The field of PE, then, is made up of a structured system of social relations between the educational authority, PE teacher educators, PE curriculum writers, health and sport professionals who have influence over curriculum and practices, individual school administrators, PE teachers, and PE students. Any analysis of discourses and the individual devoid of a social context is flawed and limited because it denies the relational positioning of the individual within social fields. The body highlighted by Bourdieu’s concept of habitus is paramount in reading an individual, categorizing and positioning them within a field. Interconnected to the concept of field is habitus, the corporeal dispositions that interact with the social relations. Habitus works similarly to subjectivity, but emphasizes embodiment and the role of the body in constituting habitus, as well as being constituted by habitus (Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992). This dialectic becomes important in understanding the intertwining of material and symbolic practices in the construction of the subject, such as linguistic conceptions of the construction of corporeality. Bourdieu’s emphasis on social structures is balanced by his conceptualization of agency. However, acting as an agent may be mediated by influences that are beyond conscious realization. Therefore, agents may actually reproduce the very structures that limit them. These become important points to discuss when arguing for people’s ability to reflect and be reflexive, to act as an agent. Agency can be contextualized in the positioning of young people as not-adults, as students, and within the discourses of particular subject areas such as PE. It is through the tension between being subjected to meaning inherent in the discourses of

PE-området består derefter af et struktureret system af sociale relationer mellem uddannelsesmyndigheden, PE-læreruddannere, PE-læseplanforfattere, sundheds- og sportsfolk, der har indflydelse på læseplaner og praksis, individuelle skoleadministratorer, PE-lærere og PE-studerende. Enhver analyse af diskurser og individet uden social sammenhæng er mangelfuld og begrænset, fordi den benægter individets relationelle positionering inden for sociale felter. Det organ, der fremhæves af Bourdieus koncept om habitus, er det vigtigste i læsning af et individ, kategorisering og placering af dem inden for et felt. Forbundet med begrebet felt er habitus, de fysiske dispositioner, der interagerer med de sociale relationer. Habitus fungerer på samme måde som subjektivitet, men understreger legemliggørelse og legemets rolle i at udgøre habitus såvel som at den udgøres af habitus (Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992). Denne dialektik bliver vigtig i forståelsen af ​​sammenflettet af materiel og symbolsk praksis i konstruktionen af ​​emnet, såsom sproglige forestillinger om konstruktionen af ​​korporalitet. Bourdieus vægt på sociale strukturer er afbalanceret af hans konceptualisering af agenturet. At fungere som et middel kan imidlertid formidles af påvirkninger, der er uden for bevidst erkendelse. Derfor reproducerer agenter muligvis de meget strukturer, der begrænser dem.Disse bliver vigtige punkter til diskussion, når man argumenterer for folks evne til at reflektere og være refleksiv, til at fungere som en agent. Agenturet kan kontekstualiseres i placeringen af ​​unge mennesker som ikke-voksne, som studerende og inden for diskurserne inden for bestemte fagområder såsom PE. Det er gennem spændingerne mellem at blive udsat for mening iboende i diskurserne om