2012 IAPS Conference - Call for Papers

http://www.iaps.net

The International Association for the Philosophy of Sport invites the submission of abstracts to be considered for presentation at the 40th annual 2011 IAPS meeting. The conference will be held September 12-15, 2012 in Porto, Portugal.

Abstracts are welcome on any area of philosophy of sport, including metaphysics, epistemology, aesthetics, and ethics, and from any theoretical approach, including analytic philosophy and critical theory. While IAPS recognizes, values, and encourages interdisciplinary approaches and methodologies, acceptance is contingent on the philosophical content of the project. Emerging scholars are encouraged to submit works in progress.

A Program Committee of three IAPS peers will review abstracts. Contributors will be notified about the status of their abstracts by May 14, 2012

Proposals for round table and panel discussions, including a tentative list of participants, are also welcome and should follow the same format as paper abstracts.


R. SCOTT KRETCHMAR STUDENT ESSAY AWARD

IAPS is proud to announce the “R. Scott Kretchmar Student Essay Award.” Interested undergraduate and graduate students should submit a full paper by June 15, 2012 (in addition to an abstract, see below).  A separate announcement is posted at the IAPS website <http://iaps.net/conference/> .

GUIDELINES
Abstracts should be 300-500 words long, in English, and must be received by April 2, 2012. Please, follow the following instructions (incomplete proposals will be returned).  Provide:

1. Name, E-mail, current position, and employer
2. Title of Program
3. Key Words (three to five)
4. Primary Content Area/s (choose no more than 2)
   

1. Ethics                                    d.   Epistemology                        g.   Applied
2. Metaphysics                          e.   Phenomenology                     h.   History
3. Aesthetics                             f.   Comparative                            i.   Other (explain)
   

           

1. Indicate special Audio-Visual requirements (computer & projector will be provided)
   

The preferred mode of submission is by e-mail.

Please send the abstract blind-review ready as an attachment, preferably in Word, to the Conference Chair at: jilunda@linfield.edu <mailto:jilunda@linfield.edu>

Contributors who lack access to e-mail may send a hard copy instead to the following address:

           Jesús Ilundáin-Agurruza
           IAPS Conference Chair
          Associate Professor of Philosophy
           Linfield College
           900 SE Baker St., Unit 580
           McMinnville, OR 97128 (USA)

Youth Soccer: Club or School?

In order to improve international competitiveness the United States Soccer Federation has decided to modify the club team system in a way that prevents young athletes from playing for their high school teams.  According to a recent N.Y. Times article, this decision has caused some controversy, not least because it highlights a conflict in youth sports between the priorities of athletic and educational development.  The club teams claim that they are at least as committed to players’ education as the schools are. 

Is there any special educational benefit to playing sports on school teams as opposed to club teams?   One may be the experience of representing one’s school and local community. Although college and professional players rarely hail from the places they play for, high school athletes generally do and, as H.G. Bissinger’s great book Friday Night Lights illustrates, participation in these teams makes youngsters aware of their membership in and responsibility to local communities.  Though Bissinger’s book is about football in Texas, the experience of other high school athletes contains similar lessons—albeit on a less intense scale.

To be sure, many (if not most) young athletes are motivated by dreams of professional and international play.  They are willing to sacrifice the chance to represent their schools, in the hopes of someday representing their country.  But there is an extremely small probability that their professional dreams will be realized.  Youth sports need to offer some additional benefit to the overwhelming majority of young athletes they serve.  This is true even of development clubs sponsored by pro teams and national federations.  The question is whether the more-focused club system in fact has educational benefits equivalent or superior to those of high-school teams—or are they selling out the masses in order to feed the professional leagues?

by Heather Reid

Brooks on "The Jeremy Lin Problem"

David Brooks has a thoughtful essay in today's New York Times about Jeremy Lin and religion. An excerpt:

For many religious teachers, humility is the primary virtue. You achieve loftiness of spirit by performing the most menial services. (That’s why shepherds are perpetually becoming kings in the Bible.) You achieve your identity through self-effacement. You achieve strength by acknowledging your weaknesses. You lead most boldly when you consider yourself an instrument of a larger cause.

