1
What Type of Character Does Sport Build?
A Conflict Between Academicians and Athletic Practitioners
The purpose of this paper is to examine the conflict between sport academicians’ theoretical and ideal philosophic arguments and athletic practitioners’ practical perspectives about sport participation as a character building process.1 In brief, sport academicians typically examine the notion of whether sport builds character from an Aristotelian ideal perspective, e.g., the notion of fair play, respect, honesty, justice, and compassion, which connotes moral character. In contrast, athletic practitioners argue the development of character through sport from a practical, working person’s perspective and believe that a person of character is one who displays values such as hard work, perseverance, loyalty, teamwork, and self –sacrifice, hence social character. This conflict in perspectives has lead to academicians claiming that sport does not build character, with athletic practitioners arguing the opposite. To further confound the problem is the muddle that character researchers find themselves: how does one do research in character and sport when the definition and parameter of character is so muddy? Perhaps to better understand sport as a developmental character experience we need to examine: 1) the complex nature of defining character, 2) the historical notion that sport builds character, 3) sport as a moral practice, 4) sport as a social values practice, and 5) methods of empirically analyzing character in light of the dualistic nature of character (moral character versus social character).
1
The Complexities of Defining Character
Numerous sport academicians have commented on the complexity and ambiguous nature of defining character. “Character is one of those words that we think we know the meaning of, yet when we are asked to define it precisely we struggle to agree upon the common connotations of the term” (Hodge, 1989, p. 23). “The term character is vague, even if modified with the adjective good” (Shields & Bredemeier, 1995, p. 178). More recently, Gough (1998) acknowledges that the term “character” is theoretically and conceptually complex.
Part of the theoretically and conceptually complex nature of character is that two very different character strands exist. One strand of character is anchored to the practice of moral values such as honesty, justice, responsibility, and respect (moral character). This type of definition is frequently referenced and supported by sport academicians (Arnold, 1994; 1999; Beller & Stoll, 1995; Gough, 1998; Hodge, 1989; Shields & Bredemeier, 1995; Stoll & Beller, 1998a). In contrast, the other strand is tied to the practice of social values such as teamwork, self-sacrifice, loyalty, and perseverance (social character), which may be more supported by coaches, sport administrators, and the general populace (Kleiber & Roberts, 1981; Rudd, 1998, 1999; Stoll & Beller, 1998; Sage, 1988, 1999).
Moral Character
What is moral character? The concept of moral character is historically rooted in the ancient philosopher Aristotle, who believed that a person of moral character is one who could apply a variety of moral values such as justice, honesty, compassion, respect, and responsibility when choosing right from wrong (Arnold, 1994, 1998; Stoll & Beller, 1998b; Gough, 1998; Lickona, 1991). Furthering Aristotle’s philosophy, to be a person of moral character means that the individual is able to apply moral values willingly, sincerely, and with understanding (Arnold, 1994,1999; Lickona, 1991; Stoll & Beller, 1998). Put more clearly, one must not simply have the ability to recognize dishonesty or know what it means to be dishonest, one must sincerely value the concept of honesty, and perhaps more importantly, have the ability to act honestly when their peers are acting dishonestly (Arnold, 1994, 1999; Frankena, 1973; Lickona, 1991; Stoll & Beller, 1998b). Stoll and Beller, (1998b) have also posited that moral character is the ability to practice the moral values of honesty, justice, responsibility, and respect when no one is watching. A definition as such, strongly supports the notion that a person who truly has moral character can readily apply a set of moral values with a strong understanding and valuing, despite any surrounding peer pressures or societal pressures, e.g., acting honestly in a given situation because it will look good to others.
In sum, the ability to practice moral character as prescribed by Aristotle and supported by numerous moral philosophers and sport ethicists hinges on the moral agent’s ability to use a sophisticated reasoning process in which the moral agent is able to employ the correct moral value or values relative to each moral or ethical dilemma with a full understanding and valuing of the moral value or values applied (Arnold, 1999; Lickona, 1991; Stoll & Beller, 1998). Hence, it may be more accurate to consider moral character in terms of “moral reasoning” as a result of the reasoning process being critical to the concept of moral character. A further explanation of moral reasoning will brought forth later in this paper.
Social Character
What is social character? If we consult our dictionaries we will find descriptors such as “honesty, integrity, morals, and ethics.” These descriptors are consistent with the term moral character and an Aristotelian definition. One would be hard pressed to find mention of social values such as, self-sacrifice, teamwork, loyalty, and perseverance. Yet contrary to the classic dictionary definition or what many sport academicians have purported, much of the general populace and sport milieu may associate character with social values rather than moral values. Why? Sage, (1988, 1998) postulates that there is a strong connection between our sport culture and our overarching American ideology that is predicated on what he calls a “corporate consciousness” (Sage, 1988, p. 637). That is, our country is centered on capitalism and big corporate business, which relies heavily on teamwork, loyalty, self-sacrifice, and perhaps perseverance. Consequently, Sport Sociologists such as (Coakley, 1998; Eitzen, 1999; and Sage, 1988, 1998) have posited that sport is used as a device to transmit and perpetuate vital social values or what may be called social character. Thus, considering the power and dominance of both sport and corporations in America one might expect character to be defined in accordance with popular social values rather than moral values.
