Purpose
In the preface of the text is written,
The book explores the ways in which an understanding of philosophy can inform our understanding of important prevailing issues in sport. Edited by two of the most significant figures in the development of the philosophy of sport, Mike McNamee and Bill Morgan, with contributions from many of the world’s leading sport philosophers, this is an invaluable companion reference volume for any course in the social scientific study of sport and an essential addition to the bookshelf of any serious scholar of the philosophy and/or ethics of sport.
Description
According to the Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group, website,
this text is a landmark publication in sport studies. It goes further than any book has before in tracing the contours of the discipline of the philosophy of sport and in surveying the core themes, approaches and theories that form its disciplinary fabric. The book explores the ways in which an understanding of philosophy can inform our understanding of important prevailing issues in sport. (https://www.routledge.com/products/9780415829809)
Evaluation
The text begins with a seven page history of the philosophy of sport written by McNamee and Morgan, ranging from its discipline and academic beginnings in the USA and then its rise in Asia, Europe, and later South America. The history is brief, to the point, basically correct but highly favored with what I believe is Morgan’s perspective since he actually was there at the beginning and knew all of the important players personally. McNamee had to have been in his knickers in Wales at the time and would not be able to discuss these historical periods from a personal viewpoint. Personal perspective is excellent but sometimes flavors the reality of what occurred. On page 2 is a discussion of what historical events brought about the development of the philosophy of sport. Morgan accredits the development to the ‘… upheaval of the political climate of the 1960s when a large number of Americans … challenged the old orthodoxies and traditions both in and outside the academy’. In essence, this is basically correct, but the challenges were more about academic rigor and validity of academic majors that were not ‘scientific’ within the academy. Morgan makes no mention of James Conant or Franklin Henry or the historical debate between Conant, the Harvard academician, and Franklin, the Physical Educator, and the reality that physical education as an academic program was in jeopardy (see Sage Citation2013). Physical educators believed they were under attack and thus moved to establish academic credentials which then had direct effect on the development of the history of sport, sociology of sport, and philosophy of sport, and the parallel development of sport psychology through another path. The harder science programs, exercise physiology, and biomechanics, already existed and were not as threatened.
Morgan’s interpretation is not incorrect but it is biased toward the writings of the period and the individuals who founded the professional organization. The short history is also a bit embellished as to the importance of certain historical events and certain periods. Warren Fraleigh, a professor and administrator at Brockport College, was an unusual individual for the period. He believed in the power of sport philosophy and established a physical education program based in philosophical tenants. He hired six academically trained sport philosophers to house his program. Morgan states, ‘that, unsurprisingly, created quite a stir in both Fraleigh’s own institution and in physical education departments across the USA and Canada’. Not as much of a stir as Morgan believed. I wish it had caused a stir. I was in school at the same time in a well-known physical education and sport exercise physiology institution where there actually was an individual teaching philosophy of sport. No stir happened there. Within six years, our program was dissolved and no philosophy of sport courses were further taught – except as part or subsets of other courses.
McNamee’s and Morgan’s text then is divided into three sections. Section I: Philosophical approaches to the conceptualization of sport; section II: Philosophical theories and sport; and section III: Key issues and themes in the philosophy of sport. This edited anthology has pieces written by the leading philosophical writers of the last 40 years including some of the most seasoned scholars such as Bob Simon, Scott Kretchmar, Bill Morgan, Sigmund Loland, W. Miller Brown, important later writers such as Carwyn Jones, Heather L. Reid, John S. Russell, Mike McNamee, Stephen Mumford, and newer writers including Andrew Edgar, Jesús Ilundáin-Agurruza, Takayuki Hata, Jeffrey P. Fry, Paul Gaffney, Kenneth Aggerholm, Paul Davis, Leslie A. Howe, John Kaag, Lev Kreft, Irena Martínková, Rasmus Bysted Møller, Verner Møller, Thomas H. Murray, and Gregg Twietmeyer.
In general I believe the text is what the editors represent it to be: it is a very good supporting source for use in classroom or in general writing and research in the field. I have only one bone to pick with the text and that has to do with the ‘glue’ to hold the work together.
