1

A NEW WORLD IS POSSIBLE

Dunja and Ljubodrag Duci Simonović
E‐mail: comrade@orion.rs

Published in 2007 in Belgrade ( Serbia) by the authors

Translation from Serbian
Vesna Todorović/Petrović

Translation supervision
Mick Collins

Cover / artistic design of frontal cover page
Ljubodrag Simonović

Back cover page
Arkadij Rilov ‐ „In the Blue Space“, 1918
„Tretiakov Gallery“, Moscow

Cover / technical design
Ivan Simonović

Desk‐top editing
Tomislav I. Ignjatović

Printed by "FineGraf"
Belgrade, Serbia

Dedicated to the North‐American Indians, the victims of the largest genocide in the human
history – committed by American capitalism










 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS


BASIS OF CONTEMPORARY CRITICAL THEORY OF CAPITALISM………………………..4

SPORT AND CULT……………………………………………………………………………………………20

Cult of Competition………………………………………………………………………………….20
Cult of Record………………………………………………………………………………………….23
Cult of the Body……………………………………………………………………………………….25
Maurice Merleau‐Ponty: Body as “Being‐in‐the World”……………………………..30
Cult of the Existing World…………………………………………………………………...……36

SPORT AND CULTURE……………………………………………………………………………………..41

Max Horkheimer: Sport as the “Continuity of Cultural Tradition”…………….42
Sport and Christianity……………………………………………………………………………..45
Sport and Enlightenment………………………………………………………………………...47
Fair‐play and Kant’s “Categorical Imperative”…………………………………………..48
Sport and Language………………………………………………………………………………..57
Body Language of the Deaf‐Mute Children………………………………………………60
Dancing Movement………………………………………………………………………………….61
Rudolf Laban: “Movement Education”……………………………………………………..66

SPORT AND PHILOSOPHY………………………………………………………………………………...78

Sport in the Light of the Philosophy of Play……………………………………………..78
Eugen Fink: Play as a “Symbol of the World”……………………………………………87
Jean‐Paul Sartre: Play as the Road to Being……………………………………………...96
Roger Caillois: Play as an Escape……………………………………………………………104

SPORT AND ART…………………………………………………………………………………………….112

Sports and Artistic Competition……………………………………………………………..112
The Aesthetics of the Sports Spectacle…………………………………………………...114
“Individual Actions”……………………………………………………………………………….116
The Principle of “Perfection”………………………………………………………………….124
Sport and Drama…………………………………………………………………………………...129
Sport and Music…………………………………………………………………………………….134

 3

SPORT AND PEDAGOGY………………………………………………………………………………...137

“Sports Pedagogy”……………………………………………………………………………….137
School – Faculty…………………………………………………………………………………...142
“Physical Culture”………………………………………………………………………………...146
Pedagogy of Libertarian Physical Culture……………………………………………..148
“Humanization of Sport”………………………………………………………………………151

SPORT AND LABOUR…………………………………………………………………………………….154

Play as the “Respite from Work”…………………………………………………………..154
Charles Fourier: Labour as Play…………………………………………………………...156
Labour, Praxis, Poetical, Play………………………………………………………………...160
Herbert Marcuse: “Liberating Transformation of Nature”…………………….167

LIFE AS PLAY………………………………………………………………………………………………..171

Libertarian Play…………………………………………………………………………………...171
Space and Time……………………………………………………………………………………172
Nature…………………………………………………………………………………………………174
Play as a Form……………………………………………………………………………………..182
Play as a Cosmic Phenomenon……………………………………………………………..186
Life as Play…………………………………………………………………………………………..189

