![Sample our Education journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5932/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Education.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
One of the most long-standing controversies in kinesiology has been that of physical activity requirements (PARs) in corresponding degree programs. Despite a recommendation from the American Kinesiology Association to include “the practice of physical activity” in undergraduate kinesiology degree programs, some programs have PARs, while others do not. The question still remains: should physical activity be required for all kinesiology students? In this article, we build a case for PARs in kinesiology degree programs. First, we highlight the most common theoretical and practical objections to such requirements. The theoretical objections are namely dualism, materialism, and utilitarian pragmatism; the practical objections are cost, the credit crunch, and public perception. Second, and most importantly, we describe why these theoretical and practical objections fail. As unapologetic partisans on this issue, our primary aim is to highlight why PARs belong in every kinesiology degree program, regardless of concentration or area of emphasis.
Notes
1. Some critics might allege that “the AKA does not have a monopoly on the term kinesiology.” We do not mean to imply such. The point—which is beyond dispute—is that the AKA is a prestigious, national, serious, and scholarly community of kinesiologists, which has endorsed the idea of an undergraduate core curriculum in kinesiology which includes physical activity courses. Such a claim is worthy of further investigation. In other words, our argument is not an “appeal to authority” (this is right because the AKA says so), but rather “one of justification” (The AKA is right to say so, and here is why…).
2. Of course, it is true that in the “real world” each of these philosophies may not be discrete. That is, they may bleed into each other. It is also true that they may manifest themselves in professional practice less starkly than is presented here. In fact, the most common result among kinesiology faculty is probably not an articulate, commitment to “dualism” or “materialism” or “utilitarianism,” but rather a bland, technocratic commitment to “efficiency” and “moving the discipline forward.” A commitment which has simply grown and flowered in dualistic or materialistic or utilitarian soil. As such, we are fully convinced that the philosophic roots of such attitudes toward the place of physical activity in the discipline can be traced directly back to the philosophies discussed here. As David Foster Wallace (Citation2005) pointed out in a commencement address, fish often do not recognize the water in which they find themselves. Yet, the fact that the fish take water for granted, does not make the water’s presence any less important, necessary, or comprehensive. So too with the importance of philosophy to kinesiology. As Wallace insisted, “The point of the fish story is merely that the most obvious, important realities are often the ones that are hardest to see and talk about” (para. 2). Similarly, we paint “dualism” and “materialism” and “utilitarianism” in stark relief in this article, not to assert that every “dualistic kinesiologist” swallows or endorses everything we assert regarding “dualism” whole hog, but to clarify the pervasive nature of these ideas in kinesiology, so that they are “easier to see and talk about.”
3. The term “dualism” can be confusing, as it is sometimes in used in philosophic circles to indicate significantly different philosophic positions on the nature of the human person, including the holistic positions of Aristotle and Aquinas, whose philosophy of the person is often referred to as “hylemorphic dualism” (Feser, Citation2009). “Hylemorphic” comes from the Greek for “material” and “form” and is meant to convey an organic or composite whole rather than independent parts. Feser (Citation2009) described the idea this way: “The body is not a complete substance, for matter can never exist by itself. Matter only ever exists with some form or other, and the human body therefore exists only insofar as it has its form, that is to say, the rational soul. As the form of the body, the soul is not a complete substance either. It is only form and matter or soul and body together which constitute a complete substance, and they are related, not as one ghostly object somehow banging into another one, but rather in the way that the form of the table is related to the wood that makes it up, or the form of the dog is related to its flesh” (p. 166). Therefore, when we use the term “dualism” we are referring specifically to the Cartesian version and its commonplace derivatives which see the mind and body as independent realities.
4. It is easy to see, given such assumptions, how “dumb jock” stereotypes can be supported by sophisticated philosophic arguments which have trickled down into the popular culture to become “taken for granted truth.” As Anderson (Citation2002) declared, “This, of course, is not a new stereotype; Seneca liked to make fun of the Romans who lifted weights all day in the apartment below his. But the length of the history of a stereotype or prejudice is not a justification for it, as feminists have tried to show for the last 200 years” (p. 89).