In 1988, the same Bill (William J.) Morgan and Klaus Meier, then of University of Tennessee and Western Ontario University respectfully, edited the first disciplinary volume of sport philosophy titled, Philosophic Inquiry in Sport, published by Human Kinetics. In the anthology, Morgan and Meier chose many of the most important philosophical works of Western tradition including many important philosophic writers from Plato, Rene Descartes to Gabriel Marcel, and Jean-Paul Sartre. The volume also includes most of the important works written by contemporary sport philosophers of the period. Those two points make the book a must to read – even though it is out of print and very difficult to find. What is especially important for students in philosophy of sport is to read Morgan’s and Meier’s introductory comments, called Reader’s Guide, to each section of the book. The introductory guides are very helpful in understanding the greater historical connection of philosophy to sport, but also ‘glues’ the anthology together. It gives meaning and direction in reading the selected writers.
This glue is missing in the handbook written by McNamee and Morgan. Maybe it was intentionally omitted, but my students and I sorely miss the help that ‘two of the most significant figures in the development of the philosophy of sport’ could bring to each section of the handbook. This missing glue makes reading some of the sections cumbersome. For example, In Section 1, Scott Kretchmar writes the first article on ‘Formalism and sport’. Kretchmar is one of our most important writers in the field and he took on a daunting task to discuss formalism. Kretchmar soldiers on and does a very good job – but there is no preliminary information to help the reader. Yes, I understand it’s a handbook – and a handbook is to give guidance and direction – but I wish McNamee and Morgan would have introduced the subject, given direction to what one should read, and how the handbook would help in that reading. In reading Kretchmar, it is as if one is in the middle of an argument without understanding where the argument began. One needs to read Bernard Suits, John Searle, Morgan, and Plato before one reads Kretchmar – which makes it all seem overwhelming; or, a good introduction might have given more direction for the reader.
This problem overshadows the whole text. Don’t get me wrong – it is a very good text with many, many excellent articles.
I could not find any glaring problems in any of the articles. I might disagree with an interpretation, but the correctness, academic rigor, and work is done very well. However, there is no connection between articles within sections to help the reader understand the greater picture, or, what historical relationship exists between each article?
Robert L. Simon writes the second article of Section 1, ‘Internalism and sport’, and the same glaring problem exists. What is internalism? Why is this a philosophical issue? Why is this discussion important? Simon gets to the why of it all within the article, but some help by McNamee and Morgan would have been very helpful. Why is this conversation important? Why should we care? Why are the questions important to the discussion of sport?
In the third article of Section 1, Morgan discusses ‘Conventionalism and sport’. Again there is no introduction as to why this would be important or help in understanding Morgan. Morgan is a must read in the field – but he is never an easy read. Students struggle with his syntax – it is not unusual for him to write 60 word sentences with numerous clauses. He also has a vast repertoire of knowledge across the broad range of philosophy and he uses that knowledge in making his points. Again, if one hasn’t read the writers mentioned, one gets lost in the syntax.
The final article in this section is by Graham McFee, ‘An Institutional Theory of Sport’. McFee’s writing is very different from Kretchmar, Simon, and Morgan – McFee is a Brit and brings a different perspective and my impression of the article is that he is playing a game with it. Again, no direction here but McFee does give some perspective in his notes on page 65 as to how he got to this point and what he was trying to do.
Section II: philosophical theories and sport
I truly enjoyed reading each and every one of these articles, truthfully, more than I did Section I. The articles are: ‘Esthetics of sport’, Andrew Edgar; ‘Bioethics and sport’, Silvia Camporesi; ‘Eastern Philosophy’, Jesús Ilundáin-Agurruza and Takayuki Hata; ‘Epistemology and sport’, Steffen Borge; ‘Ethics and sport’, Mike McNamee; ‘Existential philosophy and sport’, Kenneth Aggerholm; ‘Feminism in the philosophy of sport’, Leslie A. Howe; ‘Phenomenology and sport’, Irena Martínková; ‘Philosophy of mind and sport’, Paul Davis; ‘Pragmatism and the philosophy of sport,’ John Kaag; ‘The radical critique of sport’, Lev Kreft; ‘Religion, theology and sport’, Gregg Twietmeyer; ‘Sport as a legal system’, John S. Russell; and ‘Metaphysics and sport’, Stephen Mumford.
