IS THERE A SOCIOLOGY OF THE BODY IN BRAZIL ?

Licence Creative Commom Abstract: This paper aims to identify the possible establishment of a Sociology of the Body in Brazil. The body is understood as a social construct – as a phenomenon that occurs in the relationship established between the individual and the social sphere –, producing sense and meaning that is socially located and manifest in and by corporeality. Based on a survey of Brazilian Social Science (specifically Sociology and Anthropology) and Physical Education papers, we found enough research production to point out the incipient nature of Sociology of the Body in Brazil.


INTRODUCTION
This paper aims to question the existence of a Sociology or an Anthropology of the Body in Brazil by analyzing bibliography on the subject of body/embodiment published between 2000 and 2012 1 .Even though there has been some theoretical and methodological output on the human body or embodiment in Brazil, we maintain that a Sociology or an Anthropology of the body cannot yet be considered standalone disciplines, and that their institution takes on the same path that Sociology and Anthropology did in Brazil as passing fields of research, as 'outsiders' in relation to other scientific subjects.
Brazilian anthropologist Cardoso de Oliveira, in his 1985 paper entitled What is it that we call Anthropology in Brazil, said that the institution of the Social Sciences in Brazil has long been characterized by very tenuous boundaries between Sociology and Anthropology.However, he also stated that, at that time, whereas " […] culture and structure failed to articulate a clearly antinomian pair of categories, with the consolidation of the field, the antinomy gave way to an articulation between both categories" (CARDOSO DE OLIVEIRA, 1997, p. 113).This is similar to Cardoso de Oliveira's (1997) view of the differences between Anthropology and Sociology, a perspective similarly expressed by Laraia (2014).Studies about the body have been interposed or subsumed in passing contexts even earlier, though; with Sociology or Anthropology of the body persisting as evanescent fields.
In 1934, for instance, at a Society of Psychology conference in France, Marcel Mauss had already alluded to the inclusion of the body as a topic under the item 'miscellany' (our italics), lacking a sufficiently consistent theoretical framework for its understanding (FERREIRA, 2009).
We view studies about the body -Sociology or Anthropology of the Body -as conforming to a complex and expansive field of research aimed at furthering the understanding of the social dimensions and derivations of human embodiment (LE BRETON, 2006;CSORDAS, 2008;SHILLING, 2003;CREGAN, 2006;FRANK, 1991).Currently, there are two views of a Sociology of the Body: (i) that it is a discipline 2 under construction, that is, as a groups of practices, skills, conceptions, objects of study and methods that are configured in a specific field of knowledge but that are discovered during the process of creation, and (ii) that it is a subset or sub-discipline of Sociology not recognized as such by Sociology.The imperious understanding here is that of the sociology of the body not presenting a body of concepts and methods that is consistent enough to create an academic discipline, being seen as knowledge that is marginal to the more traditional concepts of sociology, such as sociology of work, of development, among others.The remainder of the paper is divided in the following way: the body in socio-anthropological studies, methodological approaches, whereupon we present our methodology and analysis techniques; interpretation of results; and, finally, conclusion, where we question the view of a Sociology or an Anthropology of the Body in Brazil as Sociology outsiders.

