A year ago this month (November 2004) Ron Artest introduced the American public to a brand new sport—“basketbrawl”[1]. It is a lot like basketball only without all the rules. In fact, it was basketball until the final seconds of this infamous game between the Indiana Pacers and Detroit Pistons when all the rules were trashed, along with some of the spectators. Artest, driving to the goal, came from behind and fouled the Pacers’ Ben Wallace. The foul set off a physical confrontation between the two players, not unlike many others seen in the National Basketball Association (NBA). Artest eventually retreated to the side of the court where he was hit with a cup thrown by one of the spectators. In response, Artest charged into the audience throwing indiscriminant punches. Whether it was defensively or offensively, some from the crowd responded to Artest with just as much violence. What began as a well organized and well respected sport now looks more like a bar-room brawl.
These days virtually every journal of psychology is filled with articles that attempt to shed greater light on why violent incidences like these occur. No weekly periodical runs through the presses and no newscast will air without another story connected to sport-related violence. Social scientists and commentators tell us that the key cause of violence in competitive sports is aggression. However, that may not be the case. Aggression, in and of itself, does not necessarily cause violence. Aggression may be a catalyst for violence in competitive sports, but it is certainly not the cause of it.
The key component of violence in competitive sports is the athlete’s moral reasoning. More specifically, violence is most often generated in competitive sports when an athlete’s reactive aggression is coupled with his or her egocentric moral reasoning. As such, moral relativism could be seen as the culprit because it functions as an accelerator for both reactive aggression and ego-centric moral reasoning.
There are quite a few concepts that we must first explore to fully understand moral relativism as the source of violence in competitive sports.
First, let us take a quick look at the fundamental idea of competition in sports. The idea of competing in a sport means “to strive against another or others to attain a goal, such as an advantage or a victory.”[2] Competition in sport can be expressed in many different ways. Figure skating and equestrian sports are highly competitive, but the competition does not include direct physical contact between opponents. Without direct physical contact between athletes, as seen in sports such as hockey and football, competitors can more effectively assign their aggression to something other than their opponents.
Sports without direct physical contact between athletes can occasionally yield violence, but not nearly as often as sports that do allow it. Evident in the example of professional basketball, competition is mostly exhibited through physical aggression. Physical competition lends itself to violence more easily than other types of competitions.
Jay Coakley defines sport violence as “the use of excessive physical force, which has the potential to cause harm or destruction.”[3] Physical force, within the context of sport is not only allowed, but part of the game itself. Sport is even defined as a “physical activity that is governed by a set of rules or customs.”[4] Notice that violence is not defined as physical force but as excessive physical force.
Physical force is often referred to as aggression. The element of competition alone is enough to generate aggression in most sports. As such, they will contain a certain level of physical conflict between competitors. Aggression is generally defined as a hostile or destructive behavior. This limiting definition provides an incomplete understanding of this complex behavior.
Not all of the physical conflict that occurs in sport can be labeled as hostile or destructive. There is a certain level of aggression, or physical force, which is inherent in competition. This physical force is neither hostile nor destructive. Psychologists refer to this type of aggression as instrumental. Instrumental aggression is “non-emotional and task-oriented.”[5] The intent behind instrumental aggression is to accomplish the defined goals and objectives of the game. For this type of conflict, Brenda Bredmeier rightfully prefers the term assertion. By definition, assertion means to act boldly or forcefully, but it does not imply hostility or violence. Instrumental aggression is not only morally acceptable but is often encouraged and likely even required to be effectively competitive in a given sport.
At some levels it can be quite difficult to distinguish between instrumental aggression, and other types of aggression. This distinction is even more difficult for players during competition. “Shifting expectations, created by the fast-paced and emotionally charged action, can readily lead to perceived violations or ‘cheap shots.’ Cheap shots, of course, are in the eye, or ribs, of the beholder,”[6] says Bredmeier.
Bredmeier also communicates that “physical contact may be interpreted by athletes as either assertive or aggressive, depending on their perception of intent.”[7] Perceptions are not always accurate. Shy of a athlete’s confession, it is not likely that we can always know his or her intent or motive. While it is a key element in distinguishing between the two types of aggression, the athlete’s intention is not a consideration in determining violence.
The second type of aggression in sports is called hostile or reactive aggression. One should not assume that the terms used to label this type of aggression intend to suggest that all hostile aggression is a response to provocation nor should one assume that all aggressive responses must likewise be hostile. Unlike instrumental aggression, reactive aggression is directly associated to the athlete’s motives and intentions. Reactive aggression typically contains an “underlying emotional component, with harm as its goal.”[8] This type of reactive aggression typically leads to immoral confrontations and eventually to violence.