NOTES………………………………………………………………………………………………………….195

BIBLIOGRAPHY…………………………………………………………………………………………….199













 4

BASIS OF CONTEMPORARY CRITICAL

THEORY OF CAPITALISM



The final stage of a mortal combat between mankind and capitalism is in progress.
A specificity of capitalism is that, in contrast to "classical" barbarism (which is of
destructive, murderous and plundering nature), it annihilates life by creating a "new
world" – a "technical civilization" and an adequate, dehumanized and denaturalized man.
Capitalism has eradicated man from his natural environment and has cut off the roots
through which he drew life‐creating force. Cities are "gardens" of capitalism where
degenerated creatures "grow". Dog excrement, gasoline and sewerage stench, glaring
advertisements and police car rotating lights that howl through the night – this is the
environment of the "free world" man. By destroying the natural environment capitalism
creates increasingly extreme climatic conditions in which man is struggling harder and
harder to survive – and creates artificial living conditions accessible solely to the richest
layer of population, which cause definitive degeneration of man as a natural being.
"Humanization of life" is being limited to the creation of micro‐climatic conditions, of
special capitalistic incubators – completely commercialized artificial living conditions to
which degenerated people are appropriate.
The most dramatic truth is: capitalism can survive the death of man as a human
and biological being. For capitalism a “traditional man” is merely a temporary means of its
own reproduction. "Consumer‐man" represents a transitional phase in the capitalism‐
caused process of mutation of man towards the "highest" form of capitalistic man: a robot‐
man. "Terminators" and other robotized freaks which are products of the Hollywood
entertainment industry which creates a "vision of the future" degenerated in a capitalist
manner, incarnate creative powers, alienated from man, which become vehicles for
destruction of man and life. A new "super race" of robotized humanoids is being created,
which should clash with "traditional mankind", meaning with people capable of loving,
thinking, daydreaming, fighting for freedom and survival – and impose their rule over the
Earth. Instead of a new world, a “new man” is being created – who has been reduced to a
level of humanity which cannot jeopardize the ruling order.
Science and technique have become the basic lever of capital for the destruction of
the world and the creation of "technical civilization". It is not only about destruction
achieved by the use of technical means. It is about technicization of social institutions, of
interpersonal relations, of the human body… Increasing transformation of nature into a
surrogate of "nature", increasing dehumanization of the society and increasing
denaturalization of man are direct consequences of capital's effort, within an increasingly
merciless global economic war, to achieve complete commercialization of both natural and
social environment. The optimism of the Enlightenment could hardly be unreservedly
 5

supported nowadays, the notion of Marx that man imposes on himself only such tasks as he
can solve, particularly the optimism based on the myth of the "omnipotence" of science and
technique. The race for profits has already caused irreparable and still unpredictable
damage to both man and his environment. By the creation of "consumer society", which
means through the transition of capitalism into a phase of pure destruction, such a
qualitative rise in destruction of nature and mankind has been performed that life on the
planet is literally facing a "countdown". Instead of the "withering away" (Engels) of
institutions of the capitalist society, the withering away of life is taking place. The thesis of
conservative bourgeois theoreticians, according to which the history of mankind ends with
capitalism, becomes more and more convincing. Unless it is prevented, capitalism will,
already by the beginning of the third millennium, finish off what remains of the world.
Scientists are a human form in which capitalism instrumentalizes natural forces in
order to control men and nature. They have been reduced to specialty‐idiots who, in a
“technical world”, where everything operates by "pressing a button" and where
"everything is under control", see an ideal world that should be longed for, and in a
machine‐man the "culmination of progress". Scientists, for whom "obtaining expertise" is
paid for with their humanity, perceive people as enemies and machines as "friends". The
same way profit and not man is essential to capitalists, "progress" and not man is essential
to scientists – progress being another name for profit, and "profit" being another name for
destruction. "The technical intelligentsia" are mutilated people not able to express their
humanity. Fear of people transforms into hatred of people. They consciously deprive
themselves of all those features that make them men, and they escape into a “technical
world” where they can "experiment" with machines, people, the living world… The power
of science and technique becomes the power of manipulation and destruction. For them the
“technical world” becomes the "natural" world and the highest esthetic challenge, like
Eiffel's tower, this capitalistic Tyrannosaurus, which symbolizes domination of "technical
civilization" over man.
It becomes more and more obvious that capitalism creates an increasingly deep
social and ecological crisis that it cannot control. The transition of capitalism is going on,
from the stage of "controlled" into a stage of uncontrolled chaos which is the ultimate
"answer" of the ruling order to its own incapacity to manage the increasingly dramatic
existential crisis – out of which either the tearing down of capitalism and the creating of the
new world, or the destruction of mankind and life on Earth, can be generated. The
consequences of capitalism cannot be controlled by means of social institutions, for those
have also become tools of capitalist corporations and are being used to achieve their
interests. Men are deprived of basic human rights: the right to live, to labour, to a healthy
environment, family, happiness, a future… A process of depersonalization by the capitalist
governance shows no responsibility for its own actions. Invisible and impossible to seize,
the spirit of capitalism, which becomes the fatal force of destiny, rules the world.
Multinational corporations destroy the international legal system, democratic institutions,
 6

