1

Bodying-forth into Postheroic Leadership: Experiencing Artful Inquiry Practice

as Activating Body and Relational Awareness

by Nika Newcomb Quirk, MBA PhD

I learned that I am my body. My body is me. I am not a body; I am some-body. Our feeling and responsiveness shape our lives…We form our bodily selves as we shape our own reality. Our bodily living shapes our existence…The continual thrust toward shaping your living insists on your being more—more contactful, more interactive, more satisfied, more of your self (Keleman 1981, p. 13).

We Begin in the Body

Knowing about the embodiment of leadership calls for inquiring and learning in and

through the body, thereby discovering and shaping our emergent bodily selves, our bodily living,

our leadership as bodies. Like Sinclair (2005), in writing about bodies in leadership, I am aware

of how “bodies disappear under the weight of theorizing” (p. 387). It’s as if ideas surge into the

foreground, sharpened images against the more ineffable field of bodily experience. As cultural

historian Morris Berman states,

Western academic understanding…tacitly assumes that the body has nothing to tell us, has no knowledge or “information”; that for all practical purposes, it isn’t even there. And yet the life of the body is our real life, the only life we have (1990, p. 109).

In this chapter, intending to sustain the body’s presence and valuable ways of knowing, I

therefore aim to weave together sufficient theory, examples, and invitations to you, reader, to

engage your bodily self in inquiring into your leadership as a body. I seek to make a complex

join between inquiry and our expressive knowing bodies that strengthens our leadership in real

life. I craft such a join through demonstrating how I employ the practice of “bodying-

forth…inviting imaginative impulses to express themselves through the media of our bodies”

(Seeley & Reason, 2008, p. 31) in my epistemology, pedagogy and leadership. At times, while

the vision of this chapter emerged from a process of reading, absorption, moving-and-thinking,

2

weaving and re-weaving, I extended my internal dialog into drawing and collage pieces (Figures

1 and 2), the products of such “imaginative impulses”. A lifelong inclination to move, craft

visual and sculptural expressions, and tell stories has been implemented, in my scholar’s journey,

as an artful practice of personal inquiry. Through this expressive arts approach, I reflect,

interpret and re-present the rich complexity of my inner dialog, moving into question formation

and an integration of transdisciplinary material that is essential for me. It is an enlivening

Figure 1. Bodying-forth into embodied, relational leadership. (Author's image)

3

process of discovery whereby I’ve become highly aware of my construction of knowledge.

Extending personal practice into research methodology used in my dissertation, I joined the

emerging discourse about using arts as a primary element in inquiry and knowledge construction

(Barry 1996; Eisner 1997;

Eisner 2008; McNiff 2008;

Quirk 2012; Seeley 2011).

Our group of participants

used a research framework,

artful action inquiry (Quirk

2012), establishing an “ethic

of care” (Gilligan 1993) on

which to build mutuality and

trust through integrating

leading-and-following

activities, storytelling

variations, and collective

artmaking into the group’s

dialog. In that social space,

interactions and content

tended to be more unscripted

and emergent, opening participants into playful yet meaningful shared practices. We found that

artful inquiry encourages boundary crossing and the emergence of surprising material that sparks

new questions, new responses, and new actions, all of which are critical to developing the

Figure 2. Process art: Shaping this chapter’s content (Author's image)

4

characteristics of postheroic leadership (Fletcher, 2004) – shared and distributed practice,

emergent social process, and a mutual learning environment. And, we discovered how the

improvisational and relational nature of artful inquiry in a group opens up possibilities for new

performances of the embodiment of leadership, individually and as a group.

In Figure 1, I see myself as a small bold person crossing a bridge across a jagged chasm,

exploring the possibilities of embodying post heroic leadership. I physically sense the tension of

both excitement and trepidation as I consider this labor of shifting leaders and leadership into a

more consciously embodied and relational practice. I recall prior experiences of resistance,

confrontation, insight, joy and deep connectedness that flush me with emotional sensations in

this moment, confusing my efforts to focus. I breathe deeply, settling down as an embodied

mind. Beginning above, I set this chapter in the phenomenology of our bodies with a promise to

keep the body present, and I introduced the interconnectedness of inquiry, artful expressions of

knowing, and the development of more embodied, relational leadership performance. There is

more to say about what grounds us in the embodiment of leadership, how we may artfully

inquire into our own embodied performance, and how we must stay present to self-identity,

gender and power as we bring our bodily selves more fully into leadership. But first I give, as

promised, an invitation for you to bodily self-inquire.

