Competition in Physical Education: Avoid, Ask, Adapt or Accept?

ABSTRACT

Competition is an essential part of youth sport. But should it also be part of the curriculum in physical education? Or are competitive activities incompatible with the educational context? While some researchers have argued that physical education should embrace the sporting logic of competition, others have criticized the negative experiences it can create for some students in school. In this article, we draw on insights from the philosophy of sport as well as educational philosophy, with the aim of questioning and critically examining the integration of competitive activities in physical education. We present and discuss four normative arguments (AVOID, ASK, ADAPT, and ACCEPT) that can each in their own way inform and guide future talks on the topic.

KEYWORDS:

• Philosophy of physical education
• philosophy of sport
• sport pedagogy
• sport ethics
• contest

Notes

^1. These positive accounts of the moral status of competitive sport are dominant, but they are, to be sure, not uncontested in the philosophy of sport. Kohn’s (1992) radical critique of the mutually exclusive goal attainment in interdependent competition, which is described in relation to the AVOID-argument below, has had some influence. A similar view is, for example, expressed by Møller (2010), as he states that “sport is not a moral business” (p. 21). He argues that competitive sport is rather a “cultivation of the will to win taken to the threshold of evil” (p. 24).

^2. For example, in the UK and United States they appear to be more intertwined than in Scandinavian countries. Also, while the sporting logic of competition in organized youth sport is relatively universal, physical education as a school subject is more contextual and dependent upon the curricula of different school systems. It is beyond the scope of the present analysis to engage with particular national contexts and the wide differences between the curricula of physical education.

³ These three contextual differences are inspired by, but do not entirely coincide with, the analysis of Martelaer and Theeboom (2006).

⁴ We rely here on Kretchmar’s (2012) argument that the zero-sum aspect is a central and valuable part of competition in sport, and that neglecting, downplaying, or removing this aim and quality can easily underplay the poignant drama of sport. Importantly, this aim of excelling over others in sporting contests, and the related zero-sum qualities, does not imply that competitions cannot be friendly and/or morally defensible in organized youth sport.

⁵ This kind of argument can, for example, be found in the Sport Education model (Siedentop et al., 2011), which aims to make students enthusiastic sportspersons.