Pottle, 2014) there is a blurring of boundaries between a human’s mind and the
machinery that they operate as action becomes routed in intuition and instinct instead of fear.
Performance of Fear:
As with other extreme sports, risk is always calculated in parkour. For my informants, danger
was surely one of the attractive elements of the practice but it was not a reckless sort of danger. It
was something to be practiced, stretched and harnessed3. The dualism of fear and joy becomes
problematic in practice as the two become closely related. As access to real danger is severely limited
in modern day society, parkour offers a rare engagement with an emotion that is not found elsewhere.
Much like the Paleolithic hunter gatherer, fear is mobilized and utilized. It works for the traceur, not
against them. Like a snake shedding its skin to become an improved version of itself, the traceur
3
This was something that I gradually came to understand, it was not immediately evident.

16. 16
completes or ‘breaks a jump’ (Edwardes, 2016) and will then gain confidence, moving on to more
difficult moves. As asserted by Edwardes, ‘You fear things because some part of you knows you can
do them, and may therefore attempt them’ (ibid.). Completing the act will thus extinguish that specific
fear. This process involves cycles of ‘suffering to ecstasy’ (Le Breton, 2001:5) and back as the traceur
comes to harness both themselves and their immediate environments potential. Fear is therefore a
form of eustress and is essential to parkour in that practitioners pay close attention to and even enjoy
it (Lyng and Matthews, 2007).
Le Breton claimed that ‘going right on to the end of the self-imposed task gives a legitimacy
to life and provides a symbolic plank on which they can rely. Performance itself is of a secondary
significance’ (Le Breton, 2000:1). This sense of ‘legitimacy’ could be attained from many aspects of
parkour. The exact ’thing’ is somewhat insignificant, as all traceurs have different skills and
challenges to conquer. Instead, it is rather about an attitude, having the ‘intent on creating
futures which dare’ (Saville, 2008:893). Parkour is a personal war, based on attainable progressions
with implications beyond the individual level. However, before exploring this, it is necessary to
determine the challenges of acquiring these techniques of the body.
1.2: The Learning Process:
Literature: Body Learning:
The work of Marcel Mauss has laid a strong foundation for this dissertation’s central investigation
(Mauss, 1934). That is, the exploration of parkour as a bodily creation; an assemblage of ‘techniques
of the body’ that are crucially inherited and heritable (ibid.) through specific (often informal)
educational processes. Mauss’ intuitive understanding that ‘the body is man’s first and most natural
instrument’ (ibid. 1934:75) is entirely in tune with how traceurs perceive their craft. Parkour’s various
actions; running, jumping and climbing are both ‘effective and traditional’ (Mauss, 1934:461) in that

17. 17
there is now a philosophy, a culture, an industry and a community built around parkour’s ideas. Thus,
traceurs operate within structured ‘habituses’ (Bourdieu, 1977) that affirm certain beliefs and cultural
ideologies.
Parkour promotes activity in all human capacities in a way that is recursive and sustainable
through social interaction and imitation. The work of Merleau-Ponty (1961) and Farnell in examining
the body as a subjective site of ‘dynamically embodied action’, capable of significant semantic work
(Farnell, 1999:341) asks exciting ideas about the traceur’s body. Farnell argues for the development
of a conceptual framework that would raise the body as a profile for expression and knowing, equal
to that of human speech (also see Jackson, 1989). A sense of ‘speechless speech’ is certainly present
in parkour as few lessons are learned through direct verbal instruction. Instead, learning occurs
through watching, internalising and expressing in a continuous loop of attempt and feedback. A
Maussian analysis of parkour reveals that individuals are setting out to organise and educate
themselves in ways which challenge and strengthen themselves and the larger community of athletes.
Parkour is about creating techniques for problems which don't exist for those that do not see them. As
discussed later with ‘parkour vision’, the fence, rail or brick wall is not an obstacle for the uninitiated,
it is just another observable, yet in-actionable object of modern society. Parkour therefore opens up
traceurs to new challenges and engagements that will build the practitioners character and strength.
It is now necessary to ascertain how these techniques are heritable in society.
Primary Means of Education: Experiential Learning:
‘What matters is the conversation between my body and my movement. If I can gain a sense of safety, I can
move on to more powerful, more vigorous and more sustained forms of movement.’
(Frank Forencich, 2006:159)

18. 18
The first and most important step in acquiring the set of techniques that are aesthetically
grouped as parkour is a kinesthetic trial and error process involving basic movements. Essential to
parkour are the foundational six basic elements which include running, jumping, climbing, balance,
stealth and proprioception (Edwardes, 2009). Additionally, skills such as rolling, swinging,
shimmying, acrobatics and gymnastics add further variety to the traceur’s potential movement palette.
These exercises must be combined together to form graceful movement that is both functional and
aesthetic. Parkour pedagogy therefore involves a deep and personal immersion into these activities.
This primacy of the body is the cornerstone of ‘phenomenology’ (Merleau-Ponty, 1962) in which the
body is central and irreducible to all perception. As ‘the skin is the point of contact between the person
and the world’ (Strathern, 1979:250), a certain sensitivity to the body’s positioning and circumstance
in space is essential. This was particularly evident when balancing and jumping on metal beams
during training as my visual, vestibular and musculature system were challenged immensely.
Image 3:Basic balancing tutorial at Archway Park. UCLU Facebook.Not my own image.

19. 19
In parkour sessions, we would practice a technically sound landing to a jump. In doing so,
the jumper (and others) listen for unnecessary sound. This noise signifies inefficiency of technique.
Additionally, drills such as closing your eyes whilst moving forces other senses to develop alongside
entire body coordination. These processes involve an attunement of the body and mind to the external
environment in which it inhabits. For example, the body learns the consequences of running too fast
in rain and the joy of finding grippy surfaces. The neophyte therefore has a sequence of proficiency
to go through in parkour. Following initial exposure, these can be chronologically classified as
learning, mastery and play. Parkour, like any other physical pursuit involves a general progression
whereby difficulty increases through a variety of variables. These may include strength, endurance,
body awareness, mentality or any other skills that can be improved over time.
In fieldwork sessions, there was a persistent maintenance of the principle that progression
takes time and parkour cannot and should not be rushed as this will lead to de-motivation and injury.
For example, on a few separate occasions, I was advised to be less-reckless with a certain jump due
to my poor landing technique. Often, neophyte traceurs would deny their abilities before trying by
saying ‘I can’t do that!’ only to master the movement within 10 minutes and move onto a more
challenging stimulus saying ‘that was easy!’ However, as voiced by David Belle, ‘once is never’
(Belle, 2009:59) and only through repetition can proper learning occur. Sound technique must be
reproducible at any level, in any space, otherwise the principles of progression do not work (e.g.
increasing jumping distance) and injury will occur. Leadership within the group therefore comes from
those with experience (coaches and other accomplished traceurs) as they have conquered many of the
obstacles (literally and figuratively) that beginners will encounter.

