Skip to main content

Parkour: Adventure, Risk, and Safety in the Urban Environment

Abstract

Parkour is a new sport based on athletically and artistically overcoming urban obstacles (e.g., climbing up and vaulting over walls). In this paper, I position parkour as a form of urban adventurism allowing for tests of individual character. This involves what I call rites of risk and rituals of symbolic safety. Together these rites and rituals allow individuals to seek out exciting and dangerous activities while couching their risk-taking in discourses and practices that affirm the value of the self. Thus, although parkour can be dangerous, practitioners use symbolic forms of safety to give their actions meaning and emphasize their ability to handle the risks involved.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Notes

  1. 1.

    In the U.S., nearly 33,000 people died in motor vehicle crashes in 2010 (NHTSA 2011), well over 30,000 people a year require emergency medical treatments from table saw injuries (Chowdhury and Paul 2011), while approximately 17 % of food asphyxiations in children are caused by hotdogs—resulting in a call for officially labeling the food a choking hazard (AAP 2010). And, of course, the morbid list of ways a person might leave this world is nearly endless.

  2. 2.

    In this specific case, the outcome (once it was known) was rather ambivalent. The local media mentioned the stunt, which most traceurs seemed to take a certain degree of pride in. Conversely, the traceur’s attraction of police attention angered many within the parkour community (even those that seemed impressed by the news coverage). Several weeks after the event, Arnold was covered in a full body rash, which he attributed to his exposure to the water. For his part, he attempted to situate his skin malady as proof that he was the sort of person willing to do bold and outlandish things. Alternatively, many Chicagoland traceurs took his persistent rash to indicate Arnold’s unchecked recklessness (see below).

  3. 3.

    Corporations (e.g., apparel and shoe manufacturers, gyms, television and videogame companies, etc.) and entrepreneurial traceurs are rapidly finding ways to profit from parkour—a common progression in the development of an alternative sport (see Beal 1995; Rinehart 1998, 2008; Thorpe 2006). During the time of my fieldwork in Chicagoland, however, entrepreneurial activities were very limited (e.g., paid instructional courses at local gyms and the sale of parkour themed t-shirts) and mostly carried out by members of the local community. Corporate commercialization (e.g., television shows on MTV and G4) was mostly ignored or spoken of negatively. Parkour specific shoes, however, were highly coveted, and the companies that made them a common topic for positive discussions. Aside from shoes (a product which cannot be easily manufactured at the local level), the day-to-day activities within the Chicago parkour community were self-determined and self-governed.

  4. 4.

    The distinction between rites and rituals is often muddled in the literature. Rite is a term usually discussed in reference to specific types of activities (e.g., rites of passage). The term ritual tends to be used to describe the more general process of prescribed, reoccurring collective activities (see especially Alexander 2004; Collins 2004; Rappaport 1999). For this paper, the value in distinguishing rites and rituals is in analytically separating individual practices (i.e., dangerous stunts) from the collectively enacted, communicative performances that provide the meaningful framework for them (i.e., symbolic appeals to safety). Rites (whether performed in isolation or in a group) denote membership and faith, but the significance of such acts is forged in rituals (which are always performed communally). Thus, as I am using the terms, rites and rituals are interdependent. Rituals are composed of rites, but the social meaning of rites is generated in rituals.

  5. 5.

    There is considerable debate within the exercise and sports science literature (as well as the mainstream media) about the efficacy of warming-up and stretching, as well as the best protocols to follow. However, in a review of existing research, Woods et al. (2007) demonstrate the value of mild muscle exertion and stretching prior to intense athletic activity in reducing injury and improving athletic performance. Most important for the purposes of my argument (regardless of what future research might determine about the value of warming up and stretching before strenuous exercise), traceurs uniformly claimed such protocols were beneficial to their health.

  6. 6.

    To further clarify my use of rite and ritual: conditioning and stretching alone would be a rite (i.e., an act of membership and faith to responsible training). When done in a group, it becomes a ritual. Unless a traceur is talking to himself, talk of progression is always a ritual. While rites of risk are often performed communally, the prescribed modes for carrying out the action (i.e., Turner’s definition of ritual) are about calling forth symbolic forms of safety. Thus, I refer to risk-taking as a rite and appeals to symbolic safety as a ritual. Further, as the above data show, traceurs’ performances of safety are about communicating the significance of those symbols to others (i.e., the essential component of both Alexander and Rappaport’s definition of ritual).