THE BODY IN SOCIO-ANTHROPOLOGICAL STUDIES
The main focus within the proposal of the body as something that transcends physical or physiological aspects was born from a certain unease experienced by Marcel Mauss (French 1 The definition of the study's temporal reach being between 2000 and 2012 is due to the fact that during the year 2000 the production of articles consisted in a group of jobs from the last period (last two years of the 90s) of the 20 th century, while in 2012 it included the production of the first decade of the 21 st century, since publishing an article in this area in Brazil at that time took about 6 to 24 months.
2 Deals with a disciplinary field that conforms according to a game of interests, disputes in which the rules of the game are put up for play (BOURDIEU, 2003).
Ethnologist), who separates himself from the biologic thought that regards the body and he launches his idea of the "total man", recognizing a triple alliance among the physical, psychic and sociological aspects in order to define the human body and present a notion of body techniques.Mauss (2003, p. 211) regards body techniques " […] as the means by which men, as a society and according to tradition, know how to make use of their bodies.In any case, it is necessary to proceed from the concrete to the abstract, and not conversely".According to him, people use their bodies as instruments, appropriating a complex set of techniques created through body education, meanwhile emphasizing the body-culture relationship.
Relying on the Maussian perspective, Le Breton (2006, p. 34) understands the body as "[…] the place and time in which the world becomes man, immersed in the singularity of his personal story, in a type of social and cultural compost from which the emblematic elements of the relationship with others and the world is withdrawn".Aiming to construct a methodological trajectory for the study of the body, the author distinguishes three research stages or paths that culminated in the creation of a sub-area dedicated to the sociological/anthropological study of the human body.These stages are: implicit sociology in the body, sociology of the body under construction and sociology of the body.
The first stage began in the 19th century, concurrently with the birth of social sciences.In it, the body was not the focus of analysis, getting diluted in the studies that were developed during that period, which consisted mostly of a contraposition to the reigning biological model.It explained a body that worked, worn down by the physical sacrifice and, by this association, is presented as a social product.The second stage consists of sociology of the body under construction, which brought important contributions to the body, however the effort to systematize and provide it with centrality did not yet exist.The last stage defined by the French anthropologist was the sociology of the body itself.This stage is still under construction and makes the body its central object, considering it to be a social elaboration.(LE BRETON, 2006).
Therefore, Le Breton (2006) defines three research axes -social and cultural logic of the body; social studies of body imagery and imaginary; and, finally, the body as a social mirror -with the aim of improving the understanding of embodiment in the Social Sciences, but suggests it is a discipline under construction as he builds its disciplinary matrix using a significant number of authors dedicated to the study of embodiment.

METHODOLOGICAL APPROCHES
We selected papers, essays or reviews in Social Science (Sociology and Anthropology) and Physical Education journals published in Brazil that ranked A1, A2 and B1 by Qualis CAPES3 .In Brazil, the Social Sciences are understood as two fields: Sociology and Anthropology.Physical Education is considered a standalone field of inquiry.A field is seen as a symbolic space where the struggles of agents determine, validate and legitimize representations (BOURDIEU, 2003).
In this survey of the Scielo, Lilacs and Google Scholar databases, we found that papers with 'body' as a keyword were predominantly featured in Social Sciences and Physical Education journals.After reading about the subject and, above all, depending on the methodological approach built by Le Breton (2006) to define three fields of research for Sociology of the Body, we identified that Mauss (2003), based on the use of the term 'body techniques', could be considered a precursor in the study of body/embodiment, according to most authors (LE BRETON, 2003, 2006;CSORDAS, 2008;RODRIGUES, 1999aRODRIGUES, , 1999bRODRIGUES, , 2005;;GOLDENBERG, 2007GOLDENBERG, , 2010)).Thus, the name 'Mauss' and the terms 'body technique' and 'body' worked as filters or keywords for the survey.Searching by title, author and subject, we arrived at a reasonable number of papers in each area, with a total of 2,519 entries for those terms (see Table 1).We found 728 papers in Sociology journals, with two referencing 'body techniques', 36 mentioning 'Mauss' and 690 mentioning 'body'.From that group, 220 were selected as basis for the three fields of study defined by Le Breton (2010), that is, 30% of the total.As for Physical Education journals, we identified 1,791 papers, of which 45 related to the term 'body techniques', 46 to the term 'Mauss' and 1,700 to 'body'.From those Physical Education papers, 199 (11%) were relevant for our research.This material was identified by titles, keywords and abstracts for each paper4 .With this approach, we also identified that some of the journals listed for the two areas of knowledge overlapped; therefore, we had a total of 307 pieces.Upon a preliminary analysis of the complete texts of those 307 articles, we observed in the majority of them that the concept of body technique was not related to the field of Social Sciences.Therefore, we refined our search in each text, based on the words body techniques and Mauss, which must occur simultaneously in any part of the text.Using this format we found 48 articles, all of which conformed to the understanding of Marcel Mauss.
For this analysis, we considered criteria such as (a) research area in relation to the journal's subjects; (b) authorship; (c) the researchers' background; (d) methodological approaches; (e) theoretical frameworks; and, finally, (f) objects of study.

