Home Fencing blindfolded: extending meaning through sound, floor, and blade
Article
Licensed
Unlicensed Requires Authentication

Fencing blindfolded: extending meaning through sound, floor, and blade

  • Ana Koncul ORCID logo EMAIL logo
Published/Copyright: August 15, 2022

Abstract

Fencing for the blind and visually impaired is an emerging sub-discipline of fencing that creates unusual conditions for meaning-making through interaction between embodied endowments and worldly affordances. With the rules of fencing slightly adjusted to the needs of the blindfolded participants – regardless of their sightedness – the discipline requires the fencers to engage in a duel by relying on other than visual cues. This article explores what an autoethnographic account of experiences of participation in fencing for the blind and visually impaired brings to debates on the embodied, and specifically sensory difference. The discussion of these experiences intersects with debates on affect, affordance, and habit, with all three having important roles in related semiotic processes. Presented vignettes draw upon the author’s lived experiences of participation in fencing for the blind and visually impaired and are analyzed as part of a mixed-method autoethnographic study, accompanied by sensory methodologies, with a focus on an inquiry beyond the visual. The vignettes elucidate how we make sense of our surroundings through a complex engagement with the ecology of sensory and affective processes. In addition to exploring the role of affective and pre-conceptual aspects of our experiences, the article seeks to understand how semiosis occurs through both exposure to as well as the active pursuit of specific environmental signs available to us. The article also derives from biosemiotics to examine the complex relationship between meaning-making processes and habits. Finally, the autoethnographic account provides an insight into how we habituate the world and our embodied differences and thus enable meaning-making processes.


Corresponding author: Ana Koncul, VID Specialized University, Oslo, Norway, E-mail:

References

Adams, Tony E., Carolyn Ellis & Stacy Holman Jones. 2017. Autoethnography. In Jörg Matthes, Robert F. Potter & Christine S. Davis (eds.), The international encyclopedia of communication research methods. New York: Wiley-Blackwell.10.1002/9781118901731.iecrm0011Search in Google Scholar

Allen-Collinson, Jacquelyn & Helen Owton. 2015. Intense embodiment senses of heat in women’s running and boxing. Body and Society 21(2). 245–268. https://doi.org/10.1177/1357034x14538849.Search in Google Scholar

Bissell, David. 2015. Virtual infrastructures of habit: The changing intensities of habit through gracefulness, restlessness, and clumsiness. Cultural Geographies 22(1). 127–146. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474474013482812.Search in Google Scholar

Blackman, Lisa. 2013. Habit and affect: Revitalizing a forgotten history. Body and Society 19(2–3). 186–216. https://doi.org/10.1177/1357034x12472546.Search in Google Scholar

Blackman, Lisa & Venn Couze. 2010. Affect. Body and Society 16(1). 7–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/1357034x09354769.Search in Google Scholar

Brannelley, Tula & Amohia Boulton. 2017. The ethics of care and transformational research practices in Aotearoa New Zealand. Qualitative Research 17(3). 340–350.10.1177/1468794117698916Search in Google Scholar

Chemero, Anthony. 2003. An outline of a theory of affordances. Ecological Psychology 15(2). 181–195. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326969eco1502_5.Search in Google Scholar

Chemero, Anthony. 2009. Radical embodied cognitive science. Cambridge: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/8367.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Clough, Patricia Ticineto. 2008a. (De)coding the subject-in-affect. Subjectivity 23. 140–155. https://doi.org/10.1057/sub.2008.16.Search in Google Scholar

Clough, Patricia Ticineto. 2008b. The affective turn: Political economy, biomedia, and bodies. Theory Culture Society 25(1). 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263276407085156.Search in Google Scholar

Cooper, Joseph N., Robin S. Grenier & Charles Macaulay. 2017. Autoethnography as a critical approach in sport management: Current applications and directions for future research. Sport Management Review 20. 43–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2016.07.003.Search in Google Scholar

Couser, Thomas G. 2005. Disability and (auto)ethnography: Riding (and writing) the bus with my sister. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 34(2). 121–142. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891241604272089.Search in Google Scholar

Crossley, Nick. 2013. Habit and habitus. Body and Society 19(2–3). 136–161. https://doi.org/10.1177/1357034x12472543.Search in Google Scholar

Damasio, Antonio. 1999. The feeling of what happens: Body and emotion in the making of consciousness. New York: Hartcourt Brace.Search in Google Scholar

Daza, Stephanie & Walter S. Gershon. 2015. Beyond ocular inquiry: Sound, silence, and sonification. Qualitative Inquiry 21(7). 639–644. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800414566692.Search in Google Scholar

Ellis, Carolyn & Tony E. Adams. 2014. The purposes, practices, and principles of autoethnographic research. In Patricia Leavy (ed.), Oxford handbook of qualitative research, 254–276. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199811755.013.004Search in Google Scholar

Ellis, Carolyn, Tony E. Adams & Arthur P. Bochner. 2011. Autoethnography: An overview Forum. Qualitative Social Research 12(1).Search in Google Scholar

Featherstone, Mike. 2010. Body, image, and affect in consumer culture. Body and Society 16(1). 193–221. https://doi.org/10.1177/1357034x09354357.Search in Google Scholar

Gibson, James. 1979. The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Search in Google Scholar

Grosz, Elizabeth. 2013. Habit today: Ravaisson, Bergson, Deleuze and us. Body and Society 19(2–3). 217–239. https://doi.org/10.1177/1357034x12472544.Search in Google Scholar