  7. 7.

    Insulting a stranger, jumping a subway turnstile, booking an airline ticket and leaving town with no notice to friends and family: Should a person choose to look for it, potentially life-altering uncertainty lurks around every corner. For most people, most of the time, such decisions are so nonsensical they do not even register as options for action. Some risky actions, however, do make sense to some people, at least some of the time.

References

  1. Alexander, Jeffrey C. 2004. Cultural pragmatics: Social performance between ritual and strategy. Sociological Theory 22: 527–573.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Alosi, Michael. 2009. Point B [film]. www.pointbmovie.com. Accessed on 11 November 2011.

  3. American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP). 2010. Policy statement—Prevention of choking among children. Pediatrics 125: 601–607.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Anderson, Elijah. 2003. Jelly’s place: An ethnographic memoir. Symbolic Interaction 26: 217–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Arnould, Eric J., Linda L. Price, and Cele Otnes. 1999. Making magic consumption: A study of white-water river rafting. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 28: 33–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Atkinson, Michael. 2009. Parkour, anarcho-environmentalism, and poiesis. Journal of Sport & Social Issues 33: 169–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Beal, Becky. 1995. Disqualifying the official: An exploration of social resistance through the subculture of skateboarding. Sociology of Sport Journal 12: 252–267.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Beal, Becky. 1996. Alternative masculinity and it’s effects on gender relations in the subculture of skateboarding. Journal of Sport Behavior 19: 204–220.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Beck, Ulrich. 1992. Risk society: Towards a new modernity. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Beck, Ulrich. 2000. The brave new world of work. Malden: Blackwell Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Beisser, Arnold. 1964. The madness of sports: Psychosocial observations on sport. New York: Appleton.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Breivik, Gunnar. 2010. Trends in adventure sports in a post-modern society. Sport in Society 13: 260–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Chowdhury, Sadeq R. and Caroleene Paul. 2011. Survey of injuries involving stationary saws: Table and bench saws 2007–2008. U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission. www.cpsc.gov//PageFiles/108980/statsaws.pdf. Accessed on 15 January 2012.

  14. Christie, Mike. 2003. Jump London [film]. London: Channel 4.

  15. Christie, Mike. 2005. Jump Britain [film]. London: Channel 4.

  16. Collins, Randall. 2004. Interaction ritual chains. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Connell, R.W. 2000. The men and the boys. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  18. de Certeau, Michel. 1984. The practice of everyday life, trans. Steven Rendall. Berkeley: University of California Press.

  19. Donnelly, Michele K. 2008. Take the slam and get back up: Hardcore Candy and the politics of representation in girls’ and women’s skateboarding and snowboarding television. In Youth culture and sport: Identity, power, and politics, ed. Michael D. Giardina and Michele K. Donnelly, 127–143. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Douglas, Mary, and Aaron Wildavsky. 1982. Risk and culture: An essay on the selection of technical and environmental dangers. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Duneier, Mitchell. 1999. Sidewalk. New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Durkheim, Emile. 1912/1995. The elementary forms of religious life, trans. Karen E. Fields. New York: Free Press.

  23. Evers, Clifton. 2004. Men who surf. Cultural Studies Review 10: 27–41.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Fasteau, Marc Feigen. 1974. The male machine. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Fletcher, Robert. 2010. The emperor’s new adventure: Public secrecy and the paradox of adventure tourism. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 39: 6–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Garrett, Bradley L. 2011. Cracking the Paris carriers: Corporal terror and illicit encounter under the City of Light. ACME: An International E-Journal for Critical Geographies 10:269–277. www.acme-journal.org/vol10/Garrett2011.pdf. Accessed on 9 March 2013.

  27. Geertz, Clifford. 1972/1973. Deep play: Notes on the Balinese cockfight. In Interpretations of culture: Selected essays, 412–453. New York: Basic Books.

  28. Gilchrist, Paul, and Belinda Wheaton. 2011. Lifestyle sport, public policy and youth engagement: Examining the emergence of parkour. International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics 3: 109–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Goffman, Erving. 1967. Where the action is. In Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior, 149–270. New York: Anchor Books.

