Ensuring Humanity’s Future
Lessons from Play, Sport, and Game

I see myself and a multitude of other Grasshoppers engaged in playing the most elaborate, subtle, and challenging games. […] And the Utopians will look back on names like Queensbury, Naismith, the Parker Brothers, even Rubix, with the same indulgent condescension that today’s physicists look back on those ancient investigators who proclaimed air, earth, fire, and water to be basic elements of nature.

Bernard Suits, Games and Utopia

Introduction

Philosophy, often viewed as a realm of abstract speculation, holds profound potential for addressing the tangible challenges confronting humanity. This essay seeks to illuminate how a philosophical appreciation of play, sport, and game can significantly impact the future well-being of our species. By delving into play and its broadly implications, we aim to reveal how these activities not only shape personal relationships and ethical conduct but also provide insightful frameworks for addressing pressing global issues.

Play is more than mere recreation; it is a fundamental human activity that transcends its apparent simplicity. As Johan Huizinga suggests in his seminal work, Homo Ludens (1938), play is a primary condition of culture, a lens through which we first encounter rules, strategies, and the principles of fairness and competition. This perspective positions play as intrinsic to the human experience, rather than a mere childhood pastime or leisure activity. The values inherent in play – such as fairness, mutual respect, and joy – are foundational to ethical behavior and societal harmony.

This essay delves into the philosophical dimensions of play and sport, emphasizing their profound impact on personal relationships, ethical behavior, and broader societal issues. By exploring the intrinsic values embedded in play – such as fairness, cooperation, and ethical conduct – we connect these principles with contemporary global challenges, including climate change, artificial intelligence (AI), and political structures.

Central to our discussion is William Morgan’s concept of ‘deep conventionalism,’ which highlights the importance of recognizing the internal logic and historical context of sports. By integrating Morgan’s insights, we argue that the principles derived from play and sport not only inform ethical behavior and personal interactions but also provide valuable frameworks for creating sustainable and equitable solutions to pressing global problems. Through this philosophical exploration, we aim to demonstrate how the values of play can guide humanity towards a more harmonious and fair future.

In reflecting on recent events such as the Mind Sports Olympiad and the Olympic Games, we see how humanity’s dual nature of competition and cooperation plays out in real-world contexts. These observations provide a backdrop for our exploration of how the philosophy of play can inform our responses to contemporary challenges.

General Impact

Play, as a fundamental human activity, transcends mere entertainment. It is a mode of being that fosters creativity, cooperation, and ethical conduct. Huizinga, in his seminal work, posits that play is a primary condition of culture. It is through play that humans first engage with rules, strategies, and the concepts of fairness and competition. Play is not confined to childhood or leisurely pursuits but is intrinsic to the human experience. The principles of fair play, mutual respect, and the joy of engagement are central to the philosophy of play and offer a template for addressing broader societal issues.

The values acquired through play have a profound impact on personal relationships. Games teach participants the importance of cooperation, trust, and communication – skills that are directly applicable to real-life interactions. For example, cooperative board games require players to strategize collectively, consider each other’s perspectives, and work towards a common goal. These dynamics reflect the essence of healthy relationships, where mutual understanding and collaboration are crucial.

Moreover, the ethical dimensions of play, such as adherence to rules and maintaining sportsmanship, reinforce moral principles essential for harmonious living. When individuals internalize these values through play, they are more likely to exhibit integrity and fairness in their personal and professional lives. Play thus functions as a microcosm for developing ethical individuals who contribute positively to society.

Professional sports offer a broader stage for observing and practicing the principles of fair play. True fair play extends beyond merely following rules; it encompasses respect for opponents, humility in victory, and grace in defeat. These values are crucial for maintaining the integrity of sports and fostering a sense of community among participants and spectators.

However, the commercialization and commodification of sports pose significant challenges. The pressure to win at any cost can lead to unethical practices such as doping, match-fixing, and other forms of cheating, undermining the spirit of fair play and eroding public trust in sports institutions. Philosophical reflection on the nature and purpose of sports can help address these issues. By emphasizing the intrinsic values of sportsmanship and the joy of play, we can resist the negative effects of market forces and restore the ethical foundation of sports.