the "social state"… The political arena becomes a political circus; politicians become
capital's court jesters. Public disputes on essential social issues are being replaced with
fabricated affairs. "Rule of law" becomes an ideological mask of capitalist tyranny.
Eventually, the political sphere becomes a vehicle of the ruling class used for depolitization
of citizens and extermination of trust in democratic institutions and hope for the possibility
of creating a rational social order that would be an incarnation of the guiding principles of
the French Revolution – upon which modern humanism is based. It turned out that
(Western) democracy is a political form of the rule of capital over man. Multinational
corporations destroy the emancipating legacy of civil society, and the institutions that
should offer a possibility for expression of the citizens' political will become the means for
achieving their interests instead. The possibilities for the political articulation of increasing
citizens' discontent through institutions are diminishing. A declining number of issues
determining the destiny of men are being raised in "representative bodies". A declining
number of people take an active part in the elections. Instead of being a political subject,
the citizen becomes a consumer of political programs. Everything occurs in accordance
with the principles of market economy, within which good advertising is of utmost
importance for the sale of products. "Money does not stink!" becomes the basic political
principle. Politics becomes an industry for production of "democratic" falsehoods and
illusions.
The more the crisis of capitalism develops, accompanied by the increasing
discontent of people – which unavoidably generates the need for creation of the new world,
for this is an existential imperative – the more aggressive are the efforts of the ruling class
to prevent its disintegration. The most important task of the governing politics is to make it
impossible for the objective possibilities for the change of the existing world to become real
potential for changes, through the change‐oriented practice of the oppressed. Therefore,
destruction of (critical) mind and "pacification" of the oppressed through idiotization
become the most important task of the governing propaganda machinery. Degenerated
capitalist rulers of the world develop increasingly horrible mechanisms for physical and
mental destruction of people. Governing politics is limited to technique for the
manipulation of the oppressed by which the emancipating legacy of civil society is being
annihilated while an increasingly aggressive relationship between races, nations, religions,
genders is being developed… Artificially provoked and controlled conflicts between people
are being imposed, in which trust in man and change‐oriented energy should burn out.
"General suspects" are being labeled so as to be accountable for the causes of discontent
and at which anger of citizens deprived of their rights should be vented. In this manner a
critical and change‐oriented relation towards the world and any class awareness are being
annihilated, while contemporary fascism is being created. Production of fear, used to
prepare the public for the use of the means of mass destruction (including atomic and
neutron bombs) by the "bad guys" around the globe, becomes the most important task of
the ruling propaganda machinery. The capitalist perpetuum mobile is in action: capitalism
 7

generates increasing discontent which is transformed, by means of politics limited to the