A recent and on-going study may be supportive of Sage’s theory. Out of 38 high school coaches who were asked how they define character, 22 out of 38 coaches provided definitions with a strong social tone. Coaches defined athletes of character as those who have a strong work ethic, can persevere, who are team players, and show commitment to the team (Rudd, 1998). As one of many examples that epitomizes the concept of social character, a high school basketball coach stated:
Character is defined in many ways. One who possesses it is motivated, determined, and competitive. This athlete is a winner that finds a way to win, but handles losing in a mature fashion. Finally, this competitor has a solid work ethic and leads by example (Rudd, 1998, unpublished raw data).
So what type of character does sport develop? Is sport a moral practice or a social practice? What type of character do coaches try to build, if any? To answer these questions and to ultimately develop a means for empirically measuring character in the sport milieu, a brief examination of the history of character development is necessary to better understand why a conflict exists between sport academicians and athletic practitioners (coaches, sport administrators, and the general populace).
Historical Perspectives of Sport and Character
For almost 100 years, the notion that “sport builds character,” has been supported in our American culture and more particularly, the American public school system (Armstrong, 1984; Beller & Stoll, 1995; Bredemeier & Shields, 1995; O’ Hanlon, 1980; Solomon, 1997; Sage, 1988, 1998; Stoll & Beller, 1998b). Notably, in the early 20th century, moral character or an Aristotelian approach is not the type of character that was infused into American sport culture.
The notion that sport builds character first began under the British education system in the early 19th century (Armstrong, 1984; Bredemeier & Shields, 1995; Coakley, 1998; Sage, 1998, 1998; Stoll & Beller, 1998). Under the British philosophy, participation in sport by young men was believed to develop qualities such as courage, teamwork, and self-sacrifice. The development of these qualities would in turn develop strong potential leaders and soldiers for the British Empire. A popular saying that exemplified the link between sport and soldierism arose during the 19th century from British general, Arthur Wellington who proclaimed, “The Battle of Waterloo was won on the playing fields of Eton” (Sage, 1988, p.636). The concept of sport building character was a national concept in Britain and a concept that was deeply entrenched in Britain’s overarching political ideology to maintain a strong British Empire through sport participation (Arnold, 1994; Bredemeier & Shields, 1996; Sage, 1988, 1998).
In the early 20th century, America adopted Britain’s sport builds character concept with a slightly different emphasis. Akin to Britain’s model, sport was infused into the education system with a national intent. However, during the early part of the 20th century, America was going through a transformation. Industry and the concept of capitalism were blossoming and hence, a strong America was synonymous with the concept of competing for big business, money, and power. In the early 1900’s, sport participation was viewed as the primary medium for developing social traits such as teamwork, self-sacrifice, loyalty, and perseverance that would give graduating high school students the ability to maintain the competitive capitalistic theme that permeated through the American culture (Coakley, 1998; O’Hanlon, 1980; Sage, 1988, 1999). As Sage (1988) posits,
Community youth sports programs and high school athletics gradually became instruments in the expanding role of socializing American youth to some sense of unity, to the sense of common allegiance, for different positions in the social economic, and occupational hierarchy. Sports were recognized as an educational medium for transmitting advanced capitalist ideology in the name of building character (Sage, 1988, p. 637).
In addition to the link between high school athletics and it’s mission to develop the kind of social character that would give graduating high school students the ability to be major contributors in corporate America, competition in the classroom and competition in sport were also strongly connected. The classroom and the playing field were both viewed as highly competitive arenas in which high school students competed in a hierarchical system. Thus, just as there were those that were academically at the top of their class, one also fought for a starting position on a given sports team. This type of system was believed to mirror the reality of the “real world” in which graduating high school students would fight for various job positions in major corporations. In relationship to this competitive ideology, sport was believed to not only foster or enhance the students’ competitive qualities, but to also temper one’s individualistic competitive drive with important societal and corporate values such as, teamwork, loyalty, and self-sacrifice (O’ Hanlon, 1980; Sage, 1988, 1998).