20. 20
Generalist Training:
Although mastery of a particular move or location is desirable in parkour, most of the
traceurs I played with realised that perfection of one element of the craft was not the end
goal. Instead, informants continuously operated with a beginner mindset keeping a fresh,
amorphous approach to their practice. Debord’s ‘dérive’ approach (Debord, 1956) shares a
resemblance with parkour in that sessions are often largely unstructured and experimental as they are
led by the aesthetics and structures in which the person finds themselves. Therefore, the geography
of the city has a role in determining what moves are practiced. Essentially, parkour’s ‘generalist’
inclination places it within a larger framework of ‘movement practices’ (See: Portal, 2016) which
aim to avoid specialisation in favour of focusing on elemental human movement in all its realisations.
Secondary Means of Education:
Various authors have written ‘how-to’ guides for parkour. For example Edwardes (2009)
offers instructive guidance of the techniques of parkour, whilst Thibault (2013) takes a more
philosophical approach. The efficacy of these books seems to be largely limited to beginners as real
education is found through practice and the interaction of bodies in space. However, the internet is a
particularly versatile and valuable addition for the traceur. For example, all UCLU Parkour Society
events (including training sessions, jams, other sports and socials) were organised on a Facebook
page and a group4. Members are highly active online as ‘continuous style’ parkour videos are shared
for inspiration, technique is taught and issues such as weather are discussed. The group’s chairman
would create ‘events’ complete with location, timing and travel information which we would then
click attending or not attending. This interactive usage of Facebook proved to be a highly positive
environment for cultivating relationships (See Miller, 2011) and enabling the organisation of such a
large group (243 members at the time of writing).
4
Also by the club was a WhatsApp Messenger account which was used in a more colloquial manner.

21. 21
The importance of social media is also shown in other parkour ethnographies (Thorpe &
Ahmed, 2015) where transnational communities become possible, regardless of geography, race,
language or circumstance. This is a ‘death of distance’ (Broadbent, 2012:128) as the parkour
community obtains a 'tenuous unity as a distributed object’ (Gell, 1997:221), a global phenomenon.
For example, blogs, Facebook and Youtube pages such as ‘Flow’, ‘Urban Freeflow’ and ‘Parkour
Generations’ bring together individuals and cultivate interest for the practice. Online populations
exert a significant authority (Kidder, 2012) as they function as the ‘means by which parkour’s
evolving practices are codified and explained’ (Kidder, 2012:241). Parkour is therefore both a solitary
and a group practice in which these basic units are ‘alone together’ on a global scale, emergently
organised through the internet (Turkle, 2013). This 'global ethnoscape’ (Appadurai, 1993) has only
one criteria; that of participation and identification within the generalist parkour framework. The
internet is also used by traceurs in the form of Google Maps to expand their knowledge of spaces
with potential (See Kidder, 2012 and Appendices). Therefore, the internet is valuable to the traceur
in all stages of growth. From beginner cat pass leaps videos and local meet ups to attaining a
sponsorship with a viral parkour video, the internet and its communities are irreplaceably part of
parkour culture.
Gym Parkour:
Although parkour evolved outdoors, specialist gyms are growing in popularity. These gyms
are unique in that the equipment is fully modular. Blocks, beams (scaffolding) and walls can all be
reconfigured, allowing new possibilities and the incremental progression from simple to complex
moves. One such gym is London’s ‘Chainstore Gym and Parkour Academy’ which is frequented by
the UCLU society at least twice an academic term for sessions lasting around 4 hours. In some ways
the Chainstore is similar to more mainstream fitness gyms; the sale of protein shakes, safety
disclaimers and a conventional weightlifting section. However, the gym also occupies a different
format with no locks on lockers (which shows significant trust) and minimal guidance from staff. The

22. 22
‘softer’ approach of indoor parkour (and outdoor ‘parkour playparks’) lets traceurs practice moves
without the same risks as outside. Rubber is after all, much more pliable than concrete. This
environment also let parents feel more comfortable about letting their children (I observed 6-8 year
olds) ‘play parkour’ and explore the Chainstore’s capacities. These facilities also avoid London’s
temperamental weather. Surfaces were never slippy and we had full access to amenities such as sinks,
toilets and food. As this is a predictable and standardised environment, the traceur could practice
identical repetitions of singular movements instead of entire sequences (which is normally the focus
of parkour). Traceurs understand that continuous practice of the foundations will later allow the end
goal; that of improvisation and play.
Image 4: The club at the Parkour Chainstore Gym, Trinity Buoy Wharf. My own image.

23. 23
Parkour gyms have also split the community as experienced traceurs have expressed worries
about its qualities. Put succinctly, ‘there is a massive difference between adapting to your
environment and adapting the environment to you’ (Edwardes, 2015: quoted by Vigroux). A soft
environment will then develop a softer athlete. In Finland, traceurs worry about the ‘fake feeling of
safety for beginners’ (Ameel & Tani, 2012b:27) found in these gyms. The parkour gym therefore
prevents the full development of ‘body armour’ (Vigroux in Angel, J. 2011:128) which strengthen
the body, protecting it from impacts and weakness. Whilst controversial in some ways, the parkour
gym is a key factor in the inevitable commercialisation of parkour and will likely further increase in
usage. Ultimately though, I feel that the spiritual and practical home of parkour will always be found
outdoors.
1.3 Mastery, Flow and Ludic Play:
For the traceur, parkour is an activity of everyday significance. It is relevant and
indistinguishable from how they move in and around the urban spaces around them. Parkour is
therefore distinct from physical cultures such as commercial gyms that have spatio-temporal,
membership based restraints, determining when and how people move in their environment. Parkour
also attempts to differentiate itself from dance as much as possible in that it rejects dance’s necessity
to ‘operate according to socio-cultural conventions and aesthetic systems’ (Kaeppler, 2000:116).
The experienced traceur has developed sense of ‘parkour vision’ (Saville, 2008) in that they can
see ‘moves’ that would not be visible to a non-traceur. They are able to realise this potential due to a
diverse understanding of the structures that their bodies operate in. However, the ‘parkour body’ (ibid:
893) is never finished as the learning never stops. This cycle is instead self-propagating as new skills
and capacities lead to a continuous development of the body and mind. To recapitulate, the end goal
of the traceur’s education is the state of ludic play. This is an embodied autotelic ‘non narrative
approach’ (Taleb, 2012:428) which firmly prioritises reflexivity and a widening of what is possible

24. 24
within modernity’s emphasis on conformity. Traceurs therefore can be seen as emergent
subjectivities, capable of environmental autonomy through the process of play.
Flow:
The phenomenon of ‘flow’ (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990) is often reported in parkour (Atkinson,
2009). This is perhaps not surprising due to the level of attention and embodied awareness that must
be utilised. Flow is where ‘one becomes totally absorbed in what one is doing, to the exclusion of all
other thoughts and emotions’ (Jackson & Csikszentmihalyi, 1999). Therefore, when a traceur is in
flow or ‘peak experience’ (Maslow, 1970), movement has mindful and meditative properties which
allows the relaxation and development of the self. The ‘flow state’ also navigates around the
arduousness of learning. As scientists know, when activities are repetitive and un-engaging willpower
decreases as a limited resource over time (Inzlicht et al. 2014). Play and flow are then extremely
effective means of expression, joy and education. Thus, parkour offers a means of expression that
requires only a functioning body.
Play:
‘Play should not be segregated, it is an essential part of all life’
(De Douza & Sutko, 2008:177)
Play occurs when the ‘childhood spirit takes flight’ (Thibault, 2013:38) in self-entertaining
expression. The rules (how to jump, roll and climb) are only learnt as a primer for these higher order
actions. As articulated by one of the UCLU parkour and movement coaches, when a person develops
his bases; fitness, mobility, strength, structure, they attain ‘free-moves’ (Archway) which require very
little effort to learn and integrate. These moves are free because a fully prepared athlete is ready for
all eventualities. In the words of Stephane Vigroux ‘you still have to build strong foundations and

25. 25
solid basics. But once you build that potential and tools you can enjoy the freedom of moving and
adapting to any space.’ (Vigroux, Facebook, 2015). The actor will then draw indeterminable and
unpredictable lines (Ingold, 2007) with their body in the environment as they move across, around,
over and under the immediate materials. Freedom is therefore the result of a mastery of the structures
and primal patterns of movement. Next, it is necessary to address the location in which this ‘parkour
body’ (Saville, 2008:893) takes form; the modern metropolitan city of London.

