Life is Not a Sport – Ethical Considerations of the Modern Sports Phenomenon
By Blake W. Burleson
- A Laboratory of Moral Development
- The Limitations of Sports
- Endnotes
Dr. Burleson is a Lecturer in the Department of Religion and an Adjunct Professor of Health, Human Performance, and Recreation at Baylor University.
For many Americans, sports serve as a major arena for learning and practicing cultural values. The virtues of discipline, fair play, team work, excellence, commitment, loyalty, and aesthetics are given expression and illustrated on the baseball diamond, the basketball court, and the football field. These virtues seem to be built into the very structure of sports so that in order to play well one must play virtuously. There are exceptions to this. The gifted athlete who does not practice hard sometimes succeeds, even spectacularly at times. The egotistic, selfish player may sometimes help the team to win. Yet the maxims which are often repeated by coaches, parents, and commentators generally stand the test of time: "Practice makes perfect," "Nothing works like teamwork," or "it is not whether you win or lose, but how you play the game." Such nuggets of cultural wisdom are also heard from the pulpits of churches alongside the sayings of Jesus. The apostle Paul often illustrated spiritual truths with allusions from athletics. Similarities between sports and spirituality have been noted by "theologians of play" like Harvey Cox, David Miller, Sam Keen, and Jurgen Moltmann.
Yet even the casual observer is aware that the sports industry today seems to have lost its moral bearings. Sports as a window on our society illustrates not only our virtues but also our vices. In a sports ethics course I teach, I begin each class session by reading an article from that day`s sports page. Customarily, we find a moral problem to discuss and debate. From professional sports to the little leagues we are reminded of who we are. We read of Roberto Clemente`s spitting on an umpire, of Dennis Rodman`s kicking a court-side cameraman, of Michael Irvin`s illicit and illegal escapades. We realize, too, that the problems in sports are systemic. It is not simply a matter of a few bad apples. The 1980s and 90s taught us that the structural integrity of the sports industry is suspect. When the governor of the state of Texas is center-stage in a pay-for-play scandal in the SMU football program, when Baylor University`s basketball program is implicated in one of the worst academic fraud scandals in NCAA history1, and when a 1995 poll of 198 U.S. Olympians reported that more than half said they would take a drug that would assure victory even though it would kill them in five years2, then we know the ethical problems run deep.
This article explores the values and limitations of using sports as an arena to teach and illustrate moral virtues.
A Laboratory of Moral Development
Some view sports as merely frivolous, but this view is not justified. Sports play a big role in the body politic of American life. Most Americans are in some way exposed to sports as children and remain involved as participants or spectators during the remainder of their lives.
How does this important arena of human interaction contribute to moral development in American society? We often hear sayings like "sports build character" promoted by coaches, parents, administrators, and politicians. The charters of children`s, youth, church, recreational, interscholastic, and intercollegiate sports associations claim that participation in their activity promotes sportsmanship, friendship, fair play, etc. Are these claims realized?
One theory is that sports reflect and reinforce the values of society. It is argued that the values in sports illustrate the dominant values of the culture. Critics of American sports sometimes point to an ideology which emphasizes competition and selfishness. There is some truth to this viewpoint. It has been argued, for example, that football with its emphasis on conquest, specialization, bureaucracy, time management, complexity, and aggression reflects corporate America. (See, for example, Paul Hoch`s Rip Off the Big Game). This theory explains why Americans have responded (at least until recently) with less enthusiasm to a sport like soccer which emphasizes spontaneity (rather than called plays from the press box), all-around play (rather than specialization), and skill (rather than brute strength).
Robert Simon, however, in Fair Play: Sports, Values, and Society argues against such "reductionist" positions in that "there might be values internal to sports that are not mere reflections of a prevailing social order."3 Simon suggests that these specific values, such as excellence, discipline, and dedication, are universal norms for sports regardless of the culture in which they are played. He, therefore, advocates the inclusion of sports in the educational curriculum of America since they may serve society as a form of moral education.
