The material was originally written for a book, but that did not materialise. So I thought this blog might be a useful forum for publishing it. Feel free to circulate to those who might find such things interesting. And please do comment with ideas and suggestions for extending the debate.
_________________________
I want to think about sport. To think about why it is important for life, and for
me. In sport, as in life, we spend
a lot of time mindlessly following the views and practices handed down to us,
and there are some benefits from operating in this way. For a start, it takes a lot less
effort. But since when is effort
objectionable in sport? Thinking
about thinking – what is sometimes grandly called philosophy – does not present
facts but suggestions, explanations, and, most importantly, questions. What is sport? Why does it matter? Does it matter enough to force all
young people to learn something about it?
Can a life without sport be complete? Does it matters if some people cheat? Questions like these require something
more than reflective practice.
They lead us to examine and discuss complex ideas and come to see sport anew
in light of our endeavours.
Philosophers, on the whole, have not taken sport very
seriously. They have tended to
consider it a trivial escape from the real business of living. Philosophers’ distain for sport is
often an expression of a more fundamental ignorance of the body. For them we are primarily minds; our
bodies merely move us around and help keep us alive. Lovers of sport suspect this misses the point – both of
sport and of life. Even the most
intellectual of activities takes place thanks to our senses and our feelings. Our bodies give shape to our
thinking. We can more think without
our bodies than we can move without our minds. Sport is one expression of this knowledge writ large.
The understanding that comes from thinking
philosophically about sport will probably not improve my game. But to examine sport in this way
changes the way I engage with the game.
Not in the moment-by-moment experiences that give me pleasure, but as a
way of life that gives my life meaning and happiness.
Teachers and coaches are practical people. In my experience at least, they tend to
be intolerant of too much talk. I
don’t think Elvis Presley was ever a PE teacher, but his demand for ‘a little
less conversation, a little more action’ captures the shared feeling
nicely. Philosophy seems to be the
supreme example of ‘too much talk’, and not surprisingly, many people are wary
of its never-ending series of discussions and arguments. They are, as Bertrand Russell put it,
“inclined to doubt whether philosophy is anything better than innocent but
useless trifling, hair-splitting distinctions, and controversies on matters
concerning which knowledge is impossible” (Russell, 1959, p. 153).
My goal in this and subsequent entries is to show that this image of
philosophy is mistaken. More than
merely arguing that teachers and coaches can
think philosophically, I will suggest that they must think philosophically.
By this, I do not mean that they need to immerse themselves in the
endless debates of academic philosophy.
All I mean to suggest is that a philosophical approach to one’s work is
the mark of an intelligent and professional practitioner.
“Philosophy is not a theory but an activity.” (Ludwig Wittgenstein)
“Philosophy is a wonderful subject, but it is necessarily unfinished and infinishable … At the end of my life I want to know more than I did at the beginning ..” (Isaiah Berlin)
“Nothing so absurd can be said that some philosopher has not said it.” (Cicero)(All quotations from Lloyd and Mitchinson, 2008)
Philosophy (from the Greek for the love of knowledge
or wisdom) requires thinkers to think for themselves. This is why the great philosopher Immanuel Kant asserted
that it is not possible to learn philosophy;
it is only possible to learn how to philosophise. This does not mean that the philosopher
ought to live a life of solitary contemplation (although some have done just
that). But it does mean that the
philosopher is compelled to think for him or herself. This is perhaps why philosophical conversations often seem
characterised by ambiguity and perplexity. Important questions are rarely resolved with simple answers
unless, of course, we choose to borrow uncritically the dogmas and doctrines of
others. For Russell, the person
who does decide to live so uncritically “goes through life imprisoned in the
prejudices derived from common sense, from the habitual beliefs of his age or
his nation, and from convictions which have grown up in his mind without the
co-operation or consent of his deliberate reason".
Let’s pause for a moment to consider Bertrand Russell’s
use of masculine pronouns (‘he’ and ‘his’) as general terms referring to all
humans. This was common usage when
he wrote, but has increasingly become replaced by gender-neutral language
(his/her, abandoning pronouns, pluralising, etc.) following claims that gendered
language is misleading, inappropriate or simply sexist. Is this a reasonable evolution of
language use or ‘political correctness gone mad’? As soon as we start to reflect on these
questions we are engaging in philosophy.
It is
possible to think and act without philosophising. It is certainly possible to teach without giving a moment’s
thought to philosophy. But it is
not possible to think for ourselves, especially to think about matters of
value, without philosophising in some way. Sports teaching is a subject rich in philosophical issues:
- · What should I teach?
- · What experiences are most valuable / relevant / necessary for my students?
- · Are some ways of organising or presenting the curriculum inappropriate?
- · Should sport be compulsory for all young people?
- · Should all students be taught together, or grouped according to their ability / gender / interest?
- · Should teachers and coaches prepare their students for the world of competitive sport?
- · What type of person should sports teachers aim to develop?
We might turn to sociology or psychology to help us
gather evidence for our enquiries.
For example, psychology might help us understand how children’s minds
develop. But psychology can never
tell the psychologist which forms of development are worth supporting. Sociologists can help us understand
about the influences of gender, class, ability or ethnicity on young people’s
experiences of learning, but as soon as they start to talk about why it
matters, they shift to philosophy.
NEXT ENTRY: WHERE AM I?
No comments:
Post a Comment