Invitation #1

Speaking to the criticality of our reconnecting to the rich complexity of our world and

ourselves with conscious presence, philosopher David Abram (1996) says,

transfixed by our technologies, we short-circuit the sensual reciprocity between our breathing bodies and the bodily terrain. Human awareness folds in upon itself, and the senses—once the crucial site of our engagement with the wild and animate earth—become mere adjuncts of an isolate and abstract mind bent on overcoming an organic reality that now seems disturbingly aloof and arbitrary (p. 267).

5

I invite you now to situate yourself as a knower in the real life of your own body, a territory from

which many of us have become somewhat estranged. Without oversimplifying, this inner relation

may begin with a deep breath. Let’s pause here together…and breathe, before moving on. Take

this moment to re-engage with your breathing body and be present with its moving, sensing

nature, even in the somewhat still state of reading a book. What are you touching, tasting,

smelling and hearing right now in your bodily terrain? What does your body want? Notice your

body’s sense of relationship to the light, objects, living beings and space in which you are

situated. How are you moved? Here, in this reflexive embodied moment of practice, our non-

dual nature as body-mind gives fuller access to the immediacy of our wholeness and

interrelatedness, and we are informed by this expansive source. Let’s close our eyes,

momentarily disconnecting from the paper or electronic technology of this book, to receive

whatever’s available for us as a bodily self. As breathing bodies, we continue on.

Grounding the Embodiment of Leadership

“Our natural function”, Keleman (1981) says, “grows roots on one end and leaves and

branches – social relationships – on the other” (p. 28). Born as earthbound bodies, how can

anything other than our body and the earth serve as the ground for our leadership? Yet, through

the Cartesian lens, we may see ourselves as a rational mind, other than and disconnected from

our own body and the earth. And through the organizing of the modern world, our environment

tends to reinforce a disembodied, disconnected performance of leadership. I say this as a

cautionary preface to promoting your deepening as a body that knows and leads. What grounds

your leadership as a bodily self? What are you rooted in?

These are active questions in my own ongoing inquiry and practice as a “body

intellectual”1 in life and leadership for which there are no simple responses. But, because I have

6

invited you to engage with those questions, I feel I must take a stab at succinctly making sense of

my own discoveries.

What grounds my leadership as a bodily self?

I recognize two foundational self-concepts that require my ongoing conscious attention,

living as I do in structures rooted in a dualistic paradigm that I often experience as undermining

embodied practice. The first is that I am an integral, embodied self. The second is that I am a

self-in-relation.

I’ll borrow from Keleman’s eloquent quote (1981) that begins this chapter to say “I

learned that I am my body” (p. 13). From early childhood, I have been grounded in my moving,

sensing body and have used dance and movement to explore and express. I lead from my body,

through expressiveness, connection, and action. I’m aware from others that my leadership

inspires and mobilizes them and they sometimes express that there is a felt energy that elicits

their response. I freely share the fact that I know much and don’t know a lot. I am a human

inquiry into, and expression of, the complexity of bodily and mental life. Being self-reflective, I

try to be a witnessing participant in my own holistic becoming. Neurobiologist Siegel

characterizes mental life as “an emergent, self-organizing process of this embodied and relational

flow of energy and information. The mind is not separate from our bodies or from our

relationships—it both arises from them and it regulates them” (Siegel 2012, p. 6). Through

attending to my embodied mental life, I am better able to participate in this reflective and

relational process that Siegel calls “mindsight…the capacity to see and to shape the mind” (2012,

p. 401). Artful inquiries using drawing, moving or writing a poem as reflection create

“mindsight maps…representations of the mind by the mind” (Siegel, 2012, p. 476) that invites

“multiple interpretive passes…and beseeches us to alter our story” (Barry 1996, p. 412). Rather

7

than matching traditional social images of leadership, we can give ourselves imagery, through

symbolic constructivist process (Barry 1996), that contributes to our evolution. Keleman (1981)

says, “when we don’t confuse ourselves with a social image, we form a bodily self, a somebody,

from our pleasures and satisfactions, our pains and sorrows” (p. 31). Here, I pause with you to

breathe, and to re-present what I know about my bodily self in leadership:

I am

ever emergent as a

swinging, shaping

somebody who joins in We

leading and following

making up

what comes

next.