  30. Holyfield, Lori. 1999. Manufacturing adventure: The buying and selling of emotions. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 28: 3–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Holyfield, Lori, and Gary Alan Fine. 1997. Adventure as character work: The collective taming of fear. Symbolic Interaction 20: 343–363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Hunt, Jennifer C. 1995. Divers’ accounts of normal risk. Symbolic Interaction 18: 439–462.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Jacobs, Jane. 1961. The death and life of great American cities. New York: Random House.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Johnson, Allan G. 2005. The gender knot: Unraveling our patriarchal legacy, revised and updated edition. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Jones, Phil. 2005. Performing the city: A body and a bicycle take on Birmingham, UK. Social & Cultural Geography 6: 813–830.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Kay, Joanne, and Suzanne Laberge. 2002. Mapping the field of “AR”: Adventure racing and Bourdieu’s concept of field. Sociology of Sport Journal 19: 24–46.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Kidder, Jeffrey L. 2009. Appropriating the city: Space, theory, and bike messengers. Theory & Society 38: 307–328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Kidder, Jeffrey L. 2012. Parkour, the affective appropriation of urban space, and the real/virtual dialectic. City & Community 11: 229–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Kidder, Jeffrey L. 2013. Parkour, masculinity, and the city. Sociology of Sport Journal 30: 1–23.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Kimmel, Michael S. 2005. The history of men: Essays in the history of American and British masculinities. Albany: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Kusz, Kyle. 2003. BMX, extreme sports, and the white male backlash. In To the extreme: Alternative sports, inside and out, ed. Robert E. Rinehart and Synthia Sydnor, 153–175. Albany: State University of New York.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Laurendeau, Jason. 2006. “He didn’t go in doing a skydive”: Sustaining the illusion of control in an edgework activity. Sociological Perspectives 49: 583–605.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Laurendeau, Jason. 2008. “Gendered risk regimes”: A theoretical consideration of edgework and gender. Sociology of Sport Journal 25: 294–309.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Le Breton, David. 2000. Playing symbolically with death in extreme sports. Body & Society 6: 1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Lefebvre, Henri. 1992/1996. Seen from the window. In Writings on cities, trans. and eds. Eleonore Kofman and Elizabeth Lebas, 219–227. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers.

  46. Lewis, Neil. 2000. The climbing body, nature and the experience of modernity. Body & Society 6: 58–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Lofland, Lyn H. 1998. The public realm: Exploring the city’s quintessential social territory. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Lois, Jennifer. 2001. Peaks and valleys: The gendered emotional culture of edgework. Gender and Society 15: 381–406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Lyman, Stanford M., and Marvin B. Scott. 1970. A sociology of the absurd. Dix Hills: General Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Lyng, Stephen G. 1990. Edgework: A social psychological analysis of voluntary risk taking. The American Journal of Sociology 95: 851–886.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Lyng, Stephen G. 2008. Edgework, risk, and uncertainty. In Social theories of risk and uncertainty: An introduction, ed. Jens O. Zinn, 106–137. Malden: Blackwell Publishing.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  52. Messner, Michael A. 1990. When bodies are weapons: Masculinity and violence in sport. International Review for the Sociology of Sport 25: 203–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Messner, Michael A. 2002. Taking the field: Women, men, and sport. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Miller, William J. 2005. Adolescents on the edge: The sensual side of delinquency. In Edgework: The sociology of risk-taking, ed. Stephen Lyng, 153–171. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Mitchell Jr., Richard G. 1983. Mountain experience: The psychology and sociology of adventure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Mitchell Jr., Richard G. 2002. Dancing at armageddon: Survivalism and chaos in modern times. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  57. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). 2011. Early estimate of motor vehicle traffic fatalities in 2010. NHTSA’s National Center for Statistics and Analysis. www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811451.pdf. Accessed on 11 November 2011.

  58. Palmer, Catherine. 2004. Death, danger and the selling of risk in adventure sport. In Understanding lifestyle sports: Consumption, identity, and difference, ed. Belinda Wheaton, 55–69. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Rappaport, Roy A. 1999. Ritual and religion in the making of humanity. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  60. Rinehart, Robert. 1998. Inside of the outside: Pecking orders within alternative sport at ESPN’s 1995 “The Extreme Games”. Journal of Sport & Social Issues 22: 398–415.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Rinehart, Robert. 2008. Exploiting a new generation: Corporate branding and co-optation of action sport. In Youth culture and sport: Identity, power, and politics, ed. Michael D. Giardina and Michele K. Donnelly, 71–89. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Rodriguez, Ihosvani. 2011. Fans mourn drowning death of budding parkour star. Sun Sentinel, December 5th.

