I reexamine some of the contentious issues that frame the debate between MacAloon, who champions an American anthropological approach to the study of sport, and Hargreaves and Tomlinson, who favor a British cultural studies approach to the study of sport. Specifically, I take up Hargreaves and Tomlinson’s central charge that MacAloon’s critical account of British cultural studies, especially its hegemonist wing, is to be dismissed as a one-sided, “staggering misrepresentation.” I argue that while MacAloon misinterprets certain features of this hegemonist writing on sport, his main criticisms of British hegemony sport theory are telling ones that repay closer study.
William J. Morgan
The social theory of sport literature has taken a new and welcome critical turn in the last few years. That turn is revealed in the emergence of a Marxist-based corpus of literature which challenges headlong the fundamental tenets of mainstream (functionalist) sport sociology. The purpose of the present paper is to critically respond to this new critical theory of sport; in particular to its two major versions—what I call, respectively, vulgar Marxist, and hegemonic sport theory. I argue that both versions of this theory are conceptually flawed, and that these conceptual flaws are themselves ideologically grounded. The point of my criticisms, however, is not to undermine or otherwise deflect the critical thrust of this theory, but to suggest that that thrust requires a new conceptual scaffolding which is more sensitive to the ideological temperament of advanced capitalist society.
William J. Morgan
William J. Morgan
This essay addresses four main questions. The first is devoted to how I became interested in the philosophy of sport. The second question concerns how my academic career has evolved over time in line with various developments in the field that privileged certain lines of study over others and which largely marginalized philosophy in particular and the humanities in general. The third question centers on what I take to be my own main contributions to the philosophy of sport and what, if any, impact they may have had on the larger field of kinesiology. Finally, I offer my own brief prognosis of what I think the future has in store for the relationship between sport philosophy and kinesiology.
William J. Morgan
I take up Ingham’s and Beamish’s three main criticisms of my previous critique of hegemony theory—that it is “distorted” because it ignores that hegemony both sets limits and opens up possibilities, that it overlooks Williams’ point that hegemony “is never total or exclusive”, and that it falsely claims that Williams opted for an all-inclusive, material base to replace the classical Marxist base superstructure paradigm—and argue that they all miss the mark. I thus conclude by reaffirming my major thesis that hegemony sport theory is best regarded as a theory of social containment rather than social transformation because it has no intelligible way of explaining major shifts of dominance, that is, of accounting for the transference of dominance from one group to another.
Gary S. Krahenbuhl, Robert P. Pangrazi, William J. Stone, Don W. Morgan, and Tracy Williams
Untrained 6- to 8-year-old children (N = 80) served as subjects in a cross sectional study of the fractional utilization of maximal aerobic power during submaximal running. Using the open-circuit method, the absolute oxygen demands of submaximal running were found to increase with age. When expressed relative to body weight, oxygen demands of submaximal running showed no statistically significant changes over the 3-year span. VO2max increased 36.2%, which was proportionally greater than the percentage increase for either body weight (28.4%) or the absolute oxygen demands of submaximal running (22.9%). Thus, during the span of years studied there was a significant reduction in the fractional utilization of maximal aerobic power required to run at a fixed submaximal speed.
Lisa M. Barnett, Dean A. Dudley, Richard D. Telford, David R. Lubans, Anna S. Bryant, William M. Roberts, Philip J. Morgan, Natasha K. Schranz, Juanita R. Weissensteiner, Stewart A. Vella, Jo Salmon, Jenny Ziviani, Anthony D. Okely, Nalda Wainwright, John R. Evans, and Richard J. Keegan
Assessment of physical literacy poses a dilemma of what instrument to use. There is currently no guide regarding the suitability of common assessment approaches. The purpose of this brief communication is to provide a user’s guide for selecting physical literacy assessment instruments appropriate for use in school physical education and sport settings. Although recommendations regarding specific instruments are not provided, the guide offers information about key attributes and considerations for the use. A decision flow chart has been developed to assist teachers and affiliated school practitioners to select appropriate methods of assessing physical literacy. School physical education and sport scenarios are presented to illustrate this process. It is important that practitioners are empowered to select the most appropriate instrument/s to suit their needs.
Richard J. Keegan, Lisa M. Barnett, Dean A. Dudley, Richard D. Telford, David R. Lubans, Anna S. Bryant, William M. Roberts, Philip J. Morgan, Natasha K. Schranz, Juanita R. Weissensteiner, Stewart A. Vella, Jo Salmon, Jenny Ziviani, Anthony D. Okely, Nalda Wainwright, and John R. Evans
Purpose: The development of a physical literacy definition and standards framework suitable for implementation in Australia. Method: Modified Delphi methodology. Results: Consensus was established on four defining statements: Core—Physical literacy is lifelong holistic learning acquired and applied in movement and physical activity contexts; Composition—Physical literacy reflects ongoing changes integrating physical, psychological, cognitive, and social capabilities; Importance—Physical literacy is vital in helping us lead healthy and fulfilling lives through movement and physical activity; and Aspiration—A physically literate person is able to draw on his/her integrated physical, psychological, cognitive, and social capacities to support health promoting and fulfilling movement and physical activity, relative to the situation and context, throughout the lifespan. The standards framework addressed four learning domains (physical, psychological, cognitive, and social), spanning five learning configurations/levels. Conclusion: The development of a bespoke program for a new context has important implications for both existing and future programs.