The source of reaction aggression in athletes is widely debated. Here we will discuss four of the prominent theories as compiled by Steve Thomas.
The first theory is the Instinct Theory. This theory suggests that all “people are born with aggressive tendencies.”[9] It also “implies that the athlete has virtually no conscious knowledge or control of aggressive behaviors.”[10] While people are born with various tendencies, we are not enslaved to them. This theory wrongfully suggests that people can neither perceive nor control their own behavior. If this were true, not only would the organization of sport be impossible, but society as a whole would be in jeopardy.
The next theory is called the frustration aggression theory. This theory suggests that athletes act out aggressively in reaction to feelings of frustration. In competitive sports frustration is likely at any given point. Athletes can be frustrated with an official’s call or poor personal performance. Any perceived success by an opponent would also be frustrating. The frustration aggression theory misses in one crucial point. While frustration may increase the likelihood of violent aggression, it does not mandate it. A player can and should be encouraged to address his or her frustration without any expression of reactive aggression. This idea is captured in the third theory.
The third theory is the social learning theory. Social learning suggests that “aggressive behavior is learned through modeling and reinforcement.”[11] This theory suggests that modeling, or exhibiting, aggressive behavior validates that same behavior in those who observe your behavior. Modeling and reinforcement can come from a variety of sources. Coaches, peers, and parents can model aggressive behavior for athletes. These individuals can also reinforce the athlete’s perceptions. This reinforcement can come as positive encouragement or negative comments. Professional athletes are often very influential as models of behavior. It is this influence that often establishes a person’s fundamental moral reasoning.
The last theory is a combination of the social learning theory and the frustration aggression theory. It is called the revised frustration aggression theory. This theory suggests that frustration does not cause aggression but it does make a person more susceptible to it. This theory suggests that “frustration does not necessarily lead to aggression, but it does increase its likelihood by increasing arousal and anger. This increase in anger results in reactive aggression when it appears to be appropriate by previously learned social triggers.”[12] The idea is that people will use their moral reasoning, as established by what they perceive to be socially acceptable, to determine how to respond to frustration.
How an athlete responds to frustration is determined by his or her moral reasoning. Moral reasoning is how an athlete determines right from wrong. “Given the complex and variable conditions of sport,”[13] Bredmeier says that, among athletes, there is “not a clear consensus about the line between legitimate and illegitimate aggression.”[14] If one holds to the revised frustration aggression theory, he or she would agree that a combination of frustration and learned behavior contributes to reactive aggression. Reactive aggression occurs when athletes choose to respond to the frustration of competition in a morally unacceptable way.
In the context of sport, this process of determining right from wrong is called game reasoning. Game reasoning, or bracketed morality, is a popular type of moral reasoning employed by many athletes. Game reasoning allows an athlete to choose a separate set of moral norms during competition that may be different from his or her typical standards. Game reasoning also allows athletes to behave, only during competition, in ways that they would not otherwise endorse.
While this idea may seem problematic at first, we should give it more consideration before we pass judgment. Some level of game reasoning is required to even participate in competitive sports.
Most of us would agree that, in our everyday world, it would be considered, at the very least, morally imprudent for a person to have no consideration for others. Kindness and consideration towards others is typically considered morally obligatory, while self-sacrificing kindness to others is a praiseworthy act of moral supererogation. Ignoring the prima facie duty of exhibiting reasonable consideration for others leads to all sorts of inappropriate behavior in the everyday world in which we live. But in the world of competitive sports some degree of ego-centricity is mandated by competition. Players often face the decision of attempting to score or giving a teammate the opportunity. The decision, rightly made, considers one’s skills verses the skills of one’s teammates. Bredemeier says, “Players use a complex moral logic in attempts to coordinate the goal of winning with the need to respect limits to egocentricity.”[15]
Every athlete in a competitive sport should have the desire to outperform their competition. Without winning as a motivation it ceases to be a competitive sport. Bredemeier’s findings suggest “that moral norms which prescribe equal consideration of all people are often suspended during competition in favor of a more egocentric moral perspective.”[16] As defined before, competition requires athletes to “strive against another”[17] to obtain their goals. This strife towards the goal of victory mandates that players consider their own goals of greater importance than that of their opponents.
Bredemeier agrees that a certain level of egocentricity within the context of sport is morally acceptable because it is governed by an external authority. Namely the rules and officials. She suggests that “in sport, participants are freed to concentrate on self-interest by a carefully balanced rule structure that equalizes opportunity. Players are guarded against the moral defaults of others by protective rules and by officials who impose sanctions for violations. Moral responsibility is thus transferred from the shoulders of players to those of officials, the enforcers of the rules, and to coaches, whom the players learn to see as responsible for all decisions.”[18] In other words, the dynamic of competition, the structural protection provided by officials and rules and the relatively inconsequential implications of sport intentions combine to release sport participants from the usual demands of morality.