In many ways Simon`s viewpoint is convincing. I look with gratitude at what competitive sports introduced in my own life. At age eight, I played on my first Little League baseball team. Early in the season I struck out nearly every time because, in attempting to draw a walk, I refused to swing the bat. Finally, my father, who was the coach, drew me aside and said, "son, I would rather you strike out than get a walk." So I begin to swing the bat (and even get a hit or two). This was an early lesson about life: in order to succeed, you must risk failure. This lesson, certainly one of the most important ones I ever learned, relates directly to the inner morality of baseball. Its truth was applied to my own academic and spiritual pilgrimage.
It seems to me, however,, that while sports offers such a laboratory for the moral development of youth, we must recognize its limitations as well. Parents, coaches, educators, pastors, and politicians who advocate its use for moral development should be aware of what values can be taught well and what values cannot be taught well in sports.
The stages of cognitive moral development proposed by Lawrence Kohlberg are helpful in illuminating why sports is useful as a tool for early moral development. Kohlberg suggests that an individual`s moral development is related to three stages of cognitive development.
The preconventional moral level is the level of most children under 9, some adolescents, and many adolescent and adult criminal offenders. The conventional level is the level of most adolescents and adults in our society and in other societies. The postconventional level is reached by a minority of adults and is usually reached only after the age of 20. The term "conventional" means conforming to and upholding the rules and expectations and conventions of society or authority just because they are society`s rule, expectations, or conventions.4
In the preconventional stage, rules and social expectations are external to the individual. One obeys the rules because they serve one`s own interests: "If I steal, I may be caught and punished." In the conventional stage, the rules and expectations are internalized. One obeys the rules because they serve the best interests of society: "If everyone stole things, society would breakdown." In the postconventional stage, the rules and values are self-chosen. One obeys the rules and expectations of society as they correspond to universal moral principles: "Stealing is wrong not just because it violates the laws of society but because it violates the rights of individuals. Unless there are other rights which supersede those rights, one should not steal." This person recognizes that the rules of society are relative and may not always be just; therefore, to do the right thing may sometimes mean violating them.
When we engage in serious competitive sports, we tacitly agree that, no matter what stage of moral development we have attained, we will accept a preconventional (or, in some cases, a conventional) moral stance. For example, in a collegiate tennis match it is often the case that the contestants themselves have the responsibility of calling their opponents shots in or out. The social expectation is that if the shot of one`s opponent is out, one will call it out. It would not be expected that the player would call his opponent`s bad shot good to reward him for a great return which was only out by a hair. No, if it is out, even by a hair, the player calls it out. On what basis does the player do this? The reasons are preconventional ("I will only call his shots out when they are actually out because if I don`t he might retaliate and call one of my good shots out") or conventional ("We both agreed to play by these rules when we entered the contest; to do otherwise would be unfair"). In a collegiate tennis match, one would not be expected to do more than this.
Interestingly, the higher the level of competition, the lower the level of morality expected. Can one imagine a professional football game in which the players determined whether the receiver`s foot was in or out of the back of the end zone? Can one imagine an offensive lineman confessing to the referee, "You will have to penalize us ten yards, I held the defensive lineman on that last play"? At the highest levels of competitive sports, the social expectation is that the contestants are not obliged to insure fair play; that is the job of the referee. Clearly, these contestants are engaging in a world where preconventional norms are operative and anything beyond that is labeled as "good sportsmanship." This is why deception, even some kinds of cheating, are expected by many sports organizations, coaches, players, and fans at the highest levels of competitive sport.