The principles of play also offer valuable insights for addressing global challenges. For instance, tackling climate change requires unprecedented levels of international cooperation and strategic thinking. The collaborative and competitive aspects of play can inspire innovative solutions and foster a sense of shared responsibility. Just as players must work together to achieve a common objective, nations and individuals must collaborate to mitigate the impacts of climate change and protect the environment.

Similarly, the rapid advancement of AI presents both opportunities and risks. The development and deployment of AI technologies should be guided by ethical considerations that prioritize human well-being and fairness. The values learned through play, such as respect for rules and the importance of fair competition, can inform the ethical frameworks governing AI. Viewing AI development through the lens of play helps ensure that these technologies enhance, rather than undermine, human flourishing.

Political structures and environmental degradation are interconnected issues that require a reevaluation of our approaches to governance and resource management. The cooperative and strategic elements of play offer valuable insights into these domains. In a well-designed game, players balance competing interests, negotiate with others, and make decisions that benefit the group. These skills are directly applicable to political leadership and environmental stewardship.

For instance, the concept of the ‘social contract,’ central to political philosophy, can be viewed as a form of cooperative play where citizens and leaders agree on the rules and objectives of governance. By fostering a culture of fair play and mutual respect, we can create political systems that are more responsive to the needs of all stakeholders and better equipped to address complex issues such as environmental degradation.

Incorporating the philosophy of play into our approach to global challenges provides a holistic and humanistic perspective. Play teaches us to value the process over the outcome, engage ethically with others, and find joy in collective endeavors. These lessons are crucial for building a sustainable and fair future. By embracing the values of play, we can cultivate a society that prioritizes well-being, fairness, and cooperation.

Moreover, the flexibility and adaptability inherent in play can help us navigate the uncertainties of the future. Just as players must adjust their strategies in response to changing game dynamics, we must be prepared to adapt to evolving global conditions. This requires a mindset that values creativity, resilience, and the ability to learn from failure – qualities nurtured through play.

Philosophy, through its exploration of play, offers profound insights for ensuring the future of humanity. The principles of fair play, cooperation, and ethical conduct learned through play are essential for addressing personal, societal, and global challenges. By fostering a culture that values the intrinsic joy and ethical dimensions of play, we can build a more harmonious, just, and sustainable world.

In the spirit of Huizinga’s Homo Ludens, let us recognize the transformative potential of play in shaping the future of humanity. Whether through personal relationships, professional sports, or societal governance, the values and skills cultivated through play are indispensable. As we confront the complex challenges of the 21st century, let us embrace the philosophy of play as a guiding framework for a brighter future ¹.

The Impact of a Particular Theoretical Case

To deepen our exploration of how the sportive-playful dimension can affect individuals' lives and societal structures, we examine the theoretical contributions of William Morgan, particularly his concept of ‘deep conventionalism.’ In his seminal 1994 work, Morgan critiques contemporary sport theory, exposing the limitations of prevailing ‘externalist’ perspectives that dominated the field. He argues that these perspectives often overlook the internal logic and intrinsic values of sport, leading to a superficial understanding of its nature.

Morgan’s critique (1994: 182) targets ‘critical theory,’ which he believes attempts to assert universal principles detached from specific social and historical contexts. He argues that this approach is inherently flawed because it seeks a transcendental perspective that fails to account for the immanent, culturally grounded nature of sports. Instead, Morgan (1994: 181 ff.) advocates for an ‘immanent approach’ that recognizes the complex interplay between social practices and their historical contexts.

Central to Morgan’s argument is the distinction between ‘vulgar ethnocentric’ and ‘reflective ethnocentric’ approaches. The former reinforces prevailing belief systems without critique, while the latter critiques cultural norms, offering a more nuanced understanding of sports. This distinction highlights the need for a theoretical framework that appreciates the deeper, often unspoken conventions that underpin sporting practices.