26. 26
2. UrbanBricolage (London)
Image 5: A popular Canada Waterlocation just off Rotherhithe Street. Usage included ‘precisions’
(standing jumps with the feet together), climbing (the red bridge, walls and trees), wall jumps and the
general practice of flow. My own image.
2.1 Relegated Locations:
To understand the kind of locations that parkour takes place in, I attended sessions in many different
areas of London. These sessions took place in (chronological order from first visit) Vauxhall,
Archway, Canada Water, Trinity Buoy Wharf (The Parkour Chainstore) and Kings Cross. The most
common site was Archway due to its properties; two distinct areas that were suitable for basic and
advanced parkour skills. Locations were chosen due to their interesting urban topography (albeit not
in a conventional sense), size (they had to be large enough space to accommodate up to 40 people),
relatively low population density, proximity to a tube station and other factors such as cover from
rain. Often, the locations were changed at the last moment due to the group size or if the chairman
wanted us to learn a particular skill.
Fulfilling this set of criteria led to most of the sessions taking place in urban spots, devoid
of public attention (with some notable exceptions like skateboarding) or recent development.
Common objects of interest in these areas included walls, the floor, curbs, stairs, railing, pipes, trees,
benches and lampposts. To me, it seemed that these ‘dead public spaces’ (Sennett, 1978:15) were

27. 27
brought back to life through the animacy, creativity and frenetic movements of the group. These were
areas that were connected to mainstream cities yet also ‘dislocated from an everyday experience of
it’ (Borden, 2001), forgotten tributaries that lead people into more populous, clean and commercial
areas.
Community Interactions:
Due to parkour’s physicality and public location, members of the public frequently came
across the training sessions. Attitudes of those passing by or watching were largely positive with
smiles and easygoing comments like ‘don’t break anything!’ being common. This reception occurred
despite parkour’s common presence in ‘break in’ robbery type films (Breaking and Entering, 2006;
Run, 2013 & Tracers, 2015). I believe this positive reaction was due to the care that traceurs took to
not be a negative influence (net minus) on the communities that house their practice. For example, I
never saw traceurs littering, we moved when asked (or even before) and were very careful if children
are playing nearby. Parkour even has global campaigns for the cleaning up of communities (Ameel
& Tani, 2012b) such as the annual ’Leave No Trace Initiative’ by Andy ‘Animus’ Tran
(americanparkour.com, 2008). This initiative shows that parkour recognizes a certain symbiosis; if
the environment is clean and safe, it can serve those that use it better. Traceurs therefore coincide
within a nexus of social and material relationships including the public, waste services, skaters,
bikers, runners and the homeless. All of the aforementioned groups benefit from a hospitable
environment.
Members of the public were often initially confused as to why grown adults would want to
behave or play like children. Parkour is not ‘considered normal practice’ (Angel, J. 2011:180). This
confusion was often transformed into curiosity if the visitors stood and watched, as they could then
make sense out of the chaos. For example, they might observe formal coaching or the natural

28. 28
progressions of movement from simple to complex. Young children were particularly drawn to
parkour, perhaps due to its exciting aesthetic or alternatively, because they recognised that play was
occurring. There was a general opinion that the public were happy that these redundant spaces were
being enjoyed. After all, how often are mundane concrete blocks joyfully appreciated. Overall, as
long as participants were not hurting themselves, scaring anyone or causing damage, the pubic were
full of intrigue, acceptance and joy at our activities.
Image 6: Just outside Canada Water’s underground station. This was both the ‘nicest’ and most heavily
populated (pedestrians and skateboarders) area that we used. My own image.
Police and Independent Security Interactions:
The reception from authorities such as the police and private security guards had a markedly
different tone. For example, on various occasions, we were moved away from areas where no visible
harm was taking place. It seemed that parkour is sometimes viewed as a kind of ‘gateway drug’ in
which a progression to rebellious criminal activity was possible or even likely. Security guards in
particular saw no reason to negotiate or mediate a mutual decision in terms of proper use. They were

29. 29
more ‘territorial’ (Ameel & Tani, 2012b), preferring to stop ‘potential’ trouble instead of ascertaining
what kind of ‘play’ (harmful or harmless) would be taking place. Understandably, security guards are
privately hired to protect private interests and found themselves to be partially responsible for the
‘potential danger’ that traceurs place themselves in. With parkour, there is always a conflict of usage
as it occurs in environments that are often ambiguously semi-public. Like football and its ‘No Ball
Game’ signs (Malone, 2007:78), ‘No Climbing’ signs are now appearing across London alongside
the use of anti-climb paints (Vauxhall). Although all of the sessions I attended were legal practices,
the dance between legality and illegality is a recurring theme that the practitioner must be aware of
to avoid trouble and not stain the reputation (and subsequently halt its progress) of parkour as a global
influence.
Image 7: A private property sign on Hampstead Road which prohibits ‘skateboarding, roller-blading or
cycling.’ Reasons forthis are ‘public safety,crime prevention and property management’. My own image.

30. 30
Anywhere Practice: The Concrete Relationship:
‘Two hundred years of American technology unwittingly created a massive cement playground of unlimited
potential. But it was in the minds of 11 year olds that could see that potential’
(Craig Steyck in: Borden, 2001:173)
Although sports such as skateboarding (Canada Water) and basketball (Archway) take place
in similar locations, parkour is largely non-judgmental of specific terrains. Whilst there are
undoubtedly favourite spots in London (outside the IMAX cinema on Southbank and the late
‘Vauxhall walls’), any space can be used provided the group or individual has sufficient motivations,
experience and vision. Because of this, parkour is ‘antifragile’ (Taleb, 2012) as there is an expanding
production of habitat (cities), potential users (youth) and motivation (idle youth). Because of this,
parkour can thrive anywhere that modernity does. Crucial to this is an acceptance of the often vilified
(and simultaneously praised) substance of modernity, concrete. This 'technique of poverty' (Forty,
2012:40) is embraced by the traceur as a welcome canvas for parkour expression. Concrete has
excellent qualities for parkour; it is sturdy, grippy and is fairly good at not picking up footmarks.
A Douglasian analysis proposes that ‘dirt’ or ‘ugly’ things are not intrinsically these
qualities. Instead, things are determined by humans. With parkour, urban locations are not ‘matter
out of place’ (Douglas, 1966:36) but matter in place. Concretes ease, quickness and mutability offered
much for a modernist renewal of architecture. Just as there is no need for specialists with cement,
parkour shares these characteristics. Parkour is a means of solving the problem of travel in any
location. Both parkour and concrete are things that are composed of pre-modern elements yet
assembled in modernity. Just as ‘one man with a cement mixer and a wheelbarrow can produce
passably modern structures’ (Forty, 2012:28), one traceur with a parkour video can imitate the greats
of parkour instantaneously. Perhaps parkour’s role in modernity involves bringing beautiful aesthetics

31. 31
back into deficient areas, structures built in the style of post-world-war-two brutalism; structures built
for a purpose.
Comparative Urban Practices:
Parkour is minimalistic in that it requires nothing but a body capable of movement,
something that cannot be attributed to practices such as skateboarding (Ameel & Tani, 2012a:166-
167) or ‘urban golf’ (Florian et al. 2010). Although, like parkour, skateboarding, breakdancing and
even BMXing share a utility of creatively appropriating the bare and functional architecture of post
war communities such as London (Borden, 2001). This decision of traceurs to not use external
equipment such as gloves is for enhanced tactile feedback but has the ultimate effect of making the
practice incredibly accessible for peoples of all incomes and locations. It is an activity that requires
only the permission (or inaction) of society to prevent it from occurring5. Parallels can of course be
drawn here with graffiti as both parkour and graffiti involve a ‘process of objectification’ (Dryden,
2001:281) and a temporal redevelopment of ‘the liminal exteriors of society’ (Angel, J. 2014:178)6.
These urban practices allow the projection of specific agencies and aesthetic (Schacter, 2008) onto
the urban textiles. As with graffiti, ‘acceptable action’ regarding use of architecture is relative to the
individual and is often juxtaposed with those in formal authority.
The visionary notion of the ‘architectural body’ connects parkour to the locations it is
practiced in (Gins & Arakawa, 2002). Buildings cannot be separated from the human bodies that
inhabit them as they creatively define each other. Therefore we have ‘organism-person-environments’
which are entirely mixed in a nexus of relations (ibid: 2). Gins and Arawaka therefore saw that ‘higher
human functions’ were the same as bodily sensation in their origin. The body and the environment
5
Ironically, this abandonment of equipment has led to companies designing products such as parkour shoes
and clothes.
6
However, graffiti is certainly far more residual, parkour should not leave marks on the environment.