Today, the same coveted social values that were injected into the veins of America’s youth in the early 20th century may still be dominate in the sport milieu and linked to corporate America. As Sage, (1988, 1998) points out, popular locker room slogans such as “There is no I in team,” and “A player doesn’t make the team, the team makes the player,” or the common notion that the quintessential athlete is the one who can be called a “hard worker,” are phrases that exude highly supported American social values such as: team work, loyalty, self-sacrifice, and perseverance. Supportively, a recent newspaper article in the Lewiston Tribune after the Lewis-Clark State College (LCSC) baseball team won the NAIA national baseball championship was entitled, “Character Paves Way for L-C.” The article never mentioned the LCSC baseball team as being a team of moral character. To this author’s knowledge there was no mention of any moral values such as, honesty, fairness, responsibility, or respect. Rather, the article highlighted the team’s ability to use teamwork rather than individual performances, and their ability to come from behind and win. As coach Ed Cheff said, Get them behind, and they come to life. I haven’t seen anything like what they have done the past few weeks.” (Browit, 1999, p. 1B). Or as Browit (1999) states, “The astonishing thing about this team was that the same individual almost never stepped forward in successive times of need” (Browit, p. 3B). Overall, the article and as the title suggests “Character Paves Way for L-C,” purported to establish the teams’ rich possession of social character as critical in winning the national championship Sport as a Moral Practice Versus a Social Practice
Thus far, we have seen that sport can be defined as either moral character or social character. Historically, these two types of character have different roots, with moral character being linked to an Aristotelian moral values perspective, and social character being connected to our greater corporate American ideology that revolves around the values of teamwork, loyalty self-sacrifice, and perseverance. However, what type of character does sport actually build? Again, two different schools of thought may exist. Sport academicians believe that sport should be viewed as a moral practice and therefore, sport should cultivate values such as honesty, justice, responsibility, respect, and compassion. Discordantly, coaches, sport administrators, and the general populace may see sport as a social practice and thus, sport is believed to develop social values such as teamwork, self-sacrifice, loyalty, and perseverance.
Sport as a Moral Practice
Sport academicians believe that sport is a moral practice because athletes are continually in situations that involve the practice of moral values such as honesty, fairness, responsibility, and respect. In other words, athletes compete within a set of moral parameters. Arnold (1994, 1999) elucidates this point of view when he stresses the notion that the athlete who freely chooses to engage in a sport contest has tacitly agreed to follow the written rules of the game. To follow the rules of the game with appreciation and sincerity requires honesty, justice, and responsibility. The athlete who intentionally or deceitfully breaches the written rules of the game is dishonest, unfair, irresponsible, and has violated the “internal good” of the game (Arnold, 1994, 1999; Fraleigh, 1982; Shields & Bredemeier, 1995). Sport can also be seen as a moral practice because athletes and coaches must make decisions about the use of deceitful strategies to gain an unfair advantage. For example, famous football coach Paul Brown cut footballs into two halves and sowed them on to his backfields’ shirts. Consequently, the opposing team could not discern which team member had the ball (Lumpkin, Stoll, & Beller, 1994). Although, there was not a rule against Paul Brown’s strategy, Brown’s strategy allowed his team to gain an unfair and deceitful advantage. As such, athletes and coaches are continually in situations where they must decide between fair and unfair strategies, that is, decide which strategies violate the internal good of the game and give themselves an unfair advantage.
In addition to following the written rules of the game and abstaining from deceitful gamesmanship strategies, sport can be considered a moral practice for reasons that are more implicit. If we are to consider the Aristotle model of character as applied to sport, it is imperative that we consider the moral reasoning process that could be practiced by athletes in an athletic competition. As mentioned, moral character involves a sophisticated reasoning process that goes beyond mindless conformity to rules and standards. Competing in an athletic contest offers the opportunity to go beyond the following of rules that make-up the given sport. Consider a game of soccer as an example, in which touching the ball with one’s hand is a rules violation. Intentionally and deceitfully touching the ball with one’s hands to gain advantage would be dishonest and a violation of the moral values of honesty, and fairness. However, what happens when the athlete unintentionally touches the ball with his or her hands and the referee does not see the infraction? Many might infer that because the referee did not see the infraction the rules of the game were not violated and nor were any moral values violated.
Contrary to what may be normally practiced in the athletic milieu when an athlete inadvertently breaches a written rule, sport academicians may take a different stance. From the position of moral character and what (Arnold, 1994, 1999) asserts about tacitly agreeing to preserve the integrity and intrinsic value of the game, the athlete has the option of confessing to the referee that he or she touched the ball with his or her hand. An action as such, exemplifies what is referred to as moral reasoning and what may be called the ideal sports competition in which the athlete does everything in his or her power to maintain a sports competition that is honest, fair, responsible, and respectful. More broadly considered, the “internal good” of the game is preserved when each athlete takes it upon him or herself to always be honest, fair, responsible, and respectful, rather than deferring responsibility to the referee or allowing one’s personal gain, i.e., winning to take precedence over the moral goodness of the game.