Contractualism and Methodological Individualism and Communitarianism; Situating Understandings of Moral Trust in the Context of Sport and Social Theory

Abstract

In recent academic discussions about the nature of sport, education and society much has been made of the differing ways of conceiving social relations between individualists and communitarians. I explore some of the theoretical presuppositions of methodological individualism and show how it operates in game and rational choice theory. I set out, in contrast, three related versions of communitarianism. I show how these stances differently interpret the social relation/virtue that is known as ‘trust’ and, in so doing, highlight the inadequacy of the ontological account of the self in individualistic terms and point to the necessity of viewing close interpersonal relations as ones of partially shared identity. I develop a hypothetical example of a coach's abuse of his young swimmer to illustrate the respective richness and inadequacy of these theoretical positions while leaving open the advocacy of particular political policies designed to eradicate such practices.

[1] This paper began life as ‘Trust, contract and community: an essay in feminist ethics and communitarian polities' delivered at the Sport, Philosophy and Olympics Conference, Maryland College, Woburn, 15–17 March 1996. I have amended the scope of the essay and dropped certain claims regarding the uniqueness of the feminist dimension of the ethical discussion. I am very grateful Graham McFee, Gordon Reddiford, Paul Standish, Patricia White and to the anonymous reviewer of this journal, for their generous criticisms.

Notes

[1] This paper began life as ‘Trust, contract and community: an essay in feminist ethics and communitarian polities' delivered at the Sport, Philosophy and Olympics Conference, Maryland College, Woburn, 15–17 March 1996. I have amended the scope of the essay and dropped certain claims regarding the uniqueness of the feminist dimension of the ethical discussion. I am very grateful Graham McFee, Gordon Reddiford, Paul Standish, Patricia White and to the anonymous reviewer of this journal, for their generous criticisms.