What Goals? Which Point? Whose Purpose? A Critical Engagement with Sport Internalism
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper seems well-structured and well-argued against the background of relevant theoretical references and problems.
One minor issue might be the introduction, which muses on the value of "conceptual tools" to interpret experiences and understand aspects of reality and promises to "introduce a conceptual lens". However, it is unclear what this actually implies in the text, since this phrasing is later replaced by talk of a "theoretical framework" and then seems to be dropped entirely; in the conclusion it is rather stated that the text has examined "historical and conceptual foundations" etc. Some clarification and consistency might be desired on this point.
In general, the conclusion could benefit from some development to provide more concrete demonstrations of what the paper actually achieves, especially considering the rich analytical segments, where interesting matters of conceptual rigour and ethical significance are fleshed out. At present, the somewhat abstract implications in the conclusion seem skeletal in comparison.
There also appears to be a few typographical inconsistencies with fonts and indents that ought to be cleaned up.
Author Response
Thanks for these helpful comments. I have added more feedback to better align the earlier point about conceptual tools with the rest of the article. Additionally, I have rewritten the conclusion to highlight those points and give readers a more comprehensive conclusion.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article is well structured, well referenced, and makes a valuable contribution.
I have, however, two remarks.
First, the opening paragraph (the introduction) does not seem necessary, as it develops a meta-level or reflexive idea only indirectly related to the paper. The relevance of this connection could itself be questioned: are the conceptual tools developed in the paper genuinely mobilized by an intuitive understanding of sport that would converge with, or already anticipate, the paper’s argument? As the article itself acknowledges, the central intuition is already operative among actors within the sporting world. Unless a more extensive justification were provided to render this introduction robust, it might therefore be preferable to remove it.
Second, the section title on p. 18—“The continuity between the purposes and the point as well as the goals of sport”—could be improved. This section notably introduces a distinction between vertical and horizontal dimensions, whose progression could be made more explicit.
Author Response
I have revised parts of the section discussing the connection among the purposes of sport, its goals, and its point. Hopefully, my ideas are clearer now. I also rewrote the conclusion and several other sentences to better emphasize links with the first paragraph. Although I could definitely cut it, other reviewers have liked it, so I decided to keep it. Thanks for helping me identify areas in the paper that greatly benefited from stronger connections.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsComments
P2; L 38: us vs them story: This framing is exaggerated and unnecessary. There is no doubt a general rejection of externalism in favor of some form of internalism. First, I can’t think of a explicit defender of externalism but more than that the literature is just not framed as battle of internalism v externalism. It is far more one of refinement of internalism; or disputes between versions of internalism. I don’t see the antagonism suggested by a story of us vs them.
P3; l72: “about how the reasons why people engage in games are hardly a defining element of this kind of activity, but instead of the lives of the individuals partaking in games”: feels to me like there is a word missing here. Maybe should read more like: “…but instead defining of the lives of …”
P4; l84: might be worth changing this “also known as” to “also regarded as a kind of”. Simon, to be my memory, never used that term to described his own view – though many others have (and I think accurately). Nevertheless, the way it is written could give the inaccurate impression that Simon referred to his view as a kind of interpretivism.
P11; l227: “ruminations on gameplay” I wonder if a better word choice is needed here. ‘ruminations’ can sometimes have a negative valence that I don’t think is intended here.
P12: lines 245-252: This seems to conflate the obstacles in the game as being unnecessary obstacles with there being activities that have meaning for the participants as being necessary. That is, it seems true that there are specific activities that given the socio-historical context are regarded as necessary (though that strikes me as too strong – at least ones that are extremely important, meaningful, etc) while also being true that the obstacles in a sub-set of activities are themselves not necessary.
P12; lines 261: “impactful” Word choice?
Page 14-15: The author should include a discussion Loland’s distinction between structural goals and intentional goals (From his Fair Play).
P16: lines 339: “same goals”: It is not clear in what sense the footballers are pursuing the same goals. There are similarities, but the sameness here needs to be better explained and detailed – since this is playing a key role in the argument.