For the author (1994: 65-66), a persistent problem lingers in the background. Regardless of the merits of the critical theoretical project or the thoughtful aspects it may present, such as a ‘non-vulgar’ approach to ethnocentrism, if its proponents (whom we will not address here) argue that no social practice is autonomous from others within the same social framework, then all must reflect the logic of capitalism, including sports. This premise leads to the predominance of the ‘externalizing’ tendency.

Morgan’s (1994: 45, 86) analysis contends that sport possesses a fundamentally non-instrumental character, marked by what he describes as the ‘logic of sport itself’ and its ‘gratuitous manner.’ This logic involves creating challenging situations by introducing unnecessary obstacles, setting sport apart from ordinary life, where obstacles are typically avoided. Morgan aligns himself with MacIntyre’s concept of ‘social practices,’ which recognizes that sports, as social practices, have their own internal goods and constitutive rules.

Morgan critiques the conflation of ‘internal’ and ‘institutional’ aspects in critical theory, arguing that this conflation obscures the essence of sport. He suggests that a clearer distinction between sport and institutional matters could help preserve the internal values of sport, preventing their dilution by external pressures.

In his later work, particularly in his 2012 article on ‘broad internalism’² and ‘deep conventions,’ Morgan refines his earlier positions. He differentiates between ‘coordinating conventions,’ which merely coordinate actions, and ‘deep conventions,’ which embody normative principles that offer a richer understanding of sport. Morgan’s (2012: 79) revision introduces a ‘historical turn,’ recognizing the importance of historical and contextual factors in shaping sport’s conventions.

Morgan’s (2012: 83) analysis contrasts the English ‘amateur’ perspective with the American ‘professional’ perspective of the late 19th century. He argues that while amateurism emphasized playing for love of the game and avoiding instrumental benefits, professionalization introduced specialization and pragmatism. Morgan asserts that ‘broad internalism’ fails to address these distinctions, focusing only on rational considerations, and ultimately attributing the same sport principle to two such contrasting views, while ‘deep conventions’ provide a more comprehensive understanding of sport’s essence, being mindful of the differences.

Morgan’s approach is marked by a rejection of transcendentalism, advocating instead for a perspective that acknowledges the complex interplay between historical, social, and institutional factors. His work emphasizes the need for a theoretical framework that respects the historical and contextual dimensions of sports, offering a richer understanding of their internal conventions. This is why Morgan is seen by his debate partners as an ‘anti-realist internalist,’ contrasting with the ‘realism’ of Simon (2015: 30 ff. for a response to these objections), Russell (2004), and Dixon (2003), the main proponents of ‘broad internalism,’ or ‘interpretivism.’

In summary, William Morgan’s theoretical contributions provide valuable insights into the nature of sport and its role in shaping societal values. His concept of ‘deep conventionalism’ underscores the importance of recognizing the internal logic and historical context of sports, offering a more nuanced perspective that can inform our understanding of play and its broader implications for society.³

Conclusion, or the invitation to non-empty sportiness

The interplay of play, sport, and game with philosophy illuminates pathways for addressing humanity’s most pressing challenges. As Bernard Suits suggests, future perspectives on today’s contributions to games and sports may mirror how modern physicists view early elemental theories. This underscores the transformative potential embedded in the philosophy of play.

Philosophy’s exploration of play provides not only a lens for appreciating the intrinsic values of fair play, cooperation, and ethical conduct but also a practical framework for addressing global issues. By drawing on Johan Huizinga’s insights and William Morgan’s concept of ‘deep conventionalism,’ we see that the principles of play can guide us through contemporary dilemmas. The cooperative spirit inherent in play, the ethical rigor fostered through sportsmanship, and the strategic adaptability seen in games offer valuable frameworks for tackling climate change, AI, and political challenges.⁴

For instance, Michael Sandel’s emphasis on justice in Justice: What’s the Right Thing to Do? aligns with the ethical dimensions of play, advocating for fairness and the common good. Richard Sennett’s The Craftsman supports this by illustrating how dedication and integrity in craftsmanship reflect the virtues found in meaningful play and sports.