Areas of Knowledge
As mentioned before, we rounded up 48 papers related to Sociology of the Body from journals on Social Sciences, Physical Education and adjacent areas (Education, Psychology, Interdisciplinary), evaluated as A1, A2 and B1 by Qualis.Preliminarily, the works were sorted and analyzed between Physical Education and Social Sciences.

a) Physical Education
We observed that Physical Education was the field with the most papers related to Sociology of the Body.Fifteen Physical Education papers were found, 11 from Revista Movimento, three from Revista Brasileira de Educação Física and one from Revista Motriz.As for authorship, five papers (33.3%) have more than four co-authors, seven articles (46.7%) were written by two authors and three articles (20%) were written by individual authors.Most of the co-authored papers fall under Physical Education.
Therefore, we have a total of 41 authorships: 31 in Physical Education, five in Physical Therapy, three in Education, one in Sociology and one in Occupational Therapy.Most of the authors of the selected papers, then, are Physical Education researchers; and the low rate of social scientists paves the way to future reflections on whether Social Sciences researchers are interested in publishing in Physical Education journals.
The methodological approaches used for the Physical Education papers were: ten field researches and five theoretical papers (two literature reviews, one academic review, one documentary research and one systematic review).
Theoretical frameworks, in turn, were established around the following authors, in order of appearance in the text: T. W Adorno; L. Bardin; Z. Bauman; M. Betti; D. Booth; P. Bourdieu; V. Bracht; F. L. Cardoso; L. Castelani Filho; M. Chauí; I. Dahlberg; J. Daólio; P. Duret; M. Foucault; C. Geertz; A. Giddens; M. Goldenberg; S. Goelner; L. Hanna; M. Horkheimer; E. Kunz; L. M. Lara; D. Le Breton; M. Mauss; M. Merleau-Ponty; J. Money; T. P. Nóbrega; R. Cardoso de Oliveira; L. V. S. Reis; J. C. Rodrigues; P. Roussel; P. Stallybras; H. Thorpe; A. F. Vaz; A. Vieira; G. Vigarello; L. S. Vigotski; L. Wacquant.The most cited authors were: Mauss in ten articles (66.7%);Daólio in three (20%); Foucault in three (20%); and, in two articles each, Bourdieu; Bracht; Cardoso; Geertz; Wacquant (13.3%).Other Social Sciences authors are referenced by Physical Education researchers, from which we can infer the existence of a fruitful dialogue among authors and fields.Perceptibly, the frame of reference of Physical Education researchers assimilates Phenomenology, comprehensive Sociology or interpretive Anthropology as well as Critical Theory authors.There is also the use of Brazilian Physical Education authors affiliated to one of those two disciplines.In this respect, Rodrigues (1999a) emphasizes that social relationships involve beliefs, values and expectations as well as interactions in space and time.An interaction process, then, is engendered between fields, as a mosaic that builds itself around research about the body, giving way for interdisciplinary discussions between the Social Sciences and Physical Education, especially considering the bibliographical sources that feed Bracht and Daólio's researches, respectively: Bourdieu and Mauss.
Identified objects of study were: school in three papers (20%), popular culture in three (20%) and sports in three (20%); health in two (13.3%) and gender in two (13.3%);there was one review (6.7%) and one theoretical conceptual work (6.7%).In the case of Physical Education, there is balance among research subjects, with school, popular culture and sports making up 20% of the research.This shows a clear momentum for knowledge production on those subjects in Brazil.

