CC BY
6RELIGIOUS AND POLITICAL GROUNDS OF AGONAL-SPORTS TRADITION AND ITS EFFECT ON THEORY AND METHODOLOGY OF SPORTS EDUCATION A.A. Peredel'sky, associate professor, Dr.Hab. A. Kirtoake, postgraduate student
Russian State University of Physical Culture, Sport, Youth and Tourism, Moscow Key words: religious and political grounds, agonal-sports tradition, sports education.
Introduction. Promoting scientific or scientific-philosophical analysis of modern sport, we often forget that sport, acting as a subject of this analysis, as a real sociocultural phenomenon, is not created, but merely reflected, comprehended in this analysis. Sport is not a creation of any science or philosophy focused on it, though it is influenced by both of them. As a complex system of homogeneous diversified social activity, in the unity of its verbal and nonverbal communication forms, sport is an integrative result or product of extensively sociocultural program that has been developing and implementing its potential since ancient times. This means that one can speak only about the role of science and scientific philosophy in the formation of the indicated program education only from the second half of the XIX century, and even then without any claim to the absolutization of the rational-logical secular origin. Hence, the most fundamental, in terms of specific historical substantiation, formation of ideological and methodological grounds of the agonal-sports tradition is beyond the scope of scientific and secular, in the field of religious and political sectors of the sociocultural program of formation of sport.
The purpose of the study was to determine the dependence of the theory and methodology of modern sports education from evolving religious and political grounds of the world agonal-sports tradition.
Results and discussion. For a start, any attempt to avoid or ignore a historically specific analysis of a great variety of stages, models of development of sport in favor of the abstract globalistic attitudes and formal-logical generalizations lacks scientific certainty and is prospectless as it does not reflect the real existence of sport neither in old time nor in the modern world. Therefore, there emerges a problem of the scientifically grounded correction, "removing" of the globalistic and formal-logical distortion of the history and essence of sport. This problem can be solved in different ways. For instance, by means of the explicit proof of the following theses.
1. There has never been a universal or globalistic, averaged model of sport in real history due to different historically specific grounds for the development of sport. That is why it would be incorrect and inappropriate to loosely generalize its essence by means of simplification to several (all the more so, to one or two) most characteristic features.
2. The tendency to globalization and secularization of sports culture in the past, present and foreseeable future is accompanied with and, at least, is counterbalanced by the reverse tendency, which is
first and foremost expressed in nationalization, specific socio-cultural (or ethno-cultural) adaptation of sport.
It should be noted that measurement and evaluation of the level of prevalence of a particular tendency is also a prerogative of the purely historically specific, empirical analysis. However, the study of the country specific conditions for the existence of sport and its social singularity is "a-priory" considered as the objective none the less important than the study of the international conditions for its functioning.
We will try to propose the correct approach to substantiation and solution of the three tasks consistently emerging in the light of the foregoing:
- to present sport as a unity of the historically specific, primarily, religious and political diversity;
- to reveal the criteria of the analysis and evaluation of the singularity of the national models of
sport;
- to determine and substantiate the indicators of the necessary modification of any national sports education system as compared to the virtual abstract-globalistic socio-cultural, to be more precise, common civilizational sports education matrix.
Let us briefly analyze the essence of the first task. With reference to the world agonal-sports tradition, even "at a first approximation" not one, but two well-defined interdependent and intercontrapositive ancient models of sport should be singled out: agonal (Greek, Hellenistic) and Coliseum type (Roman, imperial) [1]. These models differ much in the common formational, economic, social, political, cultural and religious grounds. Thus, the agonal model was formed during the clan system, then evolved during the tribal, military-democratic, and slave-owning systems, having preserved its root clan essence. The Coliseum type model as such was formed in the slave-owning society and reflected and shaped its basic principles.
Originally the economy of the agonal model hinged on individual and communal (private and public) donations. The economy of the Coliseum type model was a part of a well-developed system of the slave-owning commodity-money relations, and was based on powerful patronage, budgeting of sports pari-mutuel, sales and purchasing agent network for athletes.
