The Shared Origins of Embodiment and Development

Abstract

As a domain of study centering on the nature of the body in the functioning of the individual organism, embodiment encompasses a diverse array of topics and questions. One useful organizing framework places embodiment as a bridge construct connecting three standpoints on the body: the form of the body, the body as actively engaged in and with the world, and the body as lived experience. Through connecting these standpoints, the construct of embodiment shows that they are not mutually exclusive: inherent in form is the capacity for engagement, and inherent in engagement is a lived perspective that confers agency and meaning. Here, we employ this framework to underscore the deep connections between embodiment and development. We begin with a discussion of the origins of multicellularity, highlighting how the evolution of bodies was the evolution of development itself. The evolution of the metazoan (animal) body is of particular interest, because most animals possess complex bodies with sensorimotor capacities for perceiving and acting that bring forth a particular sort of embodiment. However, we also emphasize that the thread of embodiment runs through all living things, which share an organizational property of self-determination that endows them with a specific kind of autonomy. This realization moves us away from a Cartesian machine metaphor and instead puts an emphasis on the lived perspective that arises from being embodied. This broad view of embodiment presents opportunities to transcend the boundaries of individual disciplines to create a novel integrative vision for the scientific study of development.

The Development of Positive Attributes of Character: On the Embodiment of Specificity, Holism, and Self-System Processes

“…This idea means that an individual's development is embodied in the tripartite manner presented by Overton (2008Overton ( , 2015 and so resolves the question of how the developmental system can, in itself, be self-constructive, or autopoietic. Indeed, the view of Marshall et al (2021) is consistent with Witherington's (2014) idea that tripartite integration of processes involving the morphological and physiological dimension of embodiment, the self (psychological and behavioral) dimension of embodiment, and the sociocultural dimension of embodiment enables each individual to serve "as its own cause, organizing and DOI: 10.1159/000521583 producing itself such that it causes and results from itself. In this way, living systems constitute natural ends or purposes" (p. 27).…”

“…Therefore, the data sets available about the description, explanation, or optimization of positive character processes within self-system processes are not able to fully contribute to a thorough appraisal of the autopoietic facet of the dynamic developmental system. In other words, there are not fully embodied data sets pertinent to the contributions of positive character development processes in the illumination of the RDS-based idea that "living things actively self-maintain themselves through the constant regeneration of the conditions that are necessary to sustain their material existence" (Marshall et al, 2021, p. 3)… [and thus reflect] "constitutive autonomy… in contrast to behavioral autonomy, where the identity of the system is imposed externally by an operator or observer" (Marshall et al, 2021, p. 4).…”

“…These ideas associated with RDS-based models of human development suggest that the developmental processes involved in the ontogeny of attributes of positive character have at least three defining features. The dynamic coaction of these three features of positive character develop-ment exists because they are parts of the embodied relational developmental system (Marshall et al, 2021;Overton, 2008Overton, , 2015.…”

“A source of empowerment and well-being”: Experiences of a dance and yoga intervention for young girls with functional abdominal pain disorders

“…The girls who were interviewed described dance and yoga as fun physical activities; they observed that dance brought a sense of happiness while yoga, especially the relaxation element, facilitated calmness. These experiences show that both activities influenced the girls' minds and emotions, which is what the theory of embodiment is about (39,40). One girl explained dancing made her stronger and therefore it felt better inside.…”

“…A recent meta-analysis showed that interventions based on SDT led to improvements on indices of health and STD constructs (38). The JiT intervention was based on the theory of embodiment, which implies that the motor system and the cognitive affective system are intertwined and therefore influence each other (39)(40)(41). Each dance and yoga group consisted of between 7 and 14 girls and was led by a trained dance and yoga instructor (or sometimes two instructors together), who also had previous experience of working with children.…”