I enjoyed the articles because I believe each writer conceptually made a case of their perspective, gave historical support, and supplied information about concept/theory. They didn’t begin in the middle of a debate or an argument, instead offered information and made their point. Unfortunately, again there is no glue. What also is missing is how these articles are theoretical in relation to the greater issue of the study of sport or philosophy. Maybe I am old fashioned, but it would have been nice to have McNamee and Morgan discuss the schools of philosophy and the branches of philosophy and how they relate to one another. A school and a branch are different. For example, Martínková and Aggerholm write two excellent pieces on phenomenology and existentialism – one a methodology and one a school of philosophy – related, but different. A handbook should give us some direction in understanding how one relates to the other. McNamee’s article is on ethics and sport which is a branch of philosophy and might be viewed differently through a school of philosophy, for example the idealism of a Plato or the pragmatism of a William James or John Dewey. However, McNamee does excellently review ethics through the wider lens and is theoretical as a handbook should be. Again, it’s not what is being said in the articles, it is how the articles relate to each other and the largest discipline of philosophy.
Section III: key issues and themes in the philosophy of sport
This section has some very interesting articles on ‘Competition’, Paul Gaffney; ‘Disability and Paralympic sport’, Steve Edwards and Mike McNamee; ‘Doping and anti-doping: an inquiry into the meaning of sport’, Thomas H. Murray; ‘Fair play’, Sigmund Loland; ‘Genetics, science fiction and the ethics of athletic enhancement’, W. Miller Brown; ‘Olympism – a philosophy of sport?’, Heather L. Reid; ‘Philosophical approaches to coaching’, Jeffrey P. Fry; ‘Spectatorship – watching and following sport’, Carwyn Jones; ‘Sport, commence, and the market’, Adrian Walsh; and ‘Technology and sport’, Rasmus Bysted Møller and Verner Møller. In general, the authors present their thesis, argue their case, and support it thoroughly using earlier writers in the greater field of general philosophy and sport philosophy particularly. Some of the most distinguished writers in sport philosophy have articles in this section: Brown, Loland, Reid, Jones, McNamee, and Fry.
However, I don’t understand why in Section III these articles are labeled issues and the articles in Section II are theories. For example, article 19 is titled ‘Competition’ which is well written by Paul Gaffney. Gaffney offers a relationship about competition through both Hobbesian and Hegelian understanding. In my reading, I believe Gaffney is quite theoretical in his discussion of competition and thus this is a theoretical article. What is the difference between a theme and a theory? As Gaffney says, ‘In its best instances competitive sport contributes significantly to the good life’ (298).
Also in this section is one of the most theoretical pieces in the whole text, ‘Fair play’ by Sigmund Loland. Loland has written long and extensively about fair play norms – stemming from his 2002 book Fair Play in Sport. A Moral Norm System. If anyone has spent good thinking and an inordinate amount of time arguing for a theory of fair play, it is Loland. This may be redundant, but the problem I am having is the link between sections and why articles were chosen. These writings though are important and well done.
Conclusion
I am thankful for this work and I agree with the statement that ‘this compendium of work will prove useful to scholars, students, and interested parties alike, no matter their particular philosophical tastes or interests’ (1). And I agree that this work is an ‘invaluable companion reference volume for any course in the social scientific study of sport and an essential addition to the bookshelf of any serious scholar of the philosophy and/or ethics of sport’ (preface). I enjoyed this reading – however, I do wish there had been more ‘glue’ with McNamee and Morgan giving direction and insight – they are significant thinkers and I could have learned so much more with their help.
University of Idaho
[email protected]
© 2016 Sharon Stoll
http://doi.dx.org/10.1080/00948705.2016.1224089