b) Social Sciences
In the wider scope of the Social Sciences, we found 12 articles, that is, only three articles fewer than Physical Education5 .Three were published in Revista Horizontes Antropológicos, two in Revista de Antropologia, two in Maná, and one article in each of these journals: Revista Brasileira de Ciências Sociais; Revista Sociedade e Política; Revista Sociedade e Estado; Revista Sociedade e Religião; Cadernos CRH.
Concerning authorship and co-authorship, out of twelve papers, only two were coauthored: one paper had four other co-authors and another had two co-authors.This is counter to the Physical Education reality, where authorship of papers is usually not individual.Of the 16 authors, 10 are anthropologists, four are sociologists and two are Physical Education researchers.We observed a dominance of anthropologists writing about the researched topic with a similar number of sociologists and Physical Education researchers.
The methodological approaches were: seven fieldworks (six ethnographies and one case study) and five theoretical papers (two reviews, two literature reviews and one documentary research).
The theoretical framework identified in the articles, including the Mauss scope, was comprised of the following authors: M. I. Almeida; M. R. Benedetti; J. Bizerril; P. Regarding the constitution of their theoretical framework, we have verified that the theoretical perspectives most frequently used by Social Science authors are connected to Mauss.We have found that all of the 48 papers cited the terms 'Mauss' and 'body techniques'.However, not all the papers used Mauss as theoretical framework.That is, 'Mauss' or 'body techniques' appear in the text but are not used as a structural part of the development presented by the paper.
Mauss recognizes the importance of studying humans from a triadic perspective, considering physiological/biological, psychological and social aspects.The theoretical foundation of the study was complemented by other important authors such as Maurice Merleau-Ponty, philosopher who adopted the notion of being-in-the world; and Pierre Bourdieu, sociologist who contributed greatly to the understanding of the social dimension of the body.
Csordas's contribution, on the other hand, is more recent, especially the articulation of the concepts of praxis by Pierre Bourdieu and perception of the being-in-the-world by Merleau-Ponty.He problematizes and highlights "[...] the phenomenological body as the locus of culture, the medium for its experiments with making itself human in its multiple possibilities" (CSORDAS, 2008, p. 11).From that perspective, his research addresses the nuanced connection between body and experience and between body and culture.His approach sees the human as an embodied subject whose ways of being are culturally constructed, but remains the producer of particular senses.Part of the premise is that "[…] the body is not an object to be studied relative to culture, but it is the subject of culture; in other words, the existential basis of culture" (CSORDAS, 2008, p. 112).Additionally, Michel Foucault's contribution is evident in works such as The History of Sexuality, Microphysics of Power, among others, in which the author explains how our bodies are re-dimensioned in certain social contexts and controlled by different power mechanisms or social institutions (FOUCAULT, 1988;1997).
The objects of study included religion in five articles (41.7%), modernity in three (25%), health in one (8.3%),rural life in one (8.3%)and two reviews (16.7%) were identified as works by authors featured in the papers' theoretical framework.As for the subjects covered by the Social Sciences, there were many studies involving the body and religion.That may be due to the constant search for understanding the relationship between body and spirituality.
Within the scope of the Qualis system's definition of the field of Social Sciences and Physical Education, journals from other academic fields have also published papers relative to Sociology of the Body.

c) Public Health
In the area of collective/public health, 10 articles were identified and analyzed6 , four of which from Caderno de Saúde Pública (40%), three from Revista Saúde e Sociedade (30%), two from Manguinhos (20%) and one from Revista Ciência e Saúde Coletiva (10%).As for the researchers' training area, out of 10 articles, 50% had been co-authored and top areas were: Anthropology, with five (50%); Public Health, with four (40%); Nutrition, with two (20%); Medical Sciences, with two (20%); and Archaeology, with one (10%).In this group, two researchers did not specify their subject area.The methodological approaches were: fieldwork in four articles, ethnographies in three and theoretical studies -documentary research, review, literature review -in three articles.

d) Interdisciplinary
Regarding journals perceived as interdisciplinary, seven papers were selected, four of them from Revista de Estudos Feministas, two from Interface -Comunicação, Saúde e Educação, and one from Ambiente e Sociedade.Two studies by anthropologists were co-authored (28.6%), and the remaining studies had single authorship.Thus, Anthropology is the main area in six articles while Sociology (85.6%),Social Communication (Media) and Medical Sciences are featured in one article each (14.3% each).
Concerning methodological approaches: five papers are theoretical (71.4%), two are literature reviews (28.6%), one is an analysis of visual data (14.3%), and there is one systematic review and one review, as well as two fieldworks (28.6%), among which, one (14.3%) is ethnographical.