With similar logic others argue that game reasoning is justified because “sport is set apart both cognitively and emotionally from the everyday world.”[19] Many people have bought into this idea. As a result most people, both athletes and non-athletes, believe that morality in sport can be different than the morality of our normal lives. This view, that sport is somehow separate from our normal lives, helps athletes to justify the egocentric morality. Bredemeier quotes one player saying that “it’s OK to try to hurt somebody if it is legal and during the game.”[20]
There are obviously some questionable applications of game reasoning, but the acceptability of game reasoning hinges on the standard by which each competing athlete justifies their behavior.
From observation alone, it is obvious that the most common type of justification in the competitive sports is moral relativism. Relativists believe that there are no absolute rights and wrongs. John and Paul Feinberg say that relativists believe “everyone is left to do what is right in his own eyes, even if it contradicts what others see as right or removes their rights.”[21] They continue to suggest that “if everyone lived by such morality, law and society would collapse.”[22] It is likely that competitive sports would collapse as well.
If game reasoning, which allows an athlete to change their moral norms for the sake of competition, is justified by relativity, which sets no absolutes, athletes can behave in any way they please without any source for internal moral censure.
What about the rules and regulations? Bredemeier says that “some athletes identify the rules as the final arbiter of legitimacy, but most appeal to less formal criteria.”[23] Relativism is what generates the ambiguity around the idea of “less formal criteria.”[24] Athletes and coaches often show disregard for authority, which could also be justified under relativism. Michael Josephson is concerned that “the trend is to ignore rules and traditions of a sport in favor of anything that provides an advantage. Without thinking of the implications, many good people have bought into gamesmanship.”[25] Josephson introduces the idea of gamesmanship as “just about victory, where winning by fooling the referee is just as good as winning by outperforming the competitor.”[26] Josephson also says that “getting away with whatever you can is a critical tenet of gamesmanship.”[27]
Game reasoning with relativistic justification cannot be trusted to prevent violence, because it allows for the practice of gamesmanship. With this mix, the fail-safe of rules and regulating officials is removed because gamesmanship allows for the bending and even the breaking of the rules. Gamesmanship undermines the moral safety net that Bredemeier suggests is found in the governing rules of the game.
Rules were developed to define the game, prevent an unfair advantage to either competitor, and protect the players from physical injury. The disregard of these rules, not only undermines the game and its fairness, but it also places athletes in senseless physical jeopardy. When an athlete justifies the use of excessive force that results in the subsequent injury of another athlete, the injury does not simply heal itself when the game is over. With that in mind, the argument that justifies gamesmanship because it is somehow separated from reality can no longer be supported.
Because moral relativism suggests that all things are, at least potentially, morally acceptable, using relativism as justification would not prevent the blatant disregard for rules as seen in the practice of gamesmanship. Therefore, the sliding scale of relativism cannot be adopted as morally prudent.
There is, however, a system of moral justification that will allow moral competition in sports. In contrast to relativism, moral definism adheres to the idea that there are absolute rights and wrongs. Definist believe that moral norms can and must be defined as well as justified. This approach to moral justification finds an ideal application in competitive sports. Sports are “governed by a set of rules or customs”[28] as is definism. Most rules in competitive sports are developed to either define the sport or protect the athletes. This meets the definist’s needs of both definition and justification.
While definism eliminates the option of gamesmanship by demanding adherence to the rules, it can still support the intrinsic need in competitive sports for game reasoning. In this case game reasoning would not be implemented on a sliding scale as it would be in relativism. The governing rules and officials would clearly dictate what aggression and related behavior would be acceptable. Behavior outside of the governing rules would be deemed immoral.
Just as moral relativism undermines order in society, relativistic game reasoning destroys competitive sports. While society requires order for its existence, competitive sports, by definition, require rules to exist. Much like a law functions for society, a rule, in sports, functions as an “authoritative, prescribed direction for conduct.”[29]
The fact that competitive sports, like society, are governed with rules suggests that the system of moral justification in such sports should be definitive not relative. Relative justification allows for the degradation of the rules that both govern and define competitive sports. Because relative justification leads to ambiguity concerning the rules of the game, it should be considered imprudent. Because it leads to violence, it should be considered immoral.
Violence, in competitive sports, is a result of how an athlete decides to respond to frustration. How athletes govern their response to frustration is by learned moral reasoning. If an athlete uses relative justification to determine an appropriate moral response, he or she is without any limitations to their behavior. As seen in the example of Ron Artest, much violence can be justified in the heat of the moment.