P17: lines 363-65: It may be true that the ground of the purposes of participants is underexplained; it is not clear why a theory of sport – a theory seeking to explain what sport is –necessarily has to provide those grounds. Certainly, if there is a wide variance between the why and the what that suggests a real problem with the account, but conceptional these are distinct accounts. The account of ‘what a pizza is’ different than the account of ‘why people want pizza’. I think asking for the philosophical account of “what” to necessarily explain the full “why” is a asking for a theory to do too much. Or, that the “what” doesn’t speak directly (or fully) to the “why” is not necessarily an inadequacy or incompleteness of the what-theory – at least not with some further account of why that is inadequate.
Line 373: “why humans should engage” following my previous comment: it is not at all clear or obvious that the theory of what sport is (or any practice is) has to explain why humans should engage in it. It is obvious that the theory of why or theory of should-engage has to appeal to the “what”; it is not obvious it has to go the other direction.
P18: lines 382-87: This seems to elide the distinction between proscriptive and prescriptive rules.
Line 393: “chronists” is an unusual usage; the far more common is “chronicler”
Page 19; line 396: “MacIntyre identifies the pursuit of good internal” I think there should be an ‘s’ after good so that it reads: “pursuit of goods internal”
Line 414: It is true that virtues govern how we engage with each other; but I also take MacIntyre's point to be that the virtues govern how we pursue the internal goods; or more precise that what counts as a virtue is rooted in the standards of excellence and internal goods. The discussion here seems to treat virtue as something distinct and then applied to the social practice. If so, that seems an incorrect usage of MacIntyre.
Page 20; line 419 and the following: The first sentence of the paragraph says the virtues frame the normative context but then the rest of the paragraph goes in a seemingly different direction; more along the lines that standards of excellence and achievement of internal goods is inadequate. It is a confusing switch.
Also I am not sure it is an accurate/fair account of things. I don’t think anyone applying MacIntyrean Social Practices to sport thinks that possession of refined technical skills is sufficient for virtue or for meeting the standards of excellence and internal goods of the social practice. These are more deeply tied together, they support the whole. I take part of the point of the Social Practice view is precisely to argue against the idea of merely being technically good of the sport is not enough: it wants to pull in more normative heft from the goods internal and the standards and traditions supporting them.
In other words, I found this section confusing. I wasn’t clear what your target was or how it fit into your overall argument.
P21; lines 445-47: This horizontal/vertical axis metaphor doesn’t work for me. It seems to elide the ways these interact with each other in deeper and more mutually entangled ways than this metaphor provides. To put them in two axes like this suggests more independence and distinctness when these, the standards, the virtues, traditions, goods internal, are all part of a kind of whole of the practice. They don’t just govern the practice: they partially constitute it. I don’t think this H/V metaphor captures that.
P22 line 462 “practices introduce regularities…” ‘introduces’ suggests too conscious or too directed of a process. Practices are more organic and evolutionary. I’d suggest something more like: “practices develop regularities…” or “practices evolve regularities…”
P23 Line 492: “constructed”: similar concern as previous. ‘Constructed’ suggests more a directed/planned process when practices seem more likely (and I think this fits better with your account of the influence of socio-historical factors) to develop or evolve through the actions and interactions of the participants—not through a planner constructing them.
Line 498: indent for paragraph start.
Line 500: “people’s interest in crafting activities”: I think this should be: “people’s interest in crafting and participating in activities” to reflect that most people participate in the activities and are not directly involved in creating them (except insofar as they create them through their participation – but even then the intentional goal is participation, not crafting).
More broadly: this paragraph ends the section where the author says they have analyzed the goal-point-purpose triad and that shows how it leads to an approach that incorporates socio-historical factors. The distinctions between the three concepts needs to be clearer and brighter; I am not sure at this point in the paper how the author would distinguish the three concepts. I am also not sure the triad analysis is necessary for recognizing a need to bring in the broader basis of socio-historical factors and the complexity mentioned. This all needs to be much clearer and more explicit.