e) Education
In the area of Education8 , three papers were found; two in Revista Brasileira de Educação (66.7%) and one in Cadernos CEDES (33.3%).One paper was co-authored, and the others were of single authorship, one of them written by an anthropologist; the others, by educators.The methodological approaches were divided between experience report, literature review and fieldwork, with 33.3% each.The theoretical framework covered 13 authors, namely (in alphabetical order and according to featured order in the texts): M. Feldenkrais; R. Laban; C. Lévi-Strauss; J. A. Lima; H. Maturana; M. Mauss; M. Merleau-Ponty; E. Morin; T. P. Nobrega; R. da S. Queiroz; J. C. Roberts; F. Varela; K. Vianna.
In the field of Education, the areas of study of referenced authors were: Art (Laban); Philosophy and Psychology (Maturana and Merleau-Ponty); Anthropology (Mauss and Lévi-Strauss); and the somatic education of human movement (Feldenkrais).Renato da Silva Queiroz's work The Brazilian Body is also referenced by Education authors.We would like to point out that in Education, the bibliography does not match a specific disciplinary matrix, and it is clear that they use works of authors with distinct theoretic-methodological perspectives.
As for objects of study, all stressed the school theme.Although Education is not limited to school, papers found in this revision of Sociology of the Body have reflected such tendencies.The school, considered an instance of formal education, is the main focus of the analyzed papers, so researchers delve into the body-school relationship.

f) Psychology
We found only one Psychology paper by an anthropologist, published in the journal Psicologia Clínica, with the theme of gender and written by an individual author as the result of fieldwork.The theoretical framework was: Bourdieu, Freyre, Goldenberg and Mauss.The paper in fact was published in a Psychology journal even though an anthropologist wrote it and the theoretical framework and methodological perspective adopted stem from the Social Sciences.Bourdieu and Mauss are used as supporting bibliography, as well as Brazilians Gilberto Freyre and Miriam Goldenberg.The object of study is the relationship of gender and the autonomy of the individual in contemporary society.