5. There are strong arguments (some would say decisive) for the immateriality of the mind (Ross, Citation2008). That is, there are powerful arguments that claim to show that reason and intentionality are not reducible to material causes. Of course such arguments are not universally accepted, but granting such a claim for the sake of argument does not discount the point being made about the lack of “independence” of the mind, as long as one realizes that the body too cannot be fully accounted for on a material basis alone. As Aristotle scholar Joe Sachs (Citation2004) put it, “Living comes about just where material bodies cease to explain anything, where they are organized into active wholes. It used to be said that the human body is mostly water while the rest is $1.98 worth of chemicals. Obviously those materials which could be collected in a bucket, are transformed when they are a human body and only the form explains the difference. That form is not a static arrangement but a being-at-work of organized material” (p. 19). Matter, as such, explains far less about living things than many contemporary scientists would have you believe.
6. “What holds true for mathematical objects holds true no less for other apparently abstract entities. When we understand a truth of mathematics, we grasp a proposition—the proposition that 2 + 2 = 4, say. But we also grasp propositions when we understand any other kind of truth, and, as in mathematics, the objects of our understanding seem clearly to be neither mental nor physical. In understanding the Pythagorean theorem or that Caesar was assassinated on the Ides of March, you and I understand the same thing in each case. It is not that I understand my own subjective Pythagorean theorem and you understand yours; what we understand is something objective, something that holds true independent of either of our minds. So it cannot be something mental. But neither can it be something material, for the fact the theorem describes would hold true whatever occurs in the physical world and even if there were no physical world … the proposition that Caesar was assassinated on the Ides of March would remain true even if the entire physical universe disappeared tomorrow” (Feser, Citation2005, pp. 79–80).
7. “Certainly the doctors are correct in saying that lack of leisure makes one ill. But at the same time, it is impossible to be truly at leisure merely for the sake of health … Leisure cannot be realized so long as one understands it to be a means” (Pieper, Citation1948/1998, p. 58).
8. Unfortunately, this does not happen very often in our discipline, even in PETE programs. As Johnson (Citation2013) argued regarding Ayers & Housner’s (Citation2008) research which shows that on average only seven percent of PETE program requirements are activity based, “It is highly unlikely that PETE majors will develop skillfulness [much less love] in one-credit activity courses” (p. 491).
9. Adjudicating pleasures, so as to create an objective account of an action’s utility, is a herculean task which is all but impossible. As philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre (Citation1984) pointed out: “For different pleasures and different happinesses are to a large degree incommensurable: there are no scales of quality or quantity on which to weigh them. Consequently appeal to the criteria of pleasure will not tell me whether to drink or swim and appeal to those of happiness cannot decide for me between the life of a monk and that of a soldier. To have understood the polymorphous character of pleasure and happiness is of course to have rendered those concepts useless for utilitarian purposes…” (p. 64).
10. Someone might ask the question, “Which is a more ‘selfish’ endeavor: to pursue a college degree as a means to the end of high paying job or to develop one’s physical fitness/sport performance capabilities? Is it not the case that in the end, both are probably ‘selfish’ endeavors? Moreover, would not a utilitarian say that at least the former leads to better outcomes for the ‘economy’ than the latter? After all, someone who makes more money due to a better job, will spend more money and contributes to society more.” That may or may not be true. But to focus on such a discussion, however you answer it, is to miss the overriding point. The point is not to claim that developing athletic skill is less selfish and therefore more justifiable. The point is that selfishness (as a corrupting factor of any cost/benefit analysis) is an inherent problem of utilitarianism, no matter what ends you pursue. Not only is it impossible to see and know enough to really calculate the greatest good for the greatest number, honest attempts to do so are too often intentionally scuttled, with utilitarianism being used as a rationalization of selfishness. That is, a commitment to one’s own good (by any means necessary) rather than greatest good becomes the real goal.