This poem illustrates the second self-concept that grounds my leadership. I know myself

to be a mind-in-relation that is neurobiologically “both embodied and embedded” (Siegel 2012,

p. 134), thereby a participant in continuous co-construction of reality. I’m aware that my

interrelationship connects me to critical sources of energy and information, ready to be integrated

and utilized. Recently, I’ve been using one of my artful inquiry images (Figure 3) as a reminder

that my core leadership strategy is collaboration. Displayed near my desk and on my business

cards, it mirrors back my realization of this interconnected strategy, preventing me from lapsing

into the illusion and disillusion of “I’m doing it all myself.”

8

As I have a facilitative style of leadership and mainly work as a bridge-builder across

boundaries, I constantly draw on my

sensing, intuitive and metaphoric

abilities to enrich my communications,

decisions and actions. As Siegel (2012)

says, “when we take in nonverbal signals

from others—their facial expressions,

eye contact, tone of voice or prosody,

gestures, posture, and the timing and

intensity of their responses—their inner

world is being transmitted to our senses”

(pp. 136-137). I sense bodies and group

presence with my body, receiving energy and information essential to knowing how to “dance”

with what’s present. Bodily selves communicate with and without words, and affect other

bodies. Speaking to the immediacy of our access to social intelligence, Goleman (2006) relates,

neuroscience has discovered that our brain’s very design makes it sociable, inexorably drawn into an intimate brain-to-brain linkup whenever we engage with another person. That neural bridge lets us affect the brain—and so the body—of everyone we interact with, just as they do us. (p. 4)

Recently, while leading the initial meeting of a workshop design team, the participants laughed

loudly when I pulled out the chocolate bars in mid-afternoon. We were in lively creative

engagement all day but I sensed when bodies got tired, minds faltered, and the tea-and-chocolate

break was timely. This is a simple example of the bodily self in leadership. As the group’s

Figure 3. My collaborative leadership strategy (Author's image).

9

convener, I took action in response to support the continued synergy of our embodied minds.

For me, social intelligence also extends into and is rooted in the more-than-human world.

What am I rooted in?

The metaphor in this question speaks deeply in my body. Sitting here, hands on

keyboard, feet on the office floor, I listen to the soundscape, an intermingling of crow caws,

distant traffic, faint airplane engine, loud fly buzzing and the roar-and-bang of a neighbor’s saw.

I pause. I see the waving top of the redwood tree outside the high window in my office closet

and hear an insistent birdsong. I draw back in and am quieted inside, holding this question of

rootedness. My back is tight and I’m restless after sitting a long time. I am rooted in the humus,

the rich organic material of my ecology. I recognize how my leadership is rooted in my love and

compassion for humans and the earth. A big breath and a sigh rises and falls in me, and a

shadow of sadness passes as it often does when I think of the crumbling-and-emerging times we

live in. I am influenced and motivated by the crows, my business coaching clients, the food in

the garden, and my workshop-designing colleagues. I am a somebody in leadership that sucks

up the nutrients of this soil and distributes them through my leaves and branches, engaged in re-

cycling the wealth of the system for its benefit and hopefully, its sustainable health.

Practicing Artful Inquiry in Postheroic Leadership

Let me open this section by describing the “leadership umbrella” under which I have set

out my beach chair and towel as a scholar-practitioner. New modes of leadership centered in

practice, process and learning are gathered into the name “post heroic leadership” (Fletcher

2004; Sinclair 2007). I identify strongly with Amanda Sinclair’s (2007) perspective that

“leadership is a relationship, in which leaders inspire or mobilise others to extend their capacity

to imagine, think and act in positive new ways” (p. xvi), and are in turn, inspired and mobilized

10

to emerge and evolve. I also follow organizational consultant Adler’s (2006) lead in claiming

the timeliness of cross-fertilizing the improvisational arts and leadership, finding ways of

bringing people into mindful, fully embodied participation with current realities and the

envisioning of future possibilities. Bodies and relationships are essentially present and active in

postheroic leadership, and artful inquiry has a relevant role in developing the consciously

embodied, reflective, imaginal, relational and learning aspects of leadership.