  63. Sabo Jr., Donald F. 1980. Best years of my life. In Jock: Sports and male identity, ed. Donald F. Sabo Jr. and Ross Runfola, 74–78. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Saville, Stephan John. 2008. Playing with fear: Parkour and the mobility of emotion. Social & Cultural Geography 9: 891–914.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Scheff, Thomas J. 2006. Goffman unbound!: A new paradigm for social science. Boulder: Paradigm Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Sennett, Richard. 1970. The uses of disorder: Personal identity and city life. New York: Knopf.

    Google Scholar 

  67. Simmel, Georg. 1911/1971. The adventurer. In On individuality and social forms, trans. and ed. Donald N. Levine, 187–198. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

  68. Simon, Jonathan. 2002. Taking risks: Extreme sports and the Embrace of risk in advanced liberal societies. In Embracing risk: The changing culture of insurance and responsibility, ed. Tom Baker and Jonathan Simon, 177–208. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Strauss, Anselm, Leonard Schatzman, Rue Bucher, Danuta Erlich, and Melvin Sabshin. 1964. Psychiatric ideologies and institutions. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Thorpe, Holly. 2006. Beyond “decorative sociology”: Contextualizing female surf, skate, and snow boarding. Sociology of Sport Journal 23: 205–228.

    Google Scholar 

  71. Thorpe, Holly. 2010. Bourdieu, gender, reflexivity, and physical culture: A case of masculinity in the snowboarding field. Journal of Sport & Social Issues 34: 176–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Turner, Victor W. 1964/1967. Betwixt and between: The liminal period in rites de passage. In The forest of symbols: Aspects of the Ndembu ritual, 93–111. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

  73. Vaccaro, Christian A., Douglas P. Schrock, and Janice M. McCabe. 2011. Managing emotional manhood: Fighting and fostering fear in mixed martial arts. Social Psychology Quarterly 74: 414–437.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Vazquez, Julian. 2011. The events of 12/4/2011 – A first hand, first person, accurate account. Facebook posting, December 6th. www.facebook.com/julian.vazquez.parkour. Accessed on 18 December 2011.

  75. Vester, Heinz-Günter. 1987. Adventure as a form of leisure. Leisure Studies 6: 237–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Waitt, Gordon, and Andrew Warren. 2008. “Talking shit over a brew after a good session with your mates”: Surfing, space, and masculinity. Australian Geographer 39: 353–365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Wanderer, Jules J. 1987. Simmel’s forms of experience: The adventurer as symbolic work. Symbolic Interaction 10: 21–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Wheaton, Belinda. 2002. Babes on the beach, women in the surf: Researching gender, power, and difference in windsurfing culture. In Power games: A critical sociology of sport, ed. John Sugden and Alan Tomlinson, 240–266. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  79. Wheaton, Belinda. 2004. Introduction: Mapping the lifestyle sport-scape. In Understanding lifestyle sports: Consumption, identity, and difference, ed. Belinda Wheaton, 1–28. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  80. Wheaton, Belinda. 2010. Introducing the consumption and representation of lifestyle sports. Sport in Society 13: 1057–1081.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Whyte Jr., William H. 1988. City: Rediscovering the center. New York: Doubleday.

    Google Scholar 

  82. Wolf, Daniel R. 1991. The Rebels: A brotherhood of outlaw bikers. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

    Google Scholar 

  83. Woods, Krista, Phillip Bishop, and Eric Jones. 2007. Warm-up and stretching in the prevention of muscular injury. Sports Medicine 37: 1089–1099.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Young, Kevin, Philip White, and William McTeer. 1994. Body talk: Male athletes reflect on sport, injury, and pain. Sociology of Sport Journal 11: 175–194.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

An earlier version of this paper was presented at the Society for the Study of Symbolic Interaction’s 2012 Couch-Stone Symposium in Evanston, IL. The organizers of the 2013 Chicago Ethnography Conference at the University of Chicago were also kind enough to let me share this research with the participants. I want to thank the anonymous reviewers at Qualitative Sociology for their insightful critiques, as well as David Smilde and Rebecca Hanson for their help in revising the manuscript.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jeffrey L. Kidder.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kidder, J.L. Parkour: Adventure, Risk, and Safety in the Urban Environment. Qual Sociol 36, 231–250 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11133-013-9254-8

Download citation

Keywords

  • Action
  • Character
  • Risk-taking
  • Ritual
  • Sport
  • Urbanism