It was not just free people who took part in agonal games, they were true citizens of the polises identifying themselves as Greek, and then as broader, but still country-specific Hellenistic ethnic group(s). Roman sport eliminated all social and ethno-national restrictions at the level of competitions. Representatives of different social groups were able to become athletes (from slaves to emperors, from Roman citizens to savage barbarians) irrespective of any, even the broadest imperial identification.
From a political point of view, agons primarily served for ethno-national self-determination and national building; Roman sport - for a large-scale (first - republican, later - imperial) political lobbyism, that is, in fact, social-class opposition and disintegration inside the Roman world itself.
The Greek religious "cults of life" were fully expressed in agons both ritually and ideologically, and the Latin religious "death cults" were quite as full expressed in the Roman (Latin) sport.
Huge substantial (both form- and content-related) difference between the agonal and Coliseum type models can be clearly presented in their brief model characteristics.
The agonal model of the actually historical reality implies:
- a compulsory 4-year athlete training cycle;
- a relatively game-like, partially extreme conditionality of the elaborately regimented contest, absence of fatal cases which were an unconditional norm in competitions;
- a close interaction between the body-motor practice and the Ancient Greek philosophy, including the proto-humanistic tradition;
- participation in competitions as a great honor and social responsibility, a voluntary act and free decision of athletes.
The Coliseum type model of the actually historical reality proceeds from:
- "floating", contextual cyclicity of athletes' training, up to its complete disregard;
- totally extreme, almost unconditional, though partially regulated, nature of applied combats, acceptance of fatality as the limit norm in competitions;
- almost absolute absence of close interaction between the body-motor practice and the ancient philosophic proto-humanistic tradition;
- emphasis on the forced, involuntary and humiliating for most athletes decision to participate in competitions.
In conclusion we would like to emphasize the following. One can easily notice that the modern agonal-sports practice, which is so distinct and sharp, lacks contraposition between the model features (at least, no evident one). Modern elite sport, Olympic and professional sport are morally and legally based on an averaged matrix. However, objectively and subjectively the limits and the essence of this matrix are utterly blurred, "vague", and range depending on a number of specific conditions for existence and promotion of sport. And if secular restructuring and rational and logical appearance of sports culture are the centerpiece of the abstract averaging, then the bottom line of the specific variation and polarization of the models of sport is its ethno-national, particularly religious and political adaptation, which in fact can develop one and the same specific sport model in the widest range from the agonal to the Coliseum type model.
The next stage of our analysis is to find out whether there is the right answer to the question of the singularity of the national models of sport. We will immediately dare to assume that a particular recurrence of its religious and political implementation will take place (it cannot be avoided) at the national level of the specific existence of sport. Since various branches of every stable national socio-cultural program (such as politics, religion, science, education, sport, art) are intercorrelated and act as a well-balanced unity.
Consequently, national sport cannot but be religiously and politically formatted in a particular way. This very nationally specific form of sports culture is reflected in the system of core education. Of course, on condition that this system addresses the needs of its ethno-social community, rather than a foreign puppet program is being realized within it. But in the latter case there will still be determination. It will be foreign and will not comply with the national interests of the fundamental part of the country population.
Religious studies of the historically specific national coordinate system enable to form every time a relatively unique image of national, and, therefore, religious and political existence of such a culture as sport that has long been internationalized. Based on the above, we will try to mark the key points of the national functioning of the world's agonal-sports tradition in the Republic of Moldova.
References
1. Peredelsky, A.A. Ancient Greek physical education and agonistics, ancient Roman
sport as an anthological basis for genetic definitions of the concepts of "physical culture" and "sport" / A.A. Peredelsky, S.A. Konikov // Fizicheskaya kultura: vospitanie, obrazovanie, trenirovka. - 2010. - № 5. - P. 59-64. (In Russian)
Corresponding author: [email protected]