32. 32
are then closer to a form of constant symbiosis than domination. It is now necessary to determine the
means in which such creativity is harnessed by the traceur.
2.2 Parkour Vision and Bricolage:
‘Buildings are building blocks for the open minded’
(Borden et.al, 2001:187)
Parkour Vision:
Seeing potential in parkour is attained through the refinement of ‘parkour vision’ (Brown,
2007) and the perception of a ‘plasticity of place’ (Saville, 2008:911) in the immediate environments.
Nolan’s analysis of skateboarding concluded that adults see space in terms of consumption whereas
children see space in terms of modification and remodeling (Nolan, 2003). Parkour therefore engages
in a ‘child-like open enquiry’ (Angel, J 2011:167). A bin or bench is offered another utility by the
traceur, one of ‘latent possibilities’ (Ameel & Tani, 2012a:171) and a widened tangibility. In an
extension of de Certeau’s ‘the act of walking is to urban systems what the speech act is to language
or to the statements uttered’ (de Certeau 1984:97-98) in parkour, movements are found within an
overarching realm of relative potential. If the environment is conducive to movement (e.g. dry) the
traceur will move more whilst if it is wet and windy, even simple techniques can become highly
difficult.
Therefore this ‘vision’ is not so much an additive skill, rather, normal people are deficient
or uninterested in their capacity to see past orderly urban movement. Parkour involves the search for
unconventional ‘optionality’ where it is not commonly found (Taleb, 2012:428). It is a phenomenon
that imbues ‘topophilia’ (Tuan, 1974), an emotional bond with the environment. In this,
unconventional ‘places’ are loaded with personal emotions, connections and memories (Tuan, 1977).

33. 33
Similarly, Heidegger’s notion of ‘dwelling’ (Heiddegger, 1977) as traceurs reside and experience a
sense of belonging or familiarity, at least temporarily, with the locations they practice in.
Consequentially, they can see and do much more in spaces that are considered restrictive and void of
possibility for the general population.
Image 8:These wallsnextto the canalin Canada Water hadconsiderable optionality in thatmany skillscould
be practiced. My own image.
Defying Striations:
These urban practices deny the agency and will (See Gieryn, 2002) of city planners and their
structures. In this, the ‘striations’ of the urban grid (space instituted by state apparatus) (Deleuze
& Guittari, 1987:474) become loosened by traceurs. Parkour’s qualities of mobility (speed, elegance
and effortlessness) prove to be antithetical to the cities symbols and linguistics of immobility (‘stop’
signs, ‘wait’ signs and traffic jams). The traceur is determined to be un-determined. For example, in
my fieldwork, traceurs would train quadrupedally on steps designer for bipedalism or repurpose the

34. 34
sitting function of benches, using them as launch-pads for jumping, flow sequences. Parkour therefore
rejects the central motives of city planning which include aims to ‘restrict speed, regulate circulation,
relativize movement, and measure in detail the relative movements of subjects and objects’ (Deleuze
& Guattari, 1987:386). Instead, the function of things like walls are re-negotiated from that of safety
or predetermined direction to an obstacle that must be overcome. This is a refusal to yield to ‘tight
spaces’ (Franck & Stevens, 2007), environments that tolerate a limited, pre-determined, physical
vocabulary and usage. The traceur’s ‘loosened spaces’ are the opposite, operating ’contrary to the
original, intended or expected use’ (Ameel & Tani, 2012b:19).
Therefore the city, which is traditionally dominated by mental objectivism, calculation and
intellectual coping strategies (Simmel, 1971 [1903]) is instead approached with an emotional and
spontaneous manner as traceurs maintain their ‘independence’ (ibid:324) from urbanism. Simmel’s
depiction of the city also shows that parkour antithetically works to create qualitative distinctions
where typically, only quantified actions occur. Parkour is an abandonment of Simmel’s ‘metropolitan
mentalities’ (ibid.) which include the intellectualisation, the ‘blasé’ attitude, reservedness and the
tightly regulated notion of individual distinction. Therefore in parkour, the actor is simply playing
with material forms that are limitless in their interactive and physical dialogue.
Bricolage:
To summarise thus-far, parkour creatively uses spaces and materials that few people use in
unconventional areas of the city. It therefore shares many qualities with arts such as street graffiti or
children ‘making dens’ (Malone, 2007:78), practices that use resources disparate objects. Traceurs
can therefore be typified as ‘bricoleurs’ (Lévi-Strauss, 1962) or 'effectual situationists’ (Debord,
1994) in that they ‘make do with whatever material is at hand to achieve a given end’ (Tilley,
1991:96). This was clear in my fieldwork as exercises arose from the materials that we found,
regardless of their apparent condition or visual appeal. Specific movements could not be forced if the

35. 35
environment did not hold the materials that were needed. Instead, the traceur must be adaptive,
having ‘operational or multifunctional use in relation to different situations' (Lévi-Strauss, 1962:17-
18). Lévi-Strauss’s original use of the term ‘bricoleurs’ was for understanding the construction of
myth out of cultural fragments of the past. Traceurs enact this same technique with the material world
around them. These skills of vision and bricolage allows parkour to convert urban wastage (such as
derelict walls) or what Thompson would call ‘rubbish’ into ‘transient’ or even ‘durable’ material
(Thompson, 1979). Crucially though, the bricoleur mindset is realized through the autonomy and
actions of ‘parkour play’. Without play, creativity would have no means of appearing, social relations
would likely be less meaningful and parkour would hold less future potential as a value creating
activity. This chapter has suggested the means in which traceurs comprehend and engage with the
environment that nurtures parkour. Next, I will widen my focus from the streets of London to the
transnational realities of modern parkour.

36. 36
3. Parkour:Our-Park (Global Potential)
3.1 Parkour Unity:
‘In communities where residents presume the future to hold hardship, socio-economic and political
constraints, parkour is an activity that presents possibilities for even greater change.’
(Neil Brown, 2007:9)
Potential:
Having conceptualised parkour at the individual and city level, the wider societal and political
implications of the practice must now be addressed. A 12 year old boy in Karen Malone’s study of
child space and perception describes his community with ‘cos it’s so built up, there’s not much to do’
(Malone, 2007:78). Parkour offers ‘something to do’, an alternative to other young urban exploits;
drug abuse, gangs, violence and laziness (Thibault, 2013) which are detrimental at the personal and
community level. As argued by Brown in the quote above, parkour is particularly well equipped to
help less well-off communities circumnavigate structural social institutions of exclusion (Harrington,
1962). Parkour’s inclusive qualities (it is free and can be practiced anywhere) can develop skills that
help to reverse ‘cultures of poverty’ (Lewis in Moynihan, 1969) in which children have learnt
techniques and values that in turn perpetuate their own circumstances. Parkour’s social skills include
the refinement of a ‘culture of effort’ (Thibault, 2013:51) compassion, interdependence, creativity
and a constant maintenance of optionality. Studies also suggest that traceurs develop more core-skills
such as leadership and resolve compared to that of gymnasts (Cazenave, 2007)7. These are all features
that create strong and able members of society.
7
Although this could just mean that ambitious and outgoing people are more likely to do parkour instead of
gymnastics.

