|
 |
|
|
 |
In her 1988 article, Shogan discussed the legal versus moral distinction as it relates to behaviour in sport. She identified three types of rules in sport: descriptive rules that lay out technical specifications such as court dimensions, proscriptive rules that identify actions in which an athlete must engage such as dribbling a basketball, and proscriptive rules that identify actions an athlete must not perform. Such rules are all considered to be morally neutral. Prescriptive rules are generally broken only by unskilled athletes. Proscriptive rules are often broken as game strategy, such as fouling an opponent hoping to gain possession of a basketball after the penalty throw. Officials are only responsible for monitoring legal transgressions, not moral ones. A neutral rule only becomes a moral concern when a player is counting on other players not to break certain rules, but one intentionally does. There is generally no authority in sport charged with the responsibility to monitor morality. Moral wrongdoing often coincides with legal wrongdoing, but sport officials penalize only the legal wrongdoing. Twelve years later, Shogan, along with her collaborator Ford (2000), was calling for a new sport ethic. Inspired by Eugen's critique of sport ethicists, König, Shogan, and Ford situated this new sport ethic in the work of the French philosopher Foucault. König (1995) was critical of sport ethicists because they concern themselves mainly with compliance with proscriptive rules while completing disregarding issues and practices that are causing real harm to athletes as being ethical matters. König suggested that work focusing exclusively on rule adherence does not deserve to be considered ethical criticism. As sport ethicists, Shogan and Ford (2000) took the criticism to heart. Using Foucault's approach to ethics, they suggested that rather than the limited focus on rules, sport ethics should be concerned with athletes' understanding of how sport shapes them as people. The underlying assumption was that if athletes understand the logic of the rules, they will comply with the rules. However, when rules exist that are harmful to the health and wellbeing of athletes, the athletes must challenge those rules publicly. This is not done by breaking the rules, but rather by refusing to engage in behaviour that is counter to one's values. If ethics becomes less about compliance with rules and more about understanding the impact of the rules, athletes could become more accountable for their own conduct. However, at the present time, this is not the reality. Ethics is still all about rule compliance. Certain athletes are not following the rules, but little is known about their justification for doing so. Morgan (2002) also expressed the need for athletes and members of the sport community to become more involved in discourse about the rules of sport. Seeking to better understanding the moral dilemmas presently plaguing sport, he examined Habermas's (1990) critical theory of society. He purports that to understand social practice such as sport, one must look at moral ideals and values. Habermas's moral theory looks to moral commitments that underlie social practice such as sport and why moral commitments have broken down. To Habermas, communicative action includes actions either oriented to reaching consensus or rooted in consensus as to how people are to conduct themselves. Those goals and means of achieving them are a product of agreement. Morgan (2002) posited that agreements about what is acceptable in sport shape the moral character of sport. Since the norms of fair play supposedly guide sport and are mutually agreed to, it should be understood that no one shall break the rules for self-advantage. Thus the rules become the moral underpinnings of sport. Looking at sport today, one could assume that communicative action has little to do with such underpinnings. However, using Habermas's (1990) theory, Morgan suggested that sport is still governed by an underlying moral consensus because it does place limits on what is considered to be acceptable. He offered as evidence the public moral outrage at high-profile incidents of cheating in sport, which means the existence of an ethical line that the public is not willing to have crossed. This suggests that sport and how it is played does matter to the public and that as such, communicative action is an important part of sport. However, Morgan (2002) felt that to address the issues in sport, concrete ethical solutions are required rather than abstract moral ones. This requires probing the beliefs and values of peers. The problem Morgan saw with external moral principles that come from outside the practice is that the practical connection is missing so adherence is always open to personal interpretation. He suggested that the need exists to come up with internal, practice-dependent reasons as to why it is important to treat one's competitors in ethically appropriate ways in accordance with certain standards of excellence. This is better than an external general moral framework based upon abstract concepts. The difference between moral and ethical discourse is that morality has to do with universally held beliefs in certain values and norms, whereas ethics is a local matter that seeks agreement among athletes that certain beliefs and values are worth holding. Little research to date has addressed issues of ethics directly with athletes themselves. If, as Morgan (2002) suggested, addressing ethical issues requires developing an agreed-upon set of values and norms, the opinions of athletes on such matters must be investigated. Although there exist volumes of literature devoted to the positive ideals of sport (Arnold, 1994; Eitzen, 1988; Feezell, 1988; Hyland, 1990; Lumpkin, Stoll & Beller, 1994; Orlick, 1995; Ross, 1989; Shogan, 1988; Stephens & Bredemeier, 1996; vanOosten, 1989), existing literature is devoid of work that provides illumination on how certain athletes justify engagement in unethical actions and what influence coaches may have over associated outcomes. During the past 15 years, literature has reported various unethical means used to gain an advantage in sport. However, what is lacking is the perspective of the athletes themselves who engage in such behaviours. The over-emphasis on winning and the potential benefits of victory are the greatest motivators for cheating in sport (Blackhurst, Schneider & Strachan, 1991; Dubin, 1990; Eitzen, 1988; Hyland, 1990; Lumpkin, Stoll & Beller, 1994). The belief that others are doing the same thing and cheating is therefore justified is one possible explanation for such behaviours (Boudreau & Konzak, 1991; Cowart, 1989; McPherson, Curtis & Loy, 1989). If there is a chance of not being caught, certain athletes might be inclined to cheat, hoping to get away with it (Feezell, 1988; vanOosten, 1989). The pressure to win can, and often does, come from the coach. Many coaches have a great deal of power over their athletes (Blackhurst et al., 1991; Burke, 2001; Clifford & Feezell, 1997; Dubin, 1990; Laios, Theodorakis & Gargalianos, 2003; Sherman, Fuller & Speed, 2000), and if it is perceived that the coach condones or promotes unethical behaviour, athletes may be caught in a situation where they feel they must do what the coach suggests. In such cases, the justification for cheating is directly influenced by the coach (Blackhurst et al., 1991; Eitzen, 1988; Gibbons, 1994). Engagement in unethical behaviour in sport has traditionally been associated with male athletes, reflecting their dominance of sport, especially at the elite levels. Increasingly, however, similar behaviours have been observed among female athletes (McPherson et al., 1989). As the number of women participating in sport increases, the escalation in unethical behaviour among female sport participants can be explained in various ways including increased value placed on winning as women's sport has become more competitive and professionalized; women becoming socialized into sport by a process similar to males and learning similar values, norms, and behaviours; and women wanting to be perceived as equal to male athletes and, thereby, demonstrating valued male behaviours (McPherson et al.). | |
MAY
2004 Justifications for Unethical Behaviour in Sport: The Role of the Coach Download a PDF of this article
click here Print version of this article click here
Get on the email circulation list click here Publisher: Anna Mees , Program Manager, Women in Coaching, Coaching Association of Canada Editor: Sheila Robertson Editorial Board:
Copy Editor: Heather Ebbs Translator: MATRA • gs Inc. © 2004 Coaching Association of
Canada, Coaching Association
of Canada Web site by
|
|
|