Sports, then, is an ideal laboratory to teach and illustrate cognitive moral development at the preconventional or conventional stage. In fact, it is often a better classroom than real life for the following reasons: (1) It is simpler than everyday life; there are no mitigating circumstances. If the batter swings and misses three bad pitches, he is out. It doesn`t matter whether he is black or white, rich or poor, short or tall. In real life, issues are much more complex. (2) It is observable. Sports are played within fixed boundaries of space and time. Unlike real life where the results of our actions may take years to be recognized, the results of the athlete`s actions are seen immediately. Further, these successes or failures are measurable. She hit six three-point shots in a row; she has a .332 batting average; she fouled out of the game with five minutes remaining. Real life successes and failures are not so easily identifiable. (3) Punishment for infractions in sport are handed out immediately. Unlike real life where a juvenile delinquent, for example, may get away with stealing over a period of months, and then, when finally caught, move through a slow judicial process before ever being sentenced or having the case dropped, in football the linebacker who spears the quarterback with his helmet receives a fifteen yard penalty immediately. For these reasons, moral lessons which involve following the written rules of the contest and the unwritten rules about how the contest ought to be played can be illustrated and enforced within the game itself.
I believe, however, that sports are of little use in serving as a laboratory for the development of postconventional morals. How can Jesus` admonitions to "turn the other cheek" or "do unto others as you would have them to do unto you" be taught on the playing field. Though preconventional wisdom may teach one to fear the opponent and conventional wisdom may teach one to respect the opponent, only postconventional wisdom teaches one to love the opponent. Love requires empathy. If one displays empathy in competitive athletics one has ceased to play the game. By definition, competitive athletics requires a commitment to winning (winning within the rules but winning nonetheless) and in order to win one must defeat the opponent. One must put one`s own self-interests above that of the opponent or one must put the interests of one`s team above that of the opposing team. In postconventional thinking, an individual recognizes that the system itself may be deficient and even in conflict with authentic morality.
The Limitations of Sports
While sports can and should serve as a laboratory for moral development in our society, Christian communities should recognize their limitations. Sports are simpler than life. Life is not a sport. Further, the values demanded of Christian living, while sometimes congruous with those of sports, are often in conflict with them.
In recent years a number of scholars have examined the relationship between sports and religion in American society. In God in the Stadium, Robert Higgs argues that Christian communities from mainstream denominations to para-church organizations (e.g., the Fellowship of Christian Athletes) have accepted the sports industry with an increasingly uncritical eye. Higgs exposes, from a Christian theological position, assumptions like: sports build character, Jesus was as perfect in body as in spirit, and material success is a visible symbol of God`s Grace.5 In attempts to translate the gospel`s message into everyday vernacular, Christians have sometimes assumed that all of the lessons of sports are the lessons of their religion. But Higgs points out that the values of sports are often antithetical to those of the gospel. He contrasts, for example, "winning is the only thing" with "wisdom is the principal thing," "doing" with "being," "competition" with "cooperation," "success" with "participation," "statistics" with "memories," "prevailing" with "enduring."6
As Christian communities use sports for their various purposes, they ought to recognize that sports, as a reinforcer of conventional wisdom in America, are not the voice of Christ. In a sport-crazy society, the messages promulgated by the sports industry are powerful and pervasive. We hear and repeat Nike hedonistic slogans, we remember the speeches of Lombardi, and we mimic the end zone antics of Deion Sanders. Yet these reflections of social values are not always compatible with the message of Jesus Christ. Consider some contemporary sportmaxims:
"Show me the money!" This guttural cry from the sports agent played by Tom Cruise in the movie "Jerry McGuire," now being repeated in all kinds of situations in American life today, points to the fact that the bottom line is money. Either produce or get out of the way! Homo economicus is a central organizational image of our society in which the goal of human life is economic production. The homo economicus image has had both positive and negative results in Western society. The idea of work as an acceptable offering to God is a valuable insight of our Christian faith, yet if this is carried to its extreme, human beings become simple economic commodities. Sports at nearly all levels have been reduced to this equation. When I was serving as the academic adviser to athletes in an athletic department of a major university the athletic director once told me, "We are in the entertainment business. We`re also in the education business, but mainly we`re in the entertainment business." If the bottom-line is how many tickets are sold to the football game, then the education of student-athletes is not only secondary but tends to be lost all together. If sport is viewed only as a business, then its ability to serve as an arena of moral education is vastly curtailed.
