‘Playing sport playfully’: on the playful attitude in sport

ABSTRACT

There has been extensive debate among various disciplines about the nature and value of play. From these discussions it seems clear that play is a phenomenon with more than just one dimension: as a specific type of activity, as a form or structure, as an ontologically distinctive phenomenon, as a type of experience, or as a stance or an attitude towards a particular activity. This article focuses on the importance of the playful attitude in sport. It begins by attempting to describe the underpinning features of a playful attitude, and its relation to Suits’ lusory attitude and the concept of gamification. Finally, it considers and critically evaluates the relationship between play and sport and the importance of the playful attitude in sporting activities. The purpose of this paper is a far deeper analysis of the playful attitude and its relationship to sport than has been previously provided, and a more precise definition as to what the playful attitude is. This will ultimately help to answer questions about the value of sport and how sport ought to be played.

KEYWORDS:

• Philosophy of sport
• sport psychology
• play
• game
• playful attitude
• being in the game
• good sport

Disclosure of potential conflicts of interest

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1. Authors use different terms to capture this particular dimension, such as ‘stance’, ‘attitude’, ‘mindset’, ‘state of mind’, ‘mode’ or ‘quality’. We prefer the term ‘attitude’ because it describes something more stable than a momentary state of affairs (such as ‘mindset’ or ‘state of mind’). According to Roochnik (1975), an attitude is a way of thinking about things, a mental disposition and an orientation towards the world, whilst a stance is more deeply rooted: ‘A stance goes beyond the intellect to the body and the spirit and becomes a mode of being-toward-the-world.’ It permeates all aspects of being human. For the sake of simplicity, we will refer to the term ‘attitude’ to encompass both attitude and Roochnik’s term ‘stance’.

2. The concept of responsive openness described by Hyland can be seen as an opposition to a `fixed` state of mind described by Carol Dweck (2016). If we compare her approach with Hyland’s conception of responsive openness, it seems clear that there is a link between being open and responsive and between being oriented toward development and new possibilities (e.g. a growth mindset).

3. See https://www.theguardian.com/education/2016/mar/15/children-learn-play-age-eight-lego?fbclid=IwAR3S3FxB_x0VNG0QAceVMgpcczxWl3tWP0dYcoHOZJt2BKZzMRmZod49bfg. Retrieved 8 July 2019.

4. Problems arise when we consider activities that are generally viewed as morally bad. For example, is it possible to have this stance (in our case attitude) when killing someone? Or whilst cheating or making fun of the opponent? This is an area of debate amongst scholars and has been explored by Henning Eichberg in his notion of ‘dark play’. We agree that a playful attitude generally denotes a moral good but admit it can be used in activities that are considered morally bad. So whilst the playful attitude itself is of moral worth, there is not a contingent link between the attitude and the activity. In other words, playful attitude is a good thing to possess, but it doesn’t necessarily lead to good actions, i.e. there is no connective relationship between the moral worth of the attitude and the action that results from it.

5. For more details about conditions for playing a game see Schwengerer’s article ‘An Epistemic Condition for Playing a Game’ (2019).

6. Meier (1988) characterizes play based upon the orientation, demeanor, or stance of the participant. He argues that sport and games may or may not be play but if they are play (i.e. pursued voluntarily and for intrinsic reasons), both activities are somehow enriched.

7. When we say ‘it does not matter’ clearly there are cases when failing does matter, if it results in injury or death. But on the basis that most, if not all sports, aim to reduce the risk of injury and death to those involved, this means that the arbitrary rules of sport means that failure is self-contained. Indeed, Edgar (2013) argues for a definition of sport that entails an opportunity to fail.

8. We would like to thank Paul Gaffney for raising these points and also for his further comments on the relation between playfulness and competitiveness.

9. Reversal theory, which considers the meta-motivational states of an athlete as found in sport psychology literature may be useful. See for example Kerr (2001).

10. It could be argued that games and sport are not the only activities that are prime for a playful attitude. For instance, the playing of musical instruments offers similar potential to games and sport in this respect. We would like to thank one of the reviewers for highlighting this point.