By integrating these philosophical perspectives into our approach to global challenges, we can foster a more equitable and sustainable future. The values of play, with their focus on process over outcome and cooperation over competition, provide a robust framework for addressing personal and societal issues. Embracing this philosophy enables us to envision a future where humanity flourishes in a just and harmonious world.

As we navigate the complexities of the 21st century, let us draw with no illusions on the lessons from the philosophy of play and sport. Just as games and sports reveal deeper truths about human nature and societal values, they also offer practical solutions for our challenges.

To sum up, while we may not all achieve the ideal of becoming ‘grasshoppers’ (players) – as Bernard Suits envisioned in his 1978 work – we can nonetheless aspire to approach this ideal (not necessarily his utopia) by working to transform social conditions. This involves broadening access to play and sport for the general population and using the principles inherent in play as a guiding framework. By fostering environments where play is valued and accessible to all, we can embody the virtues of creativity, cooperation, and ethical conduct. Embracing these principles helps us align more closely with the ideal of play as a transformative force for individual and collective well-being.

◊ ◊ ◊

References

Dixon, N. (2003). “Canadian figure skaters, French judges, and realism in sport.” Journal of the Philosophy of Sport, 30 (2): 103-16.

Huizinga, J. (1949). Homo Ludens. A Study of the Play-Element in Culture [Homo Ludens. Proeve Eener Bepaling Van Het Spel-element Der Cultuur, 1938]. Transl. by R. F. C. Hull. London, Boston and Henley, Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1980, reprinted.

MacIntyre, A. (1981). After Virtue. A Study in Moral Theory. 3^rd^ ed. Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press, 2007.

Morgan, W. J. (1994). Leftist Theories of Sport: A Critique and Reconstruction. Champaign: University of Illinois Press.

Morgan, W. J. (2012). “Broad Internalism, Deep Conventions, Moral Entrepreneurs, and Sport.” Journal of the Philosophy of Sport, 39 (1): 65-100.

Russell, J. S. (2004). “Moral Realism in Sport.” Journal of the Philosophy of Sport, 31 (2): 142-160.

Sandel, M. J. (2009). Justice: What’s the Right Thing to Do?. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Sennett, R. (2008). The Craftsman. Yale University Press.

Simon, R. L. (2015). “Internalism and Sport.” In M. McNamee; W. Morgan (eds.). Routledge Handbook of the Philosophy of Sport. London; New York: Routledge: 22-34.

Suits, B. (1978). The Grasshopper: Games, Life and Utopia. Canada: Broadview Press, 2005.

Suits, B. (1983). “Games and Utopia. Posthumous Reflections.” Simulation & Games, 15 (1), 1984: 5-24.

Notes

---

1. However, we must take Huizinga’s work with a grain of salt: in many respects, his original proposal is limited and subject to fundamental criticism, which we have addressed in other works. ↩︎

2. ‘Broad internalism’ suggests a justification for the ‘rules,’ regardless of their type, referring the core of the vision to ‘intrinsic underlying principles,’ such as ‘fairness,’ ‘competitive excellence’ and the like, which underpin the type of rules that make up the ‘game.’ ↩︎

3. Just as Huizinga, Morgan and other interlocutors have been criticized in our previous work, it is nevertheless important to recognize the valuable insights that can still be gleaned from their contributions. ↩︎

4. Unlike Morgan, we cannot confine our attention solely to the internal aspects of the game or sport; we must broaden our perspective to include the wider relationships and contexts at play. However, as we’ve explored, this doesn’t preclude us from keeping his insights close at hand. ↩︎

Related

Can Philosophy Save Us?

November 18, 2024

We and They

November 9, 2024

A “Philos” of We

November 3, 2024

Philosophy and the Climate Crisis

October 25, 2024

The Surprising Threat to Human Society

October 18, 2024

Jean Arnaud on AI and the Future

April 6, 2024