If instead, athletes use definitive justification to determine an appropriate response to frustration there can be a solution to violence in sports. Athletes would then follow the rules and obey the laws. Josephson tells us that solving this issue is easy; “Just look at the rules that define the game and determine what skills the game was created to emphasize. Some favor brute strength, others speed or quickness, others stress accuracy or endurance.”[30] Josephson also suggests that to avoid and questionable tactic, “all you have to do is ask whether it demonstrates a skill the game was designed to measure.”[31] He goes on to say that “if it’s part of the game it should be taught to its highest level of proficiency.”[32] It is not likely that spectator assaults will be introduced in next year’s training camps.
Playing by the rules, now there is a novel idea. Josephson mentions that “once the concept of sportsmanship is understood, the difference between being declared a winner and really winning is evident.”[33] Then, once again, it may be safe to be a fan of the NBA.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abdal-Haqq, Ismat. “Violence in Sports,” ERIC Digest 1-89 (1989) [on-line]. Accessed 20 November 2005. Available from http://www.ericdigests.org/pre-9214/sports.htm; Internet.
Bredemeier, Brenda. “Values and Violence in Sports Today,” Psychology Today (1985) [on-line]. Accessed 20 November 2005. Available from http://search.looksmart.com/p/articles/ mi_m1175/is_v19/ai_3957551; Internet.
Ding, Kevin. “BRAWL BALL: Lakers, O’Neal lose it in Chicago; Shaq throws two punches at Brad Miller and gets ejected from the overtime loss to the Bulls.” Orange County (CA) Register, 13 January 2002 [on-line]. Accessed 2 November 2005. Available from http://www.ocregister.com; Internet.
Feinburg, John and Paul Feinburg. Ethics for a Brave New World (Wheaton, Ill.: Good News, 1993), 17-45.
Josephson, Michael. “Pursuing Victory with Honor” (paper presented at the MHSAA Sportsmanship Summit, East Lansing, Michigan, 25 September 2002), [on-line]. Accessed 20 November 2005. Available from http://www.mhsaa.com/resources/library/sa7.html; Internet.
Thomas, Steve. “Artifact” [on-line]. Accessed 20 November 2005. Available from http://www.csuportfolio.com/sthomas/artifacts/standard1b.pdf; Internet.
[1]Kevin Ding, “BRAWL BALL: Lakers, O’Neal lose it in Chicago; Shaq throws two punches at Brad Miller and gets ejected from the overtime loss to the Bulls.” Orange County (CA) Register, 13 January 2002 [on-line]; accessed 2 November 2005; available from http http://www.ocregister.com; Internet.
[2]The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 4th ed., s.v. “Compete”
[3]Ismat Abdal-Haqq, “Violence in Sports,” ERIC Digest 1-89 [on-line]; accessed 20 November 2005; available from http://www.ericdigests.org/pre-9214/sports.htm; Internet.
[4]The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 4th ed., s.v. “Sports”
[5]Abdal-Haqq, “Violence in Sports.”
[6] Brenda Bredemeier, “Values and Violence in Sports Today,” Psychology Today (1985) [on-line]; accessed 20 November 2005; available from http://search.looksmart.com/p/articles/mi_m1175/is_v19/ai_3957551; Internet.
[7]Ibid.
[8]Abdal-Haqq, “Violence in Sports.”
[9]Steve Thomas, “Artifact,” [on-line]; accessed 20 November 2005; available from http://www.csuportfolio.com/sthomas/artifacts/standard1b.pdf; Internet.
[10]Ibid.
[11]Thomas, “Artifact.”
[12]Ibid.
[13]Bredemeier, “Values and Violence in Sports Today.”
[14]Ibid.
[15]Bredemeier, “Values and Violence in Sports Today.”
[16]Ibid.
[17]American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 4th ed., s.v. “Compete”
[18]Bredemeier, “Values and Violence in Sports Today.”
[19]Ibid.
[20]Ibid.
[21]John Feinburg and Paul Feinburg, Ethics for a Brave New World (Wheaton, Ill.: Good News, 1993), 17-45.
[22]Feinburg, “Ethics for a Brave New World.”
[23]Bredemeier, “Values and Violence in Sports Today.”
[24]Ibid.
[25]Michael Josephson, “Pursuing Victory with Honor” (paper presented at the MHSAA Sportsmanship Summit, East Lansing, Michigan, 25 September 2002), [on-line]; accessed 20 November 2005; available from http://www.mhsaa.com/resources/library/sa7.html; Internet.
[26]Ibid.
[27]Ibid.
[28]American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 4th ed., s.v. “Sports”
[29]American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 4th ed., s.v. “Rule”
[30]Michael Josephson, “Pursuing Victory with Honor.”
[31]Ibid.
[32]Ibid.
[33]Michael Josephson, “Pursuing Victory with Honor.”
No responses yet