Implications of dynamic embodiment for social theory
In articulating a concept of dynamic embodiment I have sought to enrich, expand and ground anew the theoretical shifts to practice, discourse, and embodiment that have characterized contemporary anthropology. I now conclude by discussing some consequences of the turn to dynamic embodiment that I propose. First, I must concur with Michael Herzfeld that the argument for dynamic embodiment is “too important to end up confined to a . . . subspecialty” – the ‘anthropology of the body’ or ‘anthropology of human movement’ – but applies to “anthropology tout court” (Herzfeld 2011: 327). If dynamically embodied signifying acts in symbolically rich environments are the dialogical, intersubjective means by which persons, social institutions and cultural knowledge are socially constructed, historically transmitted and revised, they are constitutive of culture and self, and therefore at the heart of social action.