Hunter, Lisa & Elke Emerald. 2016. Sensory narratives: Capturing embodiment in narratives of movement, sport, leisure and health. Sport, Education and Society 21(1). 28–46. https://doi.org/10.1080/13573322.2015.1065244.Search in Google Scholar

Ing, Charles & John P. Mills. 2017. “Hey, look at me”: An {auto}ethnographic account of experiencing ADHD symptoms within sport. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health 11(2). 274–283. https://doi.org/10.1080/2159676x.2017.1405362.Search in Google Scholar

Ingold, Tim. 2002. The perception of the environment. London: Routledge.10.4324/9780203466025Search in Google Scholar

Irish, Thomas, Francesca Cavallerio & Katrina McDonald. 2018. “Sport saved my life” but “I am tired of being an alien!”: Stories from the life of a deaf athlete. Psychology of Sports and Exercise 37. 179–187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2017.10.007.Search in Google Scholar

Jakobson, Roman. 1959. On linguistic aspects of translation. In Achilles Fang & Reuben A. Brower (eds.), On translation, 232–239. Boston: Harvard University Press.10.4159/harvard.9780674731615.c18Search in Google Scholar

Jensen, Thomas W. & Sarah B. Pedersen. 2016. Affect and affordances: The role of action and emotion in social interaction. Cognitive Semiotics 9(1). 79–103. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-25091-5_9.Search in Google Scholar

Kara, Helen. 2015. Creative research methods in the social sciences: A practical guide. Bristol: Policy Press.10.2307/j.ctt1t88xn4Search in Google Scholar

Koncul, Ana. 2019. Senses and other sensibilities: The meaning of embodied difference in fencing for the blind and visually impaired. Bø, Norway: University of South-Eastern Norway PhD Dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Koncul, Ana & Jenny Slatman. 2019. Rehab/ituation from a phenomenological perspective: The case of fencing for the blind and visually impaired. Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research 21(1). 67–77. https://doi.org/10.16993/sjdr.559.Search in Google Scholar

Kull, Kalevi. 2016. Habit – semioses – habit. Sign System Studies 44(4). 623–629. https://doi.org/10.12697/sss.2016.44.4.07.Search in Google Scholar

Lotman, Yuri. 2005. On semiosphere. Sign System Studies 33(1). 205–229. https://doi.org/10.12697/sss.2005.33.1.09.Search in Google Scholar

Massumi, Brian. 2002. Parables for the virtual. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.10.1215/9780822383574Search in Google Scholar

Merleau-Ponty, Maurice. 1962. Phenomenology of perception. London: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar

Papoulias, Constantina & Felicity Callard. 2010. Biology’s gift: Interrogating the turn to affect. Body and Society 16(1). 29–56. https://doi.org/10.1177/1357034x09355231.Search in Google Scholar

Parlebas, Pierre. 1981. Contribution à un lexique commenté en science de l’action motrice. Paris: INSEP.Search in Google Scholar

Parlebas, Pierre. 2020. The universals of games and sports. Frontiers in Psychology 11. 593877. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.593877.Search in Google Scholar

Peers, Danielle. 2012. Interrogating disability: The (de)composition of a recovering Paralympian. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health 4. 175–188. https://doi.org/10.1080/2159676x.2012.685101.Search in Google Scholar

Peirce, Charles S. 1960. A Definition of Feeling. The collected papers of Charles S. Peirce, 8 vols., Charles Hartshorne, Paul Weiss & Arthur, W. (eds.). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Pink, Sarah. 2009. Doing sensory ethnography. London: Sage.10.4135/9781446249383Search in Google Scholar

Pink, Sarah. 2011. From embodiment to emplacement: Re-thinking competing bodies, senses, and spatialities. Sport, Education & Society 16(3). 343–355. https://doi.org/10.1080/13573322.2011.565965.Search in Google Scholar

Pitts-Taylor, Victoria. 2016. The brain’s body: Neuroscience and corporeal politics. Durham: Duke University Press.10.1515/9780822374374Search in Google Scholar

Punch, Maurice. 1993. Observation and the police: The research experience. In Martyn Hammersley (ed.), Social research: Philosophy, politics and practice, 181–199. London: Sage.10.1007/978-1-349-03991-3_1Search in Google Scholar

Shildrick, Margrit. 2009. Dangerous discourses of disability, subjectivity, and sexuality. London: Palgrave Macmillan.10.1057/9780230244641Search in Google Scholar

Sparkes, Andrew (ed.). 2017. Seeking the senses in physical culture: Sensuous scholarship in action. London: Routledge.10.4324/9781315657585Search in Google Scholar

Sparkes, Andrew C. 2009. Ethnography and the senses: Challenges and possibilities. Journal Qualitative Research in Sport and Exercise 1(1). 21–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/19398440802567923.Search in Google Scholar

Sparkes, Andrew C. & Carly Stewart. 2016. Taking sporting autobiographies seriously as an analytical and pedagogical resource in sport, exercise, and health. Journal of Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health 8(2). 113–130. https://doi.org/10.1080/2159676x.2015.1121915.Search in Google Scholar

Tracy, Sarah J. 2010. Qualitative quality: Eight “big-tent” criteria for excellent qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry 16(10). 837–851. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800410383121.Search in Google Scholar

Von Uexkull, Jakob. 1934. A stroll through the worlds of animals and men. In Claire Schiller (ed.), Instinctive behavior, 5–80. Madison, CT: International Universities Press.Search in Google Scholar

Weiss, Geil. 2008. Refiguring the ordinary. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Received: 2022-07-11
Accepted: 2022-07-21
Published Online: 2022-08-15
Published in Print: 2022-09-27

© 2022 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Downloaded on 8.9.2025 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/sem-2022-0086/html
Scroll to top button