37. 37
Parkour has also been shown to promote healthy social interaction in a Westminster school
(Grabowski & Thomsen, 2015) and the bringing together of conflicted ideologies and peoples in Italy
(De Martini Ugolotti, 2015) Gaza (Thorpe & Ahmed, 2015) and Iraq (Russell & Breur, 2015). As
suggested in earlier chapters, parkour can occur anywhere. These places are hugely different in
geographical terms yet they all have the essential ingredients for parkour culture; buildings and
enthusiasm. These are peoples with little in common, yet they are forming heterogeneous
collectivities (Guss, 2011:73) through their common pursuits in parkour. These examples show that
parkour serves to obfuscate various forms of physical, psychological, economic and historical tension
that exist prior to the practices introduction and adoption. In my own fieldwork, school children
would stand and watch what we were doing with curiosity. Should this curiousity convert into action
and participation in parkour, youths could benefit from a new sense of direction and purpose, like
those of the original Yamakasi group. Parkour is therefore a free collaborative tool for betterment,
development of youth agency, self-affirmation and social improvement.
3.2 Play For Health:
Neurological, Social & Learning Benefits:
‘Energy is contagious, catch it, and pass it on’
(Sebastien Foucan in Thibault, 2013:135)
Parkour’s key ingredient, play, has many benefits in terms of improving the function of the
brain, psychology and education of children. For example, studies have shown that having regular
breaks (involving play and movement) correlates with stronger academic achievement (Stevenson &
Lee, 1990). This is seen in Japanese and Chinese students (in contrast with American students) that
have short breaks every fifty minutes (ibid.). Other studies suggest that play is a form of

38. 38
experimentation that yields significantly to the learning process. For example, having given two
different groups of children either divergent (blocks) or convergent (puzzles) materials to play with,
the first group proved to be more creative and accurate in their answers when given a test (Pepler &
Ross, 1981). This study has obvious parallels to parkour where the traceur converts convergent
‘striated’ environments (Deleuze & Guittari, 1987:474) into divergent materials which then have
exponentially more potential. Another study suggests that humans may have a special sensitivity to
forms of play which stimulate social cognition (Bjorklund & Brown, 1998). Additionally, play,
physical activity and the subsequent release of endorphins is a neglected focus of physical health for
the treatment of conditions such as depression, anxiety, schizophrenia, self-esteem and cognitive
function (Callaghan, 2004). As mentioned in chapter one, parkour’s intense relationship with flow
(Csikszentmihalyi, 1990) is an extremely effective mind state for fast learning. In summary, the
effects of the diverse, impulsive and energetic movements found in parkour have many serious mental
benefits.
Physical Benefits:
Play is also crucial with developing good physical health in children and adults. For example,
the benefits of letting children engage in ‘risky play’ outweigh more traditional concerns over child
safety and injury (Brussoni et al. 2015). Researchers have also found ‘materials that can be
manipulated by the children (e.g., wood, crates), and the freedom to engage in activities of their
choosing influenced play affordances, children’s interest in playing there, and the play spaces value
in health promotion’ (ibid: 6447). Therefore, freedom of movement confers greater interest in ones
activities and therefore a cycle of increasing complexity will occur. Play also involves movement of
the body that works the cardiovascular system muscles, tendons, ligaments and other bodily systems
mitigating the accruing damage that occur from modern dangers such as prolonged periods of sitting
(Beddhu et al. 2015). Certain techniques in parkour such as the drop landing have proved to be more

39. 39
effective in dissipating ground forces (and safer) than the traditional techniques taught in say, the
military or sports industries (Puddle & Maulder, 2013). The myriad of techniques in parkour may be
of great use to other areas of society such as firefighting, police and security. For example, London’s
own ‘Parkour Generations’, have ‘Tactical’ services which test the security of buildings and coach
navigation in urban terrains. It is clear that whilst parkour inevitably has injuries (Derakhshan et al.
2014; Mclean & Pike, 2006)8 the practice also has diverse application in many professions outside
the world of the traceur and can aid society in terms of health, function and efficiency.
3.3 Political Parkour:
‘What the state can do is, over decades, over centuries, entrench people’s identities, organise their fears,
organise their hopes’
(David Runciman, 2010, BBC, Enemy of the State)
Free Inquiry:
Although not normally explicitly or verbally political, parkour engages in a kind of ‘soft
politics’ or ‘urban activism’ (Mould, 2015). Parkour involves creating one’s own citizenship, which
includes access to all locations of the city (ibid.). Atkinson typifies this relationship, describing
traceurs as ‘late modern flâneurs, who typically express disdain for suffocatingly organized, scripted,
contained, authoritarian, competitive, and consumer-based cultural experiences and spaces’
(Atkinson, 2009:11). Noam Chomsky states that there is a universal human desire for creative, free
inquiry which is repressed by modern society and its bureaucracy (Chomsky in Foucault & Rabinow,
1991:5). Parkour realises this inquiry as an opposition to inertia as traceurs see a capacity for
wilderness in all materials, raw or determined. Foucault claims that architecture enacts a form of
8
Of which, many cases go unreported (See Mclean, Housian & Pike, 2006)

40. 40
political power on residents (Foucault, 1982:777) but as suggested by Angel, parkour ‘serves to
include and connect participants to the political technology of architecture’ (Angel, J. 2011:149)
through interactional, deliberate and conscious movements of the body.
As more people move to big cities, humans become increasingly removed from nature and
consequentially more sedentary (e.g. in Sub-Saharan Africa: Assah et al. 2011). The current solution
for this alienation is places such as fitness gyms, ‘disciplining institutions’ (Foucault, 1995) that
paradoxically offer little real correlation to the ancestrally functional human body. Although in these
places the body may be ‘awakened to its nature’ (Sassatelli, 2015:242), this nature is robotic and
repetitive. On the other hand, parkour’s ‘urban jungle’ is uncompromising, a visceral reflection of
city life that builds autonomous, tough and robust athletes. In summary, parkour allows the traceur
the ability to choose and organize their own fears, circumnavigating the persuasions of the state.
Alternative Path:
Parkour offers an alternative path, one that utilises the urban ‘nature’ of the city alongside
an undeniable freedom of expression. Parkour also involves the mobility of Thompson’s categories
(durable, transient and rubbish) which result in a ‘continuous realignment of power and status’
(Thompson, 1979:110). Therefore, although not overtly political, parkour offers an open critique of
society in a raw, physical manner. Creative arts impact communities in many ways, from potential
economic revival (Bryan, 1998) to empowering or educating poor people to improve their
circumstances (Guetzkow, 2002) or health (Angus, 1999). As noted by Borden (2001), the marginal
status of socio-spatial subcultures such as parkour allows them the right and means to critique their
environment. The traceur therefore recognizes the liminal and relegated spaces of society, finding
‘energy in its margins and unstructured areas’ (Douglas, 1966:141) and catharsis in its potential. Thus,
what parkour can do is liberate people to play with the (normally claustrophobic) structures that

41. 41
surround them. This is not an additional practice, nothing is added to people’s lives except one crucial
element; permission to play. In summary, parkour rejects and affirms certain ideologies that have
clear political implications. These include the right for public access, a rejection of forms of
privatization and the need for sustainable and free spaces in the city. Lastly, traceurs refuse to
succumb to the structural dogmas or striated spaces ‘that closes a surface, divides it up at determinable
intervals’ (Deleuze & Guittari, 1987:481) that determine the passages of flow in everyday city life.