The Journals' Areas of Knowledge
Beyond the examination of papers according to the journals' areas of knowledge, we have a so developed an analysis of the selected sources as a whole.When we looked at the training areas of researchers publishing about body/embodiment, the total includes 87 authors/ researchers who published 48 articles.Again, we see a predominance of authors/researchers comin g from Physical Education, with 33 authors (37.9%).We also noted the presence of Social Sciences authors, with 32 (36.7%).Splitting the Social Sciences, we have 23 (26.4%) anthropologists and seven sociologists (8%), indicating the clear predominance of Anthropology.Authors trained in Education were six in total (8%), same as the number of Sociology authors; followed by those with training in Physical Therapy, four authors (4.6%); Public Health, three (3.4%);Nutrition, two (2.3%); and one for Medical Sciences (1.1%), Social Communication (1.1%),Occupational Therapy (1.1%), and Archaeology (1.1%) (as shown in Figure 1).Concerning methodological approaches, we found that 29 (60.4%) were empirical research and 19 (39.6%) were theoretical studies.The empirical studies identified were: ethnography; fieldwork; experience report; and analysis of visual data, while the resulting articles on theoretical studies were: documentary research, review and literature review 9 and systematic review 10 (Figure 2 shows below).We realize that there is a preference for empirical studies (fieldwork done by the researcher).For all areas, that approach is predominant, except for interdisciplinary publications.We could also infer, cross-checking with researchers' areas of training, that the two foremost areas, Physical Education and Anthropology, have a tradition of doing fieldwork; the former, notably, with empirical laboratory research, and the latter, with ethnographic research.
Chart 2 shows the types of analytical approaches used, mostly literature review, followed by review, leading us to interpret those works as theoretical reflections, sometimes in the test (survey) format, about a certain theme and/or entries in books.However, analyzing charts 2 and 3, we realize that there is a dialogue between social reality and academic scientific concepts, because we found a clear relationship between theory and empiricism.In 39.6% analyzed articles, corresponding to 60.4%, there was a clear relationship between the theoretical framework and the research designed.
On table 2, we list the 24 authors featured in the theoretical framework of the 48 articles studied.Mauss got the spotlight, present in 32 articles (66.7%); followed by Bourdieu in 10 (20.8%);Foucault in 10 (20.8%);Le Breton in seven (14.6%); Csordas in six (12.5%);Merleau-Ponty in six (12.5%);Goldenberg in four (8.3%);Daólio in three (6.25%);Wacquant in three (6.25%).Other authors featured in the chart appeared twice, with 4.2% of the presence.The body appears as the central object of study.That is, all of the papers covering body technique, bodily practices and/or body perceptions seek to understand the relationship between individual and society according to a social-physiological approach.Chart 3 displays the main themes found, with the body and body techniques featured as the axis of discussion.When posing the question of where papers on body and embodiment belong, we find one large hegemonic area, Social Sciences (Anthropology), and one disciplinary field, Physical Education.As we can see from the figure 4, the number of papers by knowledge area was divided as follows: Physical Education, 15 (31%); Social Sciences, 12 (25%); Collective/Public Health, 10 (21%); Interdisciplinary, seven (15%); Education, three (6%); Psychology, one (two%).There is, again, a noticeable predominance of Physical Education.
According to Qualis/Physical Education, the situation is very similar, with the following: Revista Movimento publishes 25.6% of the total, Cadernos de Saúde Pública has 8.3% and both Revista Ciência e Saúde Coletiva and Revista História, Ciências e Saúde -Manguinhos and Horizontes Antropológicos have 6.5%.In agreement with this review standard, we verify a near total confluence of Social Sciences (Anthropology) and Physical Education.In both cases, the journals Estudos Feministas (Social Sciences) and Movimento (Physical Education) appear first, with 25% of the articles; Cadernos de Saúde Pública is second, with 8.3%; and Ciência e Saúde Coletiva (Physical Education), História, Ciências e Saúde -Manguinhos (Physical Education) and Horizontes Antropológicos (Social Sciences) follow, all three with 6.5%.
Also worthy of consideration is the fact that Revista Motriz, rated A2 by Qualis CAPES in the Physical Education category, has 2% of the articles relevant to the field of Sociology of the Body.While other Physical Education publications also had articles with this approach, they may have been excluded from this study because they were not rated A1, A2 or B1 by Qualis.
Comparing the two fields of knowledge -Sociology and Physical Education -the latter presents a greater number of articles found by keywords: 1,791 in Physical Education as opposed to 728 in Sociology -a 246% difference.However, it should be taken into account that relevant articles in the area of Sociology of the Body are mostly published in Social Sciences journals, seeing as, in the case of Sociology, 30% of the featured articles were selected, and in the case of Physical Education, only 11% of the output was considered relevant to this study.
There was a curiously low output in Sociology for the keyword 'body techniques'.Only two articles were found in Sociology as opposed to 45 in Physical Education.Also, regarding the term 'Mauss', the largest number of articles found fell within the area of Physical Education, 46 to Sociology's 36.Therefore, it behooves us to question why the notion of body technique is not duly contemplated in the anthropological and sociological studies, as we agree with Ferreira (2009, p. 2) that Mauss was surely responsible for denaturalizing the body as an object of study in biomedical sciences, for his stance that the body fulfills social functionalities, focusing it as "[…] socio-historically localized and constructed reality, changeable from time to time, from social formation to social formation".Moreover, he is not the only author that shares this understanding of Mauss' crucial importance.Le Breton (2006) and Csordas (2008) already conceded in their works that Mauss promoted the greatest advancements in the construction of the embodiment paradigm.Body technique, that is, the standardized uses of the body in a society and its variations over time and space, associated with the notion of a total social fact, in which biological, psychological and social aspects should be embedded in the understanding of embodiment, were significant contributions by Mauss.

