session 3: sports and politics
Sporting rules, level playing fields, competition, teamwork and leadership—these are all elements that bring sports and politics into illuminating analysis. What is the political equivalent of a foul, and is a foul not already a break with the political consensus (of the rules of the game)?
|
Reading:
Wray Vamplew, “Playing with the rules: Influences on the development of regulation in sport”, The International Journal of the History of Sport, 24:7 (2007): 843-871. Guest activity: Harvest 2.0 (mini-simulation) led by Michael Glod of Pax Ludens, The Hague. |
student reflection
© online-nations.netBy Jacolien Cornet
BSc (Hons) Liberal Arts and Sciences: Policy Science,
Leiden University College The Hague
There are these two young players playing along and they happen to meet an older player playing another play, who nods at them and says “Morning, boys. How’s the play?” And the two young players play on for a bit, and then eventually one of them looks over at the other and goes “What the hell is play"?[1]
You might wonder how it is possible to not know what playing is while participating in a play. I will argue why all those involved in play should keep reminding themselves over and over ‘This is play’.
All play has rules. The formal rules of play with regards to sport are constitutive rules, either prescriptive or proscriptive. Auxiliary rules are concerned with eligibility and regulatory rules with behaviour off-field. The reason for the emergence of rules for play is competition[2] and along with the growing importance of results, more specific regulations were developed. Since these rules influence both the playing - the action -, and the play - the game - and players participate to play, the rules affect the players in various ways. Despite the relevance of rules for players, can it be that some follow the rules without questioning these? In essence, the reason to participate in play is the playing for the sake of playing,[3] thus concerning rules which generally fall outside the scope of the players.
But what if players are developing and changing the rules while playing? Game theory provides insight in how players react in games, not only when rules are established but also when developed. All players will act in their own interests and maximize their own chances to gain the most, to win (always defecting, gain 4 or 2, instead of 3 or 1). Contrary to the prisoners that face the prisoners dilemma, players are often able to communicate. Communication allows the players to come to the best solution for all players (always cooperating, gain 3). In addition, when playing for the sake of playing, there is the possibility that players will try to prevent the game from ending. By giving ‘second-chances’ to other players, the ‘tit-for-tat’ theory predicts that the game will continue without end while players continue to cooperate (and gain 3), because the players fear the punishment when they defect.
Consequently, questioning the rules is less relevant. What is important is that players follow the rules that emerge in the play itself, often the unwritten rules that are advantageous to play itself, assuming that players participate to play. However, perhaps more and more players participate to win, given the set of rules for a particular competition for a particular sport. The real players should stay conscious and alive in the adult world day in and day out,[4] wondering ‘what is play’.
[1] David Foster, 2008, ‘This is water speech’. Retrieved from http://moreintelligentlife.com/story/david-foster-wallace-in-his-own-words. Note: all non-italic (‘play’-)words differ from the words used in his original speech.
[2] Vampley, 2007, p. 64.
[3] Politics as Play, Week 1 discussion.
[4] Foster, 2008.
BSc (Hons) Liberal Arts and Sciences: Policy Science,
Leiden University College The Hague
There are these two young players playing along and they happen to meet an older player playing another play, who nods at them and says “Morning, boys. How’s the play?” And the two young players play on for a bit, and then eventually one of them looks over at the other and goes “What the hell is play"?[1]
You might wonder how it is possible to not know what playing is while participating in a play. I will argue why all those involved in play should keep reminding themselves over and over ‘This is play’.
All play has rules. The formal rules of play with regards to sport are constitutive rules, either prescriptive or proscriptive. Auxiliary rules are concerned with eligibility and regulatory rules with behaviour off-field. The reason for the emergence of rules for play is competition[2] and along with the growing importance of results, more specific regulations were developed. Since these rules influence both the playing - the action -, and the play - the game - and players participate to play, the rules affect the players in various ways. Despite the relevance of rules for players, can it be that some follow the rules without questioning these? In essence, the reason to participate in play is the playing for the sake of playing,[3] thus concerning rules which generally fall outside the scope of the players.
But what if players are developing and changing the rules while playing? Game theory provides insight in how players react in games, not only when rules are established but also when developed. All players will act in their own interests and maximize their own chances to gain the most, to win (always defecting, gain 4 or 2, instead of 3 or 1). Contrary to the prisoners that face the prisoners dilemma, players are often able to communicate. Communication allows the players to come to the best solution for all players (always cooperating, gain 3). In addition, when playing for the sake of playing, there is the possibility that players will try to prevent the game from ending. By giving ‘second-chances’ to other players, the ‘tit-for-tat’ theory predicts that the game will continue without end while players continue to cooperate (and gain 3), because the players fear the punishment when they defect.
Consequently, questioning the rules is less relevant. What is important is that players follow the rules that emerge in the play itself, often the unwritten rules that are advantageous to play itself, assuming that players participate to play. However, perhaps more and more players participate to win, given the set of rules for a particular competition for a particular sport. The real players should stay conscious and alive in the adult world day in and day out,[4] wondering ‘what is play’.
[1] David Foster, 2008, ‘This is water speech’. Retrieved from http://moreintelligentlife.com/story/david-foster-wallace-in-his-own-words. Note: all non-italic (‘play’-)words differ from the words used in his original speech.
[2] Vampley, 2007, p. 64.
[3] Politics as Play, Week 1 discussion.
[4] Foster, 2008.