42. 42
4. Conclusion: What Does Parkour Do?
‘Parkour is not simply a collection of movement techniques and training methods: it’s a concept, an idea, a
way of thinking and being. It’s an art of living.’
Vincent Thibault, 2013:13)
Summary of Findings:
This thesis originally set out to study the physical and mental techniques of parkour on a local level.
However, upon reviewing the literature and engaging in the community, the implications of parkour’s
philosophy clearly operate on a more fundamental level; that of a global phenomenon. What I have
attempted to do is ascertain and theoretically develop ideas that are experienced by the everyday
traceur. I began with an analysis of the qualities and techniques that traceurs learn as they progress in
parkour from beginner to experienced. I then located parkour within the framework of the modern,
urban city. Finally, the societal and political impacts of the practice were addressed. Several themes
of notable interest have been developed over the duration of this thesis. The progression from
technique and structure to that of free, flowing and ludic play has been of critical importance. Most
importantly however is the ingredient of ludic play which allows parkour to be so effective and
affective in all areas, from the local to the global.
Parkour therefore signifies the best of adult and child-like qualities, it is a relentlessly playful
‘art of living’ (Thibault, 2013:13) that is practical and self-affirming. This practice offers an
alternative, a philosophy, a community that is set on circumventing the mundane routes of passage
that have been formatted into urban places. It gives permission for smoothness and freedom where
hardness and conformity rule. Therefore freedom is available to anyone that has the mind of a
bricoleur, the eyes of a traceur and the body of an animal. This research has found that parkour is a
creative and cultural asset to any city that is willing to nurture it.

43. 43
The Future of Parkour?
Whilst still a fledgling practice, parkour has certain characteristics that make it invaluable to
those who practice it. It is antithetical too much of modern life in that parkour cannot be bought,
obtained or dominated. As part of a general movement towards certain forms of awareness;
mindfulness, meditation and health (mental and physical) (Sykes Wylie, 2015) parkour, and other
self-focused practices such as yoga will likely increase in global popularity. After all, it is
economically ‘free’ things that create freedom. Parkour occurs in spaces that are unappreciated and
imbues them with activity in a way that is place or ‘topophilia’ making. It is the untapped urban
resources that holds the key to Parkour’s future success. With a clear global increase in urban sprawl,
parkour, alongside graffiti and other urban exploits can creatively engage populations ‘in a planet of
cities’ (ibid:104) that do not have the same access to green spaces that we currently enjoy. These
findings are important because the world will look increasingly like the ideal materials of parkour. It
is reasonable to assume that in the future,e parkour will be increasingly influential on institutions and
systems such as education, youth projects, sports programs, the military, law and emergency services
(Thibault, 2013:12). Therefore, the unfolding of parkour is indefinitely linked with the cities, policies
and philosophies of the future. Specifically, the ‘evolving flux of individuals’ (Angel, 2011:238) will
shape the parkour that the world will know in ten, fifty and one hundred years..
Research Recommendations:
Future ‘physical culture’ studies will have to be increasingly reliant on the ever-changing
realities of globalisation and inter-cultural exchange. Practitioners of parkour will never be isolated,
the internet has perforated all aspects of its inception, day to day realities and future. Similarly,
researchers cannot study urban practices without a sound understanding of the emergent spaces and
relationships that cities subsist of. Ture isolation is a dead concept just as creativity is now a thing of
the collective, the connected and the social (Johnson, 2011). To glimpse the inner workings of parkour

44. 44
is to learn about how people, bodies and societies organise themselves in a world of cultural cross
contamination. Essentially then, parkour is what happens when people give themselves permission to
flow without reason or cause. The resulting aesthetic can be crude, dangerous and painful, yet also
beautiful and invigorating. Above all though, I believe that parkour’s culture has the much needed
mobility that can help fix the most broken, relegated areas of our urban metropolises.
Image 8: The last session of the year in March. This was at one of the parks in Archway. Facebook. Not my
own image.

45. 45
5 Acknowledgements:
Without UCLU Parkour Club my comprehension of the practice would have been inadequate for a
study on the anthropology and efficacy of parkour. For this, I am immensely grateful as this thesis
would otherwise not have been possible. The society was exceptionally welcoming, providing the
author with a positive insight into the education, effectiveness and usages of parkour in society.
An enormous thanks is also due to my supervisor Alison Macdonald for her invaluable feedback,
ideas, patience and encouragement.

46. 46
6. References:
Ameel, L.,Tani, S. (2012a). Everyday Aesthetics in Action: Parkour Eyes and the Beauty of
Concrete Walls. Emotion, Space and Society, 5(3), pp.164-173.
Ameel, L., Tani, S. (2012b). Parkour: Creating Loose Spaces? Geografiska Annaler: Series B,
Human Geography. 94(1), pp.17-30.
Americanparkour.com. (2008). The Leave No Trace Initiative. [Online] Available at:
http://americanparkour.com/smf/index.php?topic=9059.0;wap [Accessed 28 Mar. 2016].
Angel, J. (2011). Ciné Parkour. Brunel University School of Arts. PhD Theses. Print.
Angel, J. (2014). Game Maps: Parkour Vision and Urban Relations. In: Choreographic Dwellings.
Schillen, Rubidge.
Angel, S., Parent, J., Civco, D., Blei, A., Potere, D. (2011). The Dimensions of Global Urban
Expansion: Estimates and Projections for All Countries, 2000–2050. Progress in Planning,
75(2), pp.53-107.
Angus, J. (1999). An Enquiry Concerning Possible Methods for Evaluation Arts for Health Projects.
Bath, UK: Community Health.
Appadurai, A. (1993). Global Ethnoscapes: Notes and Queries for a Transnational Anthropology.
In: Vertovec, S. and Cohen, R. Migration, Diasporas, and Transnationalism, Publisher:
Edward Elgar Publishers. Pp.464-483.
Armando, A. (2005). Treading a Fine Line in Mall Threads: Hoodies’ Ban in U.K. Less Likely to be
Enforced Here. National Post.
Assah, F., Ekelund, U., Brage, S., Mbanya, J., Wareham, N. (2011). Urbanization, Physical
Activity, and Metabolic Health in Sub-Saharan Africa. Diabetes Care, 34(2), pp.491-496.
Atkinson M. (2009). Parkour, Anarcho-Environmentalism, and Poiesis. Journal of Sport and Social
Issues 33(2): 169−94.
Beddhu, S., Wei, G., Marcus, R., Chonchol, M., Greene, T. (2015). Light-Intensity Physical
Activities and Mortality in the United States General Population and CKD Subpopulation.
Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology, 10(7), pp.1145-1153.
Belle, D. (2009). Parkour. [Paris]: Intervista.
Benjamin. W. (1999). Selected Writings II 1927-1934. Trans. Rodney Livingstone et al. Eds.
Michael W. Jennings, Howard Eiland, and Gary Smith. Cambridge, MA: Harvard.
Broadbent, S. (2012). Approaches to Personal Communication. In: Horst, H., Miller, D. (eds.),
Digital Anthropology. Pp.127-145, London: Berg.
Black, J. Knight, L. (2013). Parkour-Related Death: Case Report and Review of the Literature.
Academic Forensice Pathology. 3(3):329-335.