technique of redirection of people's discontent towards the accomplishment of anti‐human
political and economic goals, into a driving power for repression and destruction. The
governing regime tries to accomplish total criminalizing of the society, which means that
chaos is created – controlled by that very way of life based on the totalizing principle of
"Big fish devours small fish!"‐ within which all efforts to create a human world are being
degenerated. Criminalizing of the society becomes the most important form of integration
of the oppressed into a spiritual and existential orbit of capitalism and a way of dealing
with the libertarian (class) struggle. The specifics of the capitalist criminalizing of the
society go towards the expectation that it should eliminate a population "surplus", in other
words, the "non usable labour force". Biological destruction of the oppressed becomes the
most efficient way of controlling them. This method was "successfully" used by the
American administration with Indians in "reservations" all over the USA: methanol and
blankets infected with smallpox once played the role now assigned to AIDS, cigarettes,
drugs, poisoned food…
The faster the capital reproduction, the less space remains for humanity.
Capitalism destroys the family and all other forms of social life and produces lonely man,
for whom it becomes increasingly difficult to accept responsibility and to oppose the
capitalist craze. This is a psychological moment of extraordinary importance for the ruling
order. The growing misfortune becomes a generator of the growing evil into which the
average citizen (petit bourgeois) masochistically blends so as to avoid responsibility for the
annihilation of the world – in which process he, actively or passively, participates. No one
raises the issue in public any more of man's responsibility for the established global
"development" – for this responsibility implies the right to freedom and life. Therefore, the
concept of "future happiness" was replaced by the fear for life as the main behavioural
motivation factor. Capitalistically degenerated man has lost faith that he can do anything in
the social area, so he tries to barricade himself within his own atomized hopelessness and
to create his own micro‐world. "Freedom" of the slaves of capitalism is limited to the
possibility of purchasing an increasing variety of ever more destructive ways to "escape"
from everyday life offered by the entertainment industry. Capitalism generates the
pathological man that accepts destruction as way of life – the petit bourgeois is a man
degenerated in a capitalist way. He has become a victim of capitalist nothingness to such an
extent that he finds relief from the everyday agony he experiences in a vision of an ultimate
and spectacular annihilation of mankind: instinct for life transforms into instinct for
destruction.
Capitalism as a totalitarian order crushes the emancipating legacy of civil society
which opens a possibility for creation of the new world – and it produces forms of political
struggle that have a destructive nature. Terrorism is a capitalistically degenerated form of
the fight against capitalism – destructive violence that uses capitalist means and methods –
and only contributes to the intensification of the process of destruction. It does not long for
 8

creation of the new world, but for annihilation of the existing world. This is the essential
difference between revolutionary struggle and terrorist actions. Fanaticism, and not a
visionary conscious based on reason and freedom, dominates terrorist violence. Fanaticism
is a consequence of an increasingly merciless destruction of the world and people
performed by capitalist monopolies. A typical example is so‐called "Muslim extremism": it
is an unavoidable consequence of the more and more obvious Western effort to crush the
Muslims and take full control over oil deposits. At the same time, the "fight against
terrorism" is a new ideological mask of American imperialism which is analogous to the
"fight against Judaic bolshevism", a mask of the Nazi Drang nach Osten, annihilation of Jews
and Slavs and conquering of Lebensraum for German capital. "Fight against terrorism"
becomes a pretext for introduction of global terror by the most powerful capitalist
corporations. Those who terrorize the world in the form of the "fight against terrorism" try
to crush all those who threaten their efforts to transform the entire world into their own
concentration camp. The offered "protection" from terrorism is of a mafia nature: those
who do not accept the iron embrace of the "global policeman" will be exposed to the worst
American terror. "Global terrorism" becomes the “main danger that threatens mankind" –
this is being constantly repeated by servants of the American politics around the globe.
From its position towards terrorism one can view the real outreach and the real objectives
of the American politics: terrorism is neither ideological nor alignment‐related, but of a
global and anti‐existential nature.
Ruling oligarchies of the most developed capitalist countries are "solving" the
increasingly deep existential crisis within their respective societies by shifting it onto the
shoulders of the poor of the world. The survival of capitalism is directly conditioned by the
robbing and destruction of the entire world. Contemporary imperialism (which has been
named "globalism" by “Coca Cola intellectuals”), unlike its earlier historical forms that were
exploitative (Rob!) and genocidal (Kill!) in nature, is of an ecocide nature (Annihilate!).
NATO, IMF and other "international organizations" are only a vehicle the West uses for
carrying out its ecocide terrorism and the genocide politics based on it. A new fascism is
being established, based on total global capitalist terror: each part of the planet, and each
segment of life become means for capitalist reproduction – which means that life itself
becomes terror over man and the destruction of humanity. The always more intensive
destruction of life leads towards a radicalization of the genocide politics: destruction of an
increasingly large number of people becomes a precondition for the survival of an ever‐
smaller number of people. Within that context a theory of the "golden billion" has been
established which represents a strategic landmark for the political practice of the most
developed capitalist countries. This ecocide capitalist craze generates a growing fear for
survival and consequently, based on this fear, establishes conditions for radicalization of
political decisions and political action. The use of atomic and neutron bombs, artificial
viruses (such as HIV) and other lethal means become a legitimate "defence" tool. In almost
all reports produced by the Western "experts", "overpopulation" of the planet is "the
 9