SOCIOLOGY OF THE BODY IN BRAZIL -A SOCIOLOGY OUTSIDER?
The study allowed us to identify and understand relationships and dynamics that permeate the production of knowledge about body/embodiment.Recognizing that studies on the subject in Brazil are still incipient and we cannot predict that there will be a distinct Sociology of the Body, the identified and analyzed output demonstrates that Brazilian researchers from different fields, notably Physical Education and Anthropology, have invested in more nuanced and consistent analyses of the topic.This suggests that Sociology of the Body in Brazil, like Anthropology in its beginnings, as asserted by Cardoso de Oliveira (1997), is in the periphery of the mother-field, Sociology.One could conclude that Sociology of the Body is a true 'outsider' (our italics) in Brazil.
The breakdown of those papers reveals that Physical Education and Social Sciences (mostly Anthropology) come across as prominent fields.Researchers that approach our subjects more frequently have Physical Education and Anthropology backgrounds over an insignificant number of researchers with a Sociology background.
The methodological framework references come mostly from the Social Sciences, with a strong presence of Sociology authors.Consequently, we consider that there is no set boundary Movimento, Porto Alegre, v. 22, n. 4, 1249-1264, out./dez.de 2016.
between Sociology and Anthropology; rather, they configure the basis of Social Sciences.Also, we observed that Brazilian Physical Education authors tap into the Social Sciences when building their theoretical and methodological articulations.Tackling a phenomenon as complex as the body demands the inclusion of multiple disciplines such as Anthropology, Sociology, Psychology and Physical Education.
In addition, our survey revealed the researchers' articulations of theory and empirical work, enabling them to reflect about society from the stance of empirical studies about the body and contribute to the prospects of Mauss (2003), Le Breton (2006), andCsordas (2008) that the study of the body allows for an understanding of the society where it is inserted.The contributions made by these authors are expressed in distinct, yet complementary, perspectives.Mauss is important for being considered the precursor of studies on the body.Le Breton (2006) continues on the path of the French ethnologist and advances in studies on the body in a customized way that presents a methodological proposal for embodiment.Csordas, on the other hand, is relevant for having constructed the embodiment paradigm, which also consists of a methodological proposal.
We cannot confirm the existence of a Sociology of the Body as a discipline in Brazil.On the other hand, we have identified several efforts by Brazilian researchers, reflecting an ongoing dialogue among authors in the Social Sciences that helps clear out biases and develop consistent research methodologies to reach a better understanding of the body in its empirical dynamism.Finally, we can corroborate our proposition.Studies of the body in Brazil are incipient; they follow the same structure of the Social Sciences in the country; and, they can be considered passing studies, outsiders in relation to other scientific subjects.However, if we do not yet have a Sociology or an Anthropology of the Body per se in Brazil, we are nevertheless in a process that encourages their future development.

Figure 1 -
Figure 1 -Authors and training areas

9
Review and literature review is a traditional literature review.They don't describe methodology and can have (a) variety styles; (b) no defined method; (c) no specified analysis (JESSON; MATHENSON; LANCEY,2011).10 Systematic reviews hold large bodies of information and contribute to the answers to questions about what works and what does not.It has (a) structure approach; (b) rigorous method; (c) synthesis, meta-analysis (JESSON; MATHENSON; LANCEY, 2011).

Figure 4 -
Figure 4 -Distribution by areas of knowledge

Table 1 -
Quantitative demonstration of papers found and selected from key terms ; F. G. Brumana; T. Csordas; G. Deleuze; E. Durkheim; M. Foucault; S. Freud; E. Goffman; M. Goldenberg; T. Ingold; D. Le Breton; E. Martin; M. I. Mattos; M. Mauss; M. Mead; M. Merleau-Ponty; J. C. Rodrigues; C. Lévi-Strauss; E. Viveiros de Castro; D. W. Winnicott.It is evident in this group that authors also fall under the umbrella of Social Sciences, Sociology and Anthropology.Notably, we can identify Sigmund Freud, Tim Ingold, Margaret Mead, Gilles Deleuze, Fernando Giobellina Brumana and two important Brazilian anthropologists from different generations, Eduardo Viveiros de Castro, author of The Inconstancy of the Indian Soul and other Anthropology Essays and José Carlos Rodrigues, whose studies are fundamental for research about the body in Brazil, namely The Taboo of the Body, The Body in

Table 2 -
Authors cited depending on the area of expertise/research.
Source: The authors, 2014.Data in absolute numbers.
Continuation of table 2... Compared with the previous chart, it appears that the gender issue is addressed; this is due mainly to Revista Estudos Feministas, present in our roster, but only because it was possible to pinpoint a theoretical approach to body and gender in Physical Education, Psychology and Public Health studies.The health subject appeared to dominate in the areas of Public Health and Physical Education, whereas religion and spirituality dominated the Social Sciences, and school dominated in Physical Education and Education.