47. 47
Blommaert, J. (2015). The Importance of Unimportant Language. Multilingual Margins. A Journal
of Multilingualism From the Periphery. 2(1): 4-9.
Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge University Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1990). The Logic of Practice. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press.
Borden, I. (2001). Skateboarding, Space and the City: Architecture and the Body. Berg: Oxford &
New York.
Breton, D. (2000). Playing Symbolically with Death in Extreme Sports. Body & Society, 6(1), pp.1-
11.
Brown, N. (2007). ‘The Art of Displacement, Parkour as a Challenge to Social Perceptions of Body
and Space’. Retrieved November 10th, 2015,
http://www.aughty.org/pdf/art_of_displacement.pdf.
Brussoni, M., Gibbons, R., Gray, C., Ishikawa, T., Sandseter, E., Bienenstock, A., Chabot, G.,
Fuselli, P., Herrington, S., Janssen, I., Pickett, W., Power, M., Stanger, N., Sampson, M.,
Tremblay, M. (2015). What is the Relationship between Risky Outdoor Play and Health in
Children? A Systematic Review. International Journal of Environmental Research and
Public Health, 12(6), pp.6423-6454.
Bjorklund, D., Brown, R. (1998). Physical Play and Cognitive Development: Integrating Activity,
Cognition, and Education. Child Development, 69(3), p.604.
Callaghan, P. (2004). Exercise: a Neglected Intervention in Mental Health Care?. Journal of
Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing, 11(4), pp.476-483.
Cazenave, N. (2007). ‘La Pratique du Parkour Chez Les Adolescents Des Banlieues: Entre
Recherche de Sensation et Renforcement Narcissique’. Neuropsychiatrie de l'Enfance et de
l’Adolescence. 55 (3): 154–159.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow. New York: Harper & Row.
de Certeau, M. (1984). The Practice of Everyday Life, trans. Rendall, S. University of California
Press, Berkeley.
De Martini Ugolotti, N. (2015). Climbing Walls, Making Bridges: Children of Immigrants’ Identity
Negotiations through Capoeira and Parkour in Turin, Leisure Studies, Vol.34 (1), p.19-33.
Web.
Derakhshan, N., Zarei M., Malekmohammady, Z., Rahimi-Movaghar, V. (2014). Spinal Cord Injury
in Parkour Sport (Free Running): A Rare Case Report. Chinese Journal of Traumatology.
2014; 17(3):178-9.
de Souza e Silva, A., Sutko, D. (2008). Playing Life and Living Play: How Hybrid Reality Games
Reframe Space, Play, and the Ordinary. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 25(5),
pp.447-465.

48. 48
Debord, G. (1956). Theory of the Dérive. Les Lèvres Nues #9. Reprinted in Internationale
Situationniste #2 (Paris, December 1958). Translated by Knabb, K.
Debord, G. (1994). The society of the spectacle. New York: Zone Books.
Deleuze, G., Guattari, F. (1987). A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia. Trans.
Massumi, B. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Douglas, M. (1966). Purity & Danger: An Analysis of the Concepts of Pollution and Taboo,
London: Routledge.
Dryden, D. (2001). Susanne Langer and William James: Art and the Dynamics of the Stream of
Consciousness. The Journal of Speculative Philosophy, 15(4), pp.272-285.
Edwardes, D. (2009). The Parkour & Freerunning Handbook. Dey Street Books. Print.
Edwardes, D. (2016). Breaking the Jump: The Heart of Parkour. [Online] Dan Edwardes. Available
at: https://danedwardes.com/2013/06/15/breaking-the-jump-the-heart-of-parkour/
[Accessed 9 Apr. 2016].
Eichberg, H. (1998). Body Culture. Physical Culture and Sport. Studies and Research. Volume 46,
Issue 1, Pages 79–98, ISSN (Online) 1899-4849, ISSN (Print) 2081-2221.
Elias, N. (1939). Über den Prozess der Zivilisation. Soziogenetische und Psychogenetische
Untersuchungen. 17th Ed. Frankfurt/M.: Suhrkamp (1992). Vols. 1-2. – English 1982: The
Civilizing Process. Oxford: Blackwell.
Eriksen, T. (2003). Creolization and Creativity. Global Networks, 3(3), pp.223-237.
Farnell, B. (1999). Moving Bodies, Acting Selves. Annu. Rev. Anthropol., 28(1), pp.341-373.
Foucault, M. (1988). ‘Technologies of the Self.’ Edited by Martin, L., Gutman, H., Hutton, P. pp.
16-49. University of Massachusetts Press
Foucault, M., Rabinow, P. (1991). The Foucault Reader. London: Penguin Books.
Foucault, M. (1995). Discipline and Punish. New York: Vintage Books.
Forencich, F. (2006). Exuberant Animal. Bloomington: Author House.
Forty, A. (2012). ‘One Mud and Modernity’. In his: Concrete and Culture. Reaktion Books: 13 –
43.
Florian, L., Routier G, Héas, S, Bodin, D. (2010). Urban Culture and Physical and Sports Activities.
The "Sportification" of Parkour and Street Golf as Cultural Mediation [J]. Canadian
Review of Sociology; 47(3):293-317.
Franck, K., Stevens, Q. (2007). Loose Space. London: Routledge.
Gell, A. (1997) ‘Conclusion: The Extended Mind’ Ch. 8. In his: Art and Agency. Clarendon: 221 –
251.
Gieryn, T. (2002). What Buildings Do. Theory and Society. 31(1). Pp. 35-74.

49. 49
Gins, M., Arakawa, S. (2002). Architectural Body. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.
Gonzalez, G. (2005). Urban Sprawl, Global Warming and the Limits of Ecological Modernisation,
Environmental Politics, 14:3, 344-362,
Grabowski, D. Thomsen, S. (2015). Parkour as Health Promotion in Schools: A Qualitative Study
on Health Identity, World Journal of Education, June 2015. Vol.5(3).
Guetzkow, J, (2002). How the Arts Impact Communities: An Introduction to the Literature on Arts
Impact Studies. In: Taking the Measure of Culture Conference. Princeton University, 7th
June. 1-26.
Guss, N. (2011). Parkour and the Multitude: Politics of a Dangerous Art. French Cultural Studies,
22(1), pp.73-85.
Harrington, M. (1962). The Other America. New York: Macmillan.
Hébert, G. (1912). Practical Guide of Physical Education. Translated by: Pilou & Gregg.
Heidegger, M. (1977). Basic Writings. New York: Harper & Row.
Hubbard, P. (2006). City. New York, NY: Routledge.
Ingold, T. (2007). ‘Traces, Threads and Surfaces’. In his: Lines: a Brief History. Routledge: 39 –
72.
Inzlicht, M., Schmeichel, B., Macrae, C. (2014). Why Self-Control Seems (but may not be)
Limited. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 18(3), pp.127-133.
Jackson, M. (1989). Paths Toward a Clearing: Radical Empiricism and Ethnographic Inquiry.
Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Jackson, S., Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1999). Flow in Sports. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Johnson, S. (2010). Where Good Ideas Come From. New York: Riverhead Books.
Kaeppler, A. (2000). Dance Ethnology and the Anthropology of Dance. Dance Research Journal,
32(1), p.116.
Latour, B. (1993). We Have Never Been Modern. Trans: Porter, C. Harvard University Press.
Le Corre, E. (2007). ‘Keeping Parkour Rivalry Free: JOIN IN’ Parkour.net,
http://parkour.net/forum/index.php?showtopic=9539. Accessed 11 January 2016.
Lefebvre, H. (1996). Writings on Cities. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Lewis, O. (1969). ‘Culture of Poverty’ in: Moynihan, D. On Understanding Poverty: Perspectives
from the Social Sciences. New York: Basic Books. P.p. 187–220.
Lévi-Strauss, C. (1966). The Savage Mind. The University Of Chicago Press.