I am a playful and practical scholar, one who curiously explores the visionary edges of

our known territory and seeks to build accessible paths for others to discover. Though playful, I

do not make light of the transformative effort necessary for an embodied and relational turn in

leadership, that inherently requires what Fletcher (2004) calls “its radical challenge to current

work practices, structures, norms, and operating systems” (“Conclusion”, para. 3). Elsewhere in

this book, I’m sure others have thoroughly presented the mind-body problem and how the body

matters. Others (Fletcher 1999; Fletcher 2004; Sinclair 2007) have elsewhere previously

addressed the topics of self-identity, gender and power in shared leadership. I wish to emphasize

here that participating in the uncertainty of the improvisational activities I describe below entails

the kind of personal and group risk-taking that relies on creating an environment made safe

enough for trust-building, the letting-down-of-hair, a certain level of intimate sharing,

experimentation and surprising experience. Being a visible body can in itself feel

uncomfortable, or even dangerous; being a playful, engaged, moving, art-making body messes

with our performances and certainties about identity, gender and power. That said, such messing

about is the actual work of artful inquiry. As practitioners of this work, we hold the

responsibility for tending and attending to that which infuses the social space with mindfulness

and respectful care and opens up willingness and freedom of expressive range.

11

Earlier in this chapter, I’ve shared from my personal artful inquiry practice. Now, I’ll

briefly describe two examples of introducing artful inquiry into groups of leaders using 1)

leading-and-following movement activities and 2) collective portraiture. In each context, I

noticed a similar phenomenon. Participants dropped so deeply into the improvisational group

activity, and often had such profound experiences as a bodily self playing within the space of an

embodied “We”, that they were able to articulate insights and personal calls-for-action in their

own leadership arising from the artful inquiry practice. This pattern leads me to theorize that

artful inquiry has the potential to directly activate body and relational awareness and inspire new

insights and behaviors about the embodiment of leadership.

Leading-and-following

In January 2011, I facilitated a workshop entitled “Follow, Lead, and...In-Between: An

introductory InterPlay®2 workshop on creating collaborative relationships in life and work” in a

movement studio located in the Islington area of London, England. Participants self-identified as

organizational consultants, leaders and social activists, and although I had specified that no prior

arts experience was required, many of them had engaged with embodied practices such as

martial arts or improvisational theater. The workshop poster invitation included three questions:

1) Would you like to develop more playful, relational practices in everyday life?, 2) Are you

interested in inspiring ease-filled cooperation in your home, friendships, and work teams?, and

3) Do you yearn for more Fun? Twenty participants affirmatively responded.

12

Gathering in the empty, carpeted studio space, we started with my introduction during

which I shared some basic principles used in InterPlay® such as “noticing your body data,

knowledge and wisdom”, “practicing an ethic of play”, “having and following your inner

authority”, and “going with what’s happening.” I also spoke from my own experiences of how

consciously shifting between leading and following improved my sense of connectedness and

collaborative action, as well

as those of others I’d

worked with in this way.

Then, we began to play.

They followed me in a body

stretching warmup and then

followed their own body’s

inclinations about what

needed to be attended to.

Then, we intermittently

walked, stopped and ran

about the room (see Figure

4), first imitating me, then following their own desired path and dynamic, expanding into

following someone, being followed (thus becoming a leader), and changing to follow someone

else’s lead. Over the workshop’s two hours, there was more non-verbal activity like paired

hand-to-hand following-and-leading, a foray into creating a verbal shared story in small groups,

and a return to the initial leading-and-following bodies in the space. In between activities,

participants reflected with each other, sometimes taking a few journal notes. As we wrapped up

Figure 4. Leading-and-following (Author's image).

13

at the end, several insights seemed to be shared by much of the group: 1) an embodied sense,

from following others as well as being followed, that was interpreted by some as relief,

excitement, and/or joy; 2) a reluctance, after the deep embodied sense of connection of the initial

group movement activity, to shift to a verbal activity; and 3) a desire for more connection which

motivated the entire group to relocate to the pub across the street for another couple of hours to

continue what we had sparked in the workshop. I wondered at how hungry our bodies often are

for such direct, embodied validation of connection in our leadership.

My notes from a conversation with other artful practitioners at Ashridge Business School

in Hertfordshire, England, a few days before this workshop indicate that we identified three

levels of arts application in organizations, 1) as a fun break from serious work or a group

icebreaker, 2) as a metaphor, or 3) as a genuine way of knowing. It is this third application that I

advocate for through this chapter, as well as in my dissertation research, from which I share the

next example.

