Japan Society for the Philosophy of Sport and Physical Education (JSPSPE) celebrates its fortieth anniversary of foundation in February 2018. Since its inception, supported by the active members, JSPSPE has been serving not only the scholars but the school teachers who are interested in the philosophic study of sport and physical education too. It has contributed much to the philosophical profession as well. Maekawa (1979) wrote at the dawn of the philosophic study of physical education. “I was given a kind advice to change the major name of the department to the ‘philosophy of physical education’ when I was in Tokyo University of Education…I remember having said ‘I did not have any confidence to give a lecture on philosophy of physical education’ and refused the advice.” He also said that he often visited the department after retiring on a pension. “I was once heard from Professor Asada that he had great interest in the philosophical method for studying physical education. I felt at that time that a heated discussion on the philosophy of physical education was finally about to start.” While referring to the prospects for a new doctoral program on philosophy of physical education in Tsukuba, where Tokyo University of Education moved in 1974, Asada (1983) mentioned that the traditional educational system was not enough for the philosophy of physical education to supersede the principal of physical education. He guided the graduate students to take the problems about the various ideas of important figures in physical education as their subjects. He planned to have meetings in order to have students discuss various ideas which were useful for the philosophy of physical education. These activities were determined the direction of subsequent researches, which explore what phenomenology is and try to figure out the phenomena concerning body, movement and culture from the philosophical viewpoint. JSPSPE was organized in February 1987 and its first annual meeting was held in August the same year. The first volume of Journal of the philosophy of Sport and physical Education was published next year. This volume was a maiden work that young scholars tried to challenge the philosophical issues as their own problem in order to aim the development for the philosophy of sport and physical education. According to Kataoka (1979), the journal title implies that we not only inquire about the problem of sport and physical education but also search for truth on sport and physical education by discussing the problem over again and seeking after truth. JSPSPE started on a small scale at the beginning. It has become the international academic society with a membership of over two hundred. In this paper, looking back upon the history of its last forty years, the future prospects in the philosophic study of sport and physical education as well as the recent trend in this profession are mentioned.
Generally, ball games are classified into several types such as “goal type,” “net type,” or “baseball type,” based on the close relationship among the tactical behaviors of attacking and defending. In this approach, some games are selected as representative activities to teach the typical tactical behavior of “how” to attack and defend. Then, “what” is an offense or defense? Are they essentially just function constructed to act as products of interaction between opposing sides? This paper clarifies the connotations of the words “offense” and “defense” in a game from an epistemological perspective.
Any type of game has one of the two distinctive objectives: transferring either the ball or the player to the destination. The ball transferring action is interpreted as any one of the two opposing task-executions: ball-possession or ball-progression. The game proceeds only with ball-progression when a player secures the ball. If ball-possession is indefinite, then the game’s task-executions proceed in either a parallel or a cyclical way. A cyclical way can in turn be differentiated into the “united type” or “divided type.” On the other hand, the transfer of a player is regarded as an advance-tag between a runner and ball-holder.
Considering these features, the state of such a task-execution helps us distinguish one game from the others. Further, it is actualized that the classification of games is not established objectively but constructed intersubjectively among the concerned persons.
These findings as the universal theory of games provide an original and deliberated classification in which we specify the content that is to be learned. Consequently, this will help teachers improve their physical education lessons wherein many different kinds of games have to be handled.
This paper aims to (1) show the role of the violence done by coaches, which is referred to as corporal punishment within sport coaching, and (2) clarify the influence of this violence on players. For aim (1), the author examined the stages of sport coaching, they were connected to Bateson’s theory of leaning. The results revealed that in coaching, there is a stage involving an attempt to release players from their existing views and habits and make them transcend those views and habits. In this paper, this stage is prescribed as “transcendence II.” For the second aim, this paper considered the meaning of violence in human beings from the viewpoint of Bataille’s theory of violence. Referring to that theory, the author showed the condition and role of violence within sport coaching and its influence on players.
In conclusion, it is demonstrated that violence done by coaches is part of the “transcendence II” stage in sport coaching. Moreover, this paper finds such violence by coaches shatters player’s existing views and habits and can force players to change their view on sport. Therefore, the violence done by coaches should not be seen as unrelated to sport coaching but must be understood as part of the work of the “transcendence II” stage. This study points out that future solutions and ethical discussion of this issue should be carried out based on this understanding.
The purpose of this paper was to depict the theoretical background of the language used in coaching scenes through the reexamination of the language used in coaching sessions.
Focusing on the dialogue situation between the coach and the learner, it is divided into a “scientific language” which is a “denotational language” and a “waza language” which is a “metaphorical language”. According to Saussure (Ferdinand de Saussure, 1857-1913), the language is made up of signs, and this sign is divided into a concept (signifié) and a sound-image (signifiant). “Shoot” is to throw the ball into the goal in the basketball and anyone can do that if it is told, “bend an elbow at a 90-degree angle”. In this case, “shoot” is a signifiant and “throw the ball into the goal” indicates signifié. To consider for “denotational language”, the way of thinking with language as a sign is considered to be effective.
Saussure declared the language acts by individual speakers as “parole”. Focusing on the interactive situation of “parole”, Benveniste (Émile Benveniste, 1902-1976) assumed the concept of linguistics of discourse. He said that the words will reproduce “reality”. In the background of the establishment of communication, there is a process in which a dialogue person recapture “reality”assumed by a speaker. In actual coaching scenes, the words used in the dialogue between the coaches and the learners are used in a special meaning, or new words are created during trial and error between the coaches and the learners. In such cases, it is thought that considering approaching “semantic meaning” towards the understanding of “reality” assumed by the speaker is effective.
From the above, two kinds of languages in the coaching scenes were confirmed that the language which must strictly define the meaning, and the language which the meaning may change each time depending on the relationship between the speaker and the interlocutor.
In team sports players often have to make sacrifices for their teams or teammates for the sake of strategic efficiency or some other necessity, such as to perform bunts and screens. At first glance, the action is to serve his team and teammates, to repress one’s self and to let himself exist as a thing. This appears to cause alienation of the player. Although self-sacrifice is such an action, sometimes one spontaneously performs it. Is it true that one who performs self-sacrifice is alienated? The purpose of this paper is to reveal what self-sacrifice in sport is, and to ask whether one can sacrifice himself while keeping his subjectivity or not. We defined the concept of self-sacrifice as follows. Self-sacrifice is an unselfish action of trying to behave altruistically in a dilemma of whether to act selfishly or act for others and one’s team. Self-sacrifice is to fall into self-deception. But as far as a player who performs self-sacrifice intends to act for the sake of the others, self-sacrifice is the act that is given significance. Then, self sacrifice is an action that accepts to be objectified by the others to keep other’s freedom. Thus, self-sacrifice is the action of consciously falling into self-deception and to accept to be objectified by the others, like actor / actress who plays a character. He / She can play a character with subjectivity because they are trying to identify his / her possibility that to be the character. Similarly, self-sacrifice guarantees a player’s subjectivity only when the player composes one’s possibility that to sacrifice himself for the sake of the others and tries to identify with one’s possibility to be oneself who performs self-sacrifice.