The most perceptive athletes have always tried to wrestle with this conflict. Sports history is littered with odd quotations from people who try to reconcile their love of sport with their religious creed — and fail.

Jeremy Lin has wrestled with this tension quite openly. In a 2010 interview with the Web site Patheos, Lin recalled, “I wanted to do well for myself and my team. How can I possibly give that up and play selflessly for God?”

Lin says in that interview that he has learned not to obsess about stats and championships. He continues, “I’m not working hard and practicing day in and day out so that I can please other people. My audience is God. ... The right way to play is not for others and not for myself, but for God. I still don’t fully understand what that means; I struggle with these things every game, every day. I’m still learning to be selfless and submit myself to God and give up my game to Him.”

The odds are that Lin will never figure it out because the two moral universes are not reconcilable. Our best teacher on these matters is Joseph Soloveitchik, the great Jewish theologian. In his essays “The Lonely Man of Faith” and “Majesty and Humility” he argues that people have two natures. First, there is “Adam the First,” the part of us that creates, discovers, competes and is involved in building the world. Then, there is “Adam the Second,” the spiritual individual who is awed and humbled by the universe as a spectator and a worshipper.

I would love to hear reactions to Brooks's discussion of the "Jeremy Lin Problem."

Trash-talking, Racism & Football

Recent incidents (Luis Suarez/Patrice Evra and John Terry/Anton Ferdinand) have elevated awareness of racial abuse in English Premier League football.

Luis Suarez, a player for Liverpool FC, was banned for eight matches by the Football Association and was required to pay a £40,000 after racially abusing Patrice Evra of Manchester United in October. The rivalry between the teams has often caused great controversy with verbal abuse often directed between opposing fans and players. Suarez’s refusal to apologies to Evra, and Liverpool’s support for the player has provoked widespread criticism, as well as a wider debate about racism in football. In another case, England and Chelsea captain, John Terry, has been charged with a racially aggravated public order offence after he allegedly used racist language towards QPR defender Anton Ferdinand. He will appear in court on July 9th 2012. The fallout from this case led to the resignation of England’s manager, Fabio Capello.

While these cases firmly put racism in sport in the spotlight, it is important to acknowledge that the root source of such on-field incidents stem from a widespread acceptance of sledging/trash-talking in sport. The notion of sledging/trashtalking is an issue that causes much controversy. In cricket it is thought to be the fielding team's way of getting inside the batsman's mind (Booth, 2007). In football, taunting and abusing opponents appears to be the norm for both spectators and players.

In the philosophical literature, apologists have suggested it is simply (a strategic) part of the game (Cox et al., 2003; Summers, 2007) while critics consider it a form of borderline cheating (gamesmanship) (Howe, 2004) or irrelevant to sporting competition (Dixon, 2008).


Questions
Is it possible to segregate sledging into two distinct categories – impersonal (non-moral) and personal (moral)?

Impersonal (non-moral) sledging/trash-talk is the attempt to add psychological pressure to an opponent (Fraser, 2005) by directing disparaging remarks about their sporting performance. As such critical comments do not directly disrespect an individual’s personhood and integrity, but is instead an attack on what they do rather than who they are.

As such comments are relatively benign are they morally insignificant?
Should we then focus more on more overt and personal verbal abuse?
Or is it fruitless to forge a normative line between what is personal and impersonal as both forms involve viewing ones opponents as means rather than ends in themselves?
Does such behaviour degenerate into personal attacks, such as racial or other offensive insults?

Philosophy of Linsanity

I've been thinking a lot about Jeremy Lin lately--and about the social phenomenon of "Linsanity." I wonder what philosophers have to add that will complement the discussion in the popular press.

Is it the underdog story that is so compelling? i.e., Lin as Linderella?

Is Lin's ethnicity a compelling part of the story? Tim Dalrymple argues that it is, but that Lin's religious beliefs are even more significant.

Is there anyone else here who is fascinated by Jeremy Lin and Linsanity, and why?