Collective portraiture

In August 2010, as part of my dissertation research, I met with my three women co-

participants for the fourth of our six monthly artful inquiry sessions focused on their emergence

as a collaborative leadership team. We gathered in an informal setting, on the deck and lawn of

one participant’s suburban home in Northern California. Over lunch, we practiced some forms

for sharing brief (and often deep) stories. Afterwards, each woman “took the stage” on the lawn,

telling a story with voice and body about what it meant for them to be part of this organization’s

startup team. With intentional presence, we witnessed each storyteller while I gathered

keywords from their stories. Each time we met, we participated in some variation on gathering,

14

sharing food, telling stories and moving as a group, a sequence that warmed us up for co-creating

the collective portrait of the leadership team.

I’ll take a sidebar here to explain how this idea of collective portraiture came from my

own curiosity about being able to see “We.” Over the years, I had noticed that the physicality of

connection existing between bodies in a group tends to be ephemeral. We might experience it

through shared labor, moving in a group, or dancing together, but that felt sense fades, leaving us

unsure if it was ever real.

I wondered if people

leading in a team would

experience reinforcement

of their embodied

experience of “We”

through artfully inquiring

into the question “Who

are we as a collaborative

leadership team?” I

therefore embedded this

practice in the artful

action inquiry framework of my dissertation research.

This meeting was the third time these three leaders made a collective portrait (see Figure

5). As their facilitative, witnessing participant, I laid out the art materials, reminded them of the

inquiry stated above, and encouraged them as needed, while I videotaped their process. Over the

course of time, I noticed the increasing closeness of their bodies as they worked on the drawing,

Figure 5. Collective portraiture (Author's image).

15

how they began to develop a rhythm among the hands moving on to the paper to add or drawing

away to make space, and how a dialog developed as they shared thoughts about the symbolism

of their additions. Ideas from this dialog would carry over into our co-reflection on the portrait

after its completion. This “elicitive way” of using artful inquiry “means creating symbols that

evoke, draw us out, get us to say more than we would otherwise” (Barry 1996, p. 423).

In this particular session, we mined the organizational values and cultural attributes that

the participants embedded in their team portrait. The group realized that they were ready to do

this piece of organizing, and had already expressed in the portrait elements of their combined

knowing about how they wanted to be organized. Referencing my transcript of the audiotape of

that session, I’ll list some of them in their own words, to give a sense of what they gleaned in this

process: “unified commitment”; “peace”; “personal power that is united into the goal”; “joint

fun”; “growth”; “to serve like protection”; “coming from the heart and opening the heart”;

“opening and enfolding”; “bringing the intention”; “passion and joy”; “self-empowerment”;

“communicating the intention.”

After this group process completed, the participating organizational founder said,

I do feel mobilized. The whole process of what we’re doing is helping me to get focus, to get energized and get directed on that. It feels like it’s going to get easier and easier but it feels like this first part to me is to come out of the amorphous part into the form part…it’s really hard.

[She shares information about various opportunities they could take action on.] So, all these things are important only so far as they solidify us as a community…These are the two things, our community and our home. So that’s our mission.

Out of this embodied, relational process of envisioning their identity as “We”, participants found

not only clarity about organizational mission and values, but also determined their next action.

They decided to organize a vision retreat for the organization and invite other women to

16

participate. One participant said, “I’m so excited. Yehey! The picture is taking more form. For

me, that’s a miracle.”

Through these examples, I aimed to illustrate how consciously being a knowing body-in-

relation reinforces our releasing of modern perceptions of fragmentation and initiates a

“relational shift” (Spretnak 2011, p. 4) into shared leadership insights and behaviors. Through

this simple yet radical engagement with and through our own body, we step towards becoming

“an agent of this historic corrective effort to move beyond the limiting assumptions of the past”

(Spretnak 2011, p. 12) and, as well, into unfamiliar territory as both leaders and followers.

Before closing, I’d like to offer one more invitation, dear reader.

Invitation #2

Pause here and take a series of breaths, expanding and deepening with every inhalation,

thus returning to “the sensual reciprocity between our breathing bodies and the bodily terrain”

(Abram 1996, p. 267). Please find a piece of paper, any sort or size will do, and acquire a

drawing implement – pen, pencil, marker, crayon – of any color(s). Now, prepared with

adequate materials, let’s return to the question I posed earlier, “What are you rooted in?”