"Just win, baby." How many times has a mayor, a university regent, a high school principal, a little league coach, or a parent of an athlete quoted the Raider`s general manager, Al Davis, in giving advice to underlings. Perhaps the most pervasive image of the American today is that of homo victoriousus, man the victor. The insatiable appetite to win has infected sports even at the lowest levels. It is shocking to see rabid parents cheering their six-year-old`s victory in little league with the same intensity as seen with fans at the Final Four or the Stanley Cup. The obsession with winning goes beyond that of giving a dedicated effort to play at one`s best; it involves the near manic desire to dominate, to achieve an absolute victory. Our current obsession with finishing first is not easily translated into a biblical ethic which values the orphan, the widow, the stranger, slave, sinner, in short, the loser. In the Bible, God is seen to be often on the side of the loser. Christian communities which highlight the churchly statistics of baptisms, conversions, attendance, offerings, etc. have converted Vince Lombardi`s "winning is everything" into "winning them to Christ is everything." But Jesus` admonition that the "first shall be the last" has taught us that the Kingdom of God has little to do with winning.
"I am not a role model." It was truly amazing to see commentators in sport who said a hearty "Amen" to Charles Barkley`s declaration that he was not to be held accountable for his actions. Homo monadicus, man the individual, taken to its extreme, seems to think, as did Henry David Thoreau, that each person is a "world unto himself."7 The argument answers Cain`s question, "Am I my brother`s keeper?" with a resounding "No!" When institutions in society are used for self-promotion only, however, then those institutions cannot serve as an arena for exemplary behavior. Charles Barkley is a role model for thousands of Americans because he is one of the best, perhaps the best, power forward ever to play basketball. He is admired for his athletic excellence. Persons who possess such unique skills in any field, be it music, politics, science, acting, or business, are, by definition, role models. We are all responsible for ourselves and for our neighbors in what Martin Buber called an I-Thou relationship.8
"Just do it!" There is one component of this Nike slogan that is attractive. For many "just do it" has come to mean "get the job done without any excuses." I like that. Yet, I fear that another part of the message is that of hedonism. The homo festivus image, while not without merits, must be moderated in a society which has become undisciplined and uprooted. "Just do it" can also mean "If it feels good, do it. Do it without regard for the consequences." Alcohol abuse, illegal drug use, tobacco addiction, obesity, and credit-card debt are serious problems for multitudes of moderns. The victims are sending a message that they have overvalued the pleasure of the moment. Christians are obligated under God to "look before they leap;" to think before we act.
Sports may appropriately serve society as an illustrator and promoter of cultural values. The role of sports in the moral development of moderns is enormous. Yet, this role is limited, especially in relation to important Christian values.
Life is not a sport.
Endnotes
1 In 1995 three assistant coaches for the Baylor men`s basketball program were convicted in Waco`s federal court in an academic fraud scandal involving mail and wire fraud. The coaches apparently assisted five junior college players gain academic eligibility by helping them cheat on tests and term papers.
2 Michael Barnberger and Don Yaeger, "Over the Edge", Sports Illustrated, April 14, 1997, pp. 60-70.
3 Robert Simon, Fair Play: Sports, Values, and Society(San Francisco: Westview Press, 1991), p.189.
4 Lawrence Kohlberg, The Psychology of Moral Development (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1984), p. 172. Italics mine.
5 Robert J. Higgs, God in the Stadium: Sport and Religion in America (Lexington, Kentucky: The University Press of Kentucky, 1995), p. 309-333.
6 Ibid., pp. 313-315.
7 Henry D. Thoreau, Walden and On the Duty of Civil Disobedience (New York: Collier, 1962), pp.15-235.
8 Martin Buber, I And Thou (New York: Charles Scribners Sons,1958), p.4.