50. 50
Lyng, S. (2005). Edgework. New York: Routledge.
Lyng, S., Matthews, R. (2007). Risk, Edgework, and Masculinities. In: Hannah-Moffat, K.,
O’Malley, P. (eds). Gendered Risks. Milton Park: Routledge-Cavendish, pp. 75—98.
Malone, K. (2007). Child Space: An Anthropological Exploration of Young Peoples Use of Space.
Concept Publishing Co.
Mauss, M. (1934). Les Techniques du Corps, Journal de Psychologie 32(3-4). Reprinted in Mauss,
Sociologie et Anthropologie, 1936, Paris: PUF
Maslow, A. (1970). Motivation and Personality. New York: Harper & Row.
McLean, C., Houshian, S. and Pike, J. (2006). Paediatric fractures sustained in Parkour (free
running). Injury, 37(8), pp.795-797.
Merleau-Ponty, M. (1961). Phenomenology of Perception. London: Routledge & K. Paul; New
York: Humanities Press.
Miller, D. (2011). Tales from Facebook. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
Mould, O. (2015). Parkour, Activism and Young People. Space, Place and Environment.
Geographies of Children and Young People. (3) Pp. 1-19.
Nolan, N. (2003). The Ins and Outs of Skateboarding and Transgression in Public Spaces in
Newcastle, Australia. Australian Geographer. 34 (3): 311-327.
Pachucki, Mark A., Pendergrass, S. Lamont, M. (2007). “Boundary Processes: Recent Theoretical
Developments and New Contributions.” Poetics. 35(6):331–351
Palmer, C. (2002). ‘Shit Happens’: The Selling of Risk in Extreme Sport, The Australian Journal of
Anthropology, Vol 13, Iss 3, pages 323-336.
Pepler D., Ross H. (1981). The Effects of Play on Convergent and Divergent Problem Solving.
Child Development, 52(4): 1202-1210.
Portal, I. (2016). Ido Portal | Movement Culture.[Online] Idoportal.com. Available at:
http://www.idoportal.com/ [Accessed 21 Apr. 2016].
Pottle, M. (2014). The Summits of Modern Man: Mountaineering after the Enlightenment. Journal
of Historical Geography, 43, pp.189-190.
Ranscombe, P. (2015). Fear, Resilience, and Tunnel Vision. The Lancet Neurology, 14(12), p.1158.
Rawe, J. (2008). "Student Stuntmen". Time. Retrieved 13 June. Available at:
http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1607235,00.html
Russell, J., Breuer, T. (2015). Parkour Brings Iraqis Together. [Online] Interactive.aljazeera.com.
Available at: http://interactive.aljazeera.com/aje/2015/kirkuk_parkour/ [Accessed 1 Oct.
2015].

51. 51
Sassatelli, R. (2015). Healthy Cities and Instrumental Leisure: The Paradox of Fitness Gyms as
Urban Phenomena. Modern Italy, 20(3), pp.237-249.
Saville, S. (2008). Playing with Fear: Parkour and the Mobility of Emotion, Social & Cultural
Geography, 9:8, 891-914.
Schacter, R. (2008). ‘An Ethnography of Iconoclash: An Investigation into the Production,
Consumption and Destruction of Street-Art in London’. Journal of Material Culture. 13.1:
35-61.
Sennett, R. (1978). The Fall Of Public Man. New York: Vintage Books. Print.
Simmel, G. (1971 [1903]) 'The Metropolis and Mental Life' in Georg Simmel on Individuality and
Social Forms, Levine, D.N.(ed.) Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 324-39.
Spencer, D. (2009). Habit(us), Body Techniques and Body Callusing: An Ethnography of Mixed
Martial Arts. Body & Society, 15(4), pp.119-143.
Stevenson, H., Lee, S., Chen, C., Stigler, J., Hsu, C., Kitamura, S., Hatano, G. (1990). Contexts of
Achievement: A Study of American, Chinese, and Japanese Children. Monographs of the
Society for Research in Child Development, 55(1/2), p.i.
Strathern, M., (1979). The Self in Self Decoration. Oceania, 49(4), pp. 241-257.
Sutton-Smith, B. (1997). The Ambiguity of Play. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.
Sykes Wylie, M. (2015). How the Mindfulness Movement Went Mainstream -- And the Backlash
That Came With It. [Online] Alternet. Available at: http://www.alternet.org/personal-
health/how-mindfulness-movement-went-mainstream-and-backlash-came-it [Accessed 17
Apr. 2016].
Taleb, N. (2012). Antifragile: Things that Gain from Disorder. New York: Random House.
The Upcoming. (2016). Experience The Jungle Book masterclass at London’s Southbank with
parkour expert Tim Shieff. [online] Available at:
http://www.theupcoming.co.uk/2016/04/08/experience-a-jungle-book-masterclass-at-
londons-southbank-with-parkour-expert-tim-shieff/ [Accessed 20 Apr. 2016].
Thibault, V. (2013). Parkour and the 'Art du Déplacement': Strength, Dignity, Community, trans.
by Roberts, C. Print.
Thorpe, H., Ahmad, N. (2013). Youth, Action Sports and Political Agency in the Middle East:
Lessons from a Grassroots Parkour Group in Gaza. International Review for the Sociology
of Sport, 50(6), pp.678-704.
Thompson, M. (1979). Rubbish Theory: The Creation and Destruction of Value. Oxford University
Press.
Tilley, C. (1991). Material Culture and Text: The Art of Ambiguity. Routledge.

52. 52
Tuan, Y. (1977). Space and Place. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Tuan, Y. (1974). Topophilia: A Study of Environmental Perception, Attitudes, and Values.
Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
Turkle, S. (2013). Alone Together. Basic Books.
Vigroux, S. (2015). Facebook. [Online] Facebook.com. Available at:
https://www.facebook.com/stephane.vigroux?fref=ts [Accessed 10 Mar. 2016].
Wacquant, L. (2004). Body & Soul: Notebooks of an Apprentice Boxer. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Cited Films and Video Games:
Breaking and Entering. (2006). [DVD] United Kingdom: Anthony Minghella.
Casino Royale. (2006). [DVD] United Kingdom: Martin Campbell
Coca Cola, (2010). Coca Cola Parkour TV Advert. [Video] Available at:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PikbBkgm504 [Accessed 24 Mar. 2016].
Enemy of the State. (2010). [video] David Runciman: BBC.
Jump Britain. (2005). London: Director: Christie, M. Producer: Carbon Media. Video.
Jump London. (2003). Producer: Smith, M. Featuring: Jerome Ben Aoues, Sébastien Foucan, and
Johann Vigroux. Law, Jaclyn. Video.
London Real, (2012). Sebastien Foucan - Find Your Way. [Video] Available at:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGq1j_xyzHM [Accessed 27 Mar. 2016].
Nike, (2009). Nike Robot Parkour Runner. [Video] Available at:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldGeeMbC8EU [Accessed 26 Mar. 2016].
Run. (2013). [DVD] United States: Simone Bartesaghi.
Rush Hour (2002). BBC One Promotion Trailer. Tom Carty. Director: Erickson, E. Producer: BBC
Broadcast.
Toyota, (2006). Toyota Parkour Advert. [Video] Available at:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpgRqHVOiR8 [Accessed 26 Mar. 2016].
Tracers. (2015). [DVD] United States: Daniel Benmayor.
Ubisoft (2007). Assassins Creed. Video Game.
Ultimate Parkour Challenge. (2009). [Video] California: MTV.
Willis, K. (2015). Parkour 'Spirituality'. [Video] Available at:
https://www.facebook.com/KieWillis/videos/855535407837777/ [Accessed 1 Apr. 2016].

53. 53
7. Appendices:
Appendix 1: Examples of ‘aesthetic’ parkour movement:
‘l1consolable’ Youtube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3dkA8qje7kY
Timothy Sheiff: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrFogPoQfXc
Sebastien Foucan in ‘Casino Royale’ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZxNbAwY_rk
Stephane Vigroux ‘The Monkeys Back’ Documentary:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4mZf80fOhQ
Appendix 2: Map of 70 popular Parkour locations in central London:
Found at: https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=zTbaeCnCHZtk.kngJ8gwMd1Ws&hl=en