Remember, you are a somebody in leadership, so you don’t have to think about being in

leadership in order for your response to be about your bodily self in leadership. My invitation is

to put your implement in your hand and on the paper, and make a start. While breathing and

noticing your body in the field of your surroundings, allow marks, lines, shapes, symbols to flow

from your embodied mind into an imaginal response to that inquiry. I heartily hope you are

surprised by what is elicited and that you invest the time to stay with the process – stepping back,

seeing, adding, changing, reflecting, receiving. I know Barry’s advice (1996) to be true, when he

says,

17

when we create artistically to learn more about ourselves, we open to laughter, tears, anger, fear, excitement, and wonderment. Rarely are we left empty-handed or untouched (p. 412).

We End in the Body

Knowing about the embodiment of leadership calls for inquiring and learning in and

through the body, thereby discovering and shaping our emergent bodily selves, our bodily living,

our leadership as bodies. I end as I started, in the body, as there really is nowhere else to be. I

hope that your experience of this chapter affirms that I fulfilled my intention of keeping bodies

visible, even though interwoven with theory, and that I gave you opportunity to bring threads

from your own inquiry into the weave. As I close, I make a third invitation to you – start small

or start big, but start a sustained artful inquiry into the embodied and relational nature of your

own leadership practice. “Art-as-inquiry does things” (Barry 1996, p. 412).

18

References

Abram, D. (1996). The spell of the sensuous: Perception and language in a more-than-human

world. New York, NY: Vintage.

Adler. (2006). The arts & leadership: Now that we can do anything, what will we do? Academy

of Management Learning & Education, 5(4), 486-499.

Barry, D. (1996). Artful inquiry: A symbolic constructivist approach to social science research.

Qualitative Inquiry, 2(4), 411. doi:10.1177/10778004960020040.

Berman, M. (1990). Coming to our senses: Body and spirit in the hidden history of the west.

New York, NY: Bantam Books.

Eisner, E. W. (1997). The new frontier in qualitative research methodology. Qualitative Inquiry,

3(3), 259-273. doi:10.1177/10778004970030030.

Eisner, E. (2008). Art and knowledge. In Handbook of the arts in qualitative research:

Perspectives, methodologies, examples, and issues (pp. 3-12). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Publications.

Fletcher, J. K. (2001). Disappearing acts: Gender, power, and relational practice at work.

Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Gilligan, C. (1993). In a different voice : Psychological theory and women's development.

Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Goleman, D. (2006). Social intelligence: The new science of human relationships. New York,

NY: Bantam Dell

Keleman, S. (1981). Your body speaks its mind. Berkeley, CA: Center Press.

19

McNiff, S. (2008). Art-based research. In Handbook of the arts in qualitative research:

Perspectives, methodologies, examples, and issues (pp. 29-40). Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage Publications.

Quirk, N. N. (2012). Open yet unbroken: We emerge as a circle of women leaders through an

artful action inquiry. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). San Francisco, CA: California

Institute of Integral Studies.

Seeley, C., & Reason, P. (2008). Expressions of energy: An epistemology of presentational

knowing. Knowing Differently: Arts-Based and Collaborative Research Methods, 25.

Seeley, C. (2011). Uncharted territory: Imagining a stronger relationship between the arts and

action research. Action Research, 9(1), 83-99.

Sinclair, A. (2005). Body possibilities in leadership. Leadership, 1(4), 387.

doi:10.1177/174271500505723.

Sinclair, A. (2007). Leadership for the disillusioned: Moving beyond myths and heroes to

leading that liberates. Crows Nest, Australia: Allen & Unwin.

Spretnak, C. (2011). Relational reality: New discoveries of interrelatedness that are

transforming the modern world. Topsham, ME: Green Horizon Foundation.

Winton-Henry, C., & Porter, P. (2004). What the body wants: From the creators of interplay.

Kelowna, BC, Canada: Northstone Publishing.

1 “Body intellectual: one who pays attention to all forms of physical experience, seeks to be

articulate about that information, and uses it as an important basis for understanding the world”

(Winton-Henry 2004, p. 18).

20

2 InterPlay® is a “global social movement dedicated to ease, connection, human sustainability

and play” (www.InterPlay.org).