11. Of course play is not exclusive to physical activity. The play spirit can be found in music, drama, the arts and even in academic endeavor. Why then is “play” so often associated with “games” and “sport?” It seems likely that this apparent idiosyncrasy in our language is actually not accidental, but the result of how powerful physical activity is as a spur to play. The two go together so often, that the language itself, presumes a relationship, even though it’s not logically necessary or logically exclusive. If that is right, then the neglect of play in kinesiology departments becomes even more curious.
12. It is true, of course, that other intrinsic goods exist both within and without kinesiology. Knowledge, for instance, is often understood to be best pursued for its own sake. Such an attitude is, no doubt, present among many kinesiologists. The emphasis here is on play for two reasons. First, few kinesiologists doubt the legitimacy of knowledge in the discipline. Not so with play. Second, play is exclusive or at least inherent to kinesiology, in a way that knowledge is not. That is, knowledge (pursued for its own sake) is found across the academy, while play is found in a relative handful besides kinesiology (music, art, theater, etc.).
13. By claiming the cost is too high, one has already betrayed the fact that they do not think physical activity is important, for such courses and requirements are hardly the only potentially expensive item in any kinesiology department budget. Why are other expensive elements of kinesiology funded without the same hand-wringing? The answer is obvious: It is because they are considered more important!
14. Some might argue that, given the philosophic force of the argument, one should demand and articulate the “ideal form” of PARs in undergraduate programs. While we agree with the spirit of this criticism, we do not want the “perfect to be the enemy of the good.” Given the dearth of existing requirements it seems apropos to emphasize “establishing beachheads” however limited or messy they initially are. Then, once the initial reality of a physical activity requirement has actually been secured, their positions can be improved and their rationale and content can be expanded. As to precisely what an “ideal requirement” would look like, that would require and deserves an entirely separate article.
15. If the idea is right, true and good, it will win out in the end. As William James (Citation1907) argued, “A small force if it never lets up will accumulate effects more considerable than those of much greater forces if these work inconsistently. The ceaseless whisper of the more permanent Ideals, the steady tug of truth and justice, give them but time, must warp the world in their direction” (para. 11).
16. “The meaning of movement must be had as well as be learned about” (Anderson, Citation2002, p. 92).
17. As Kretchmar (Citation2005) insisted, “playgrounds are made, not found” (p. 153). Developing the skill necessary to consistently generate the play spirit takes time, which means that the number of contact hours and credits required make a big difference in whether or not students cultivate a love for physical activity.
18. The point is not that Texas is likely to have less resources than smaller programs, but that as a top ranked PhD program there will be pressure to leverage those resources toward research, reduced teaching loads, etc. rather than “trivial” concerns such as activity requirements.
19. Put slightly differently the point could be made like this: Kinesiology programs which fail to require activity courses are like a music program that only studied “appropriately academic scientific and theoretical questions” such as, “the biomechanics of piano playing,” or “the physiology of conducting,” or “the environmental barriers to rhythmic activity.” If no one ever actually engaged music, we would be right to question if we were really dealing with professors of music. In exactly the same way, if we never actually engage physical activity, one can rightly question if we are kinesiologists.
20. In contrast to play, health has significant limitations as a motivator to encouraging physical activity. As Kretchmar (Citation2005) pointed out, “It is in the formative years that we develop good dietary and movement habits, but young children do not have the intellectual and experiential resources to appreciate the extrinsic movement argument. They need to be pulled into movement prerationally” (p. 142). Kretchmar also cites research that shows that “Over 50% of mature patients treated for cardiovascular disease return to old patterns of eating and inactivity within one year of the intervention” (p. 143).
21. Wittgenstein (Citation1922/2018) made the basic point this way: “Most of the propositions and questions of philosophers arise from our failure to understand the logic of our language. (They belong to the same class as the question whether the good is more or less identical than the beautiful.) And it is not surprising that the deepest problems are in fact not problems at all” (4.003).
22. The same point could be put this way: In kinesiology, “whereof one cannot speak, one must move.”