Page 24: line 526: other games are possible: such as? If other types are possible, what are they?
Page 25; lines 533-34: “Socially, Suits regards gameplay as a fundamental activity for crafting societies that combat the adverse effects of automation and foster a more fulfilling way of life”
I am not sure why this sentence is introduced as “socially”: not clear what work that is doing. But also, I think it is a bit too loose. The citation is not for Suits; it’s for an interpretation of Suits. That should be clearer in the setup. As written it sounds like the author is attributing this view to Suits based on Suits own writing. I’d suggest: “Suits can be seen as regarding” (or something more felicitous). Or using a citation directly from Suits.
The following sentence quotes Suits; however, the quotation is about games in Utopia, so it is not at all obvious that it applies here.
P26: lines 563-70: These criticisms from Lenk and bäck seem wildly off the mark and irrelevant. The dominant views of philosophy of sport, insofar as they are kinds of broad internalism or based on MacIntyrean social practice theory, are focused on excellence, but they are based much more on a kind of classical view of these things. Not Victorian or Protestant views. It really makes no sense to me.
P27 line 572: “rob it a bit of its playful character”: Why should that be? This might be unfair by me: since the author is quoting others: but the author seems to agree with Lenk and bäck, so the author is responsible for defending the claims made.
Line 581: I’m mixed on Nguyen’s point here. There is truth to it: the focus is more on professional/Olympic/Elite sport. But I don’t think recreational or child’s sport is ignored or neglected. It’s something worth thinking about: these might be two distinct kinds of activities with different accounts (a la Keating) or maybe there is a grand theory that unites them. But maybe that stretches things too broadly making the concept of ‘sport’ to thin/empty.
Page 28: line 593: “mere competition” This is odd. Is it implying that Broad Internalism views competition in this way? That seems inaccurate.
Line 605: “skewed nature” Where is this highlighted? How is it skewed?
609-10: “challenging the prevailing focus on excellence” How so? This (the two paragraphs on this page) is too unclear. I am not sure what is Russell’s view here, what is the criticism he is offering. The explication of Russell and what he’s doing (and its relevance) needs to be much clearer.
Page 29: 625-626: are excellence-related ends and modest competence meant to be in opposition with each other? That strikes me as an odd way to look at this.
Line 631: internalism-externalism paradigm.: unclear how this follows: What is externalist about the analysis? How is this discussion surpassing this?
P30: “purist fans”: I think a different descriptor is needed here to prevent confusion with Dixon’s usage of purist fan in the literature. The author here means something more like a traditionalist fan (while Dixon’s usage is quite distinct from that.)
General:
There is a lot to like in this paper; it has potential. But it also needs to be much clearer and more focused. The triad of goals-point-purpose needs to be explicated much better. It needs to be made clearer why the confusion or running together of these concepts in the traditional theories causes problems in the theories. To the extent that the author wants to make the case for surpassing the internalism-externalism paradigm, they need to do more work on explaining why externalism is rejected or downplayed: namely the claims that seem to fit externalism seem irrelevant to giving an account of what sport is. The way I read this, the author sees externalism, or better, externalist considerations as being relevant for the why: the motivational reasons for engaging in sport. The internalists don’t deny that, they just don’t think it is necessary to account for the ‘why’ when explaining the ‘what’: Internalism is supposed to be explaining the ‘what’: and then using that “what” as grounds for normative claims about sport. The why is important for many reasons but, on the internalist view, it is distinct from the “what” and not necessary to it. (though the what does seem necessary, logically prior to, the why) The author thus needs to show more clearly why the “why” is essential to the account of sport: that the “what” cannot be explained, understood, etc., without the “why.”
Author Response
Thank you for your exhaustive and extremely helpful review. I rarely benefit from this kind of feedback. Hopefully, you’ll think I did justice to it. The attached document explains how I've addressed all your comments and suggestions. Again, thank you very much for your help with this.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsWhile the author and I have some substantive disagreements about some matters, I think they have addressed my concerns about the clarity of their argument.