greatest danger for survival of mankind". Fear for survival is being redirected towards
nations of the world that "excessively procreate" thus jeopardizing the survival of all. The
solution is being imposed by itself: destruction of the billions of "superfluous" is essential
for the survival of mankind. Those who unsparingly destroy nature and exterminate
peoples become "saviours of mankind". The West has ample experience with destruction of
nations: extermination of the North American Indians by American capitalism, and the
Chinese and the Australian Aborigines by British imperialism – show the Western
"traditions" of elimination of the "surplus" of humanity. At the same time, based on the
American "new world order", "globalism" provides conditions for establishing new
"national" genocide plutocracies that have the task of destroying the "excessive population"
in their respective territory, by applying of economic and other measures. Further
development of capitalism will be paid for by billions of innocent people, by a growing
number of wildlife species that are facing extinction, by the entire living world... Eventually,
it all serves to enable several million of the mentally degenerated "rich" to continue
"enjoying" the material wealth created for them from the ashes and blood, tolerance for
which is being provided by the use of police, mafia and military tyranny, and the illusions
created by the entertainment industry. Fanatics of capitalism are the worst sort of
terrorists: they are destroying life on Earth.
The economic logic of monopolist capitalism, which is based upon the notion of
“Big fish devours small fish!”, has become the ruling political rationale that determines
relations between states. What the Nazis did not achieve with weapons and concentration
camps, the Western capitalist corporations accomplished with money and economic
extortion: the transformation of former "Eastern block" countries into their own "living
space", while transforming their citizens into contemporary (Coca Cola) slaves. The ruling
European political circles identify Europe with the “European Union” in the same way as
the Nazi ideologists declared Europe "the new European order". It is exactly those who
advocate Europe as a community of equal nations and who insist on its emancipating
heritage – who are the bitterest enemies of the “European Union” as a vehicle for the
largest European corporations towards their destruction of the emancipating heritage of
European nations. The so called "European Union" is being built upon an illusion that
joining the "Union" guarantees all European nations “prosperity and a better life”. It should
be remembered here that the main goal proclaimed by the Nazi "new European order" was
to make "all European nations happy"! The “European Union” is an anti‐human and
destructive order based upon the ruling principles of monopolist capitalism, "Big fish
devours small fish!" and "Money does not stink!"; its ruling political sphere does not
provide opportunity for expression of the citizens' political will but represents a political
form of the rule of capital over people; the entire institutional, normative and propaganda
area of that order is directed towards destruction of the cultural and libertarian self‐
conscious of people and towards their integration into a spiritual orbit of capitalism at the
level of the idiotized labour‐consumer "mass". The “European Union” is not a "democratic
 10

community of nations", but a form of integration of the European multinational

corporations in their fight against the American corporations – which use the American
state as a vehicle for the achievement of their interest at the global level. The “European
Union” is not based upon the emancipating traditions of European nations, but upon the
imperialist traditions of European capitalism. It is not a humanistic goal but a vehicle of the
most powerful capitalist corporations for the achievement, by economic and political
"measures", of the very same goals that Hitler was expected to achieve for German capital –
by military means. It is a transitional phase in "European development" that leads towards
the creation of a new (ecocide) fascist order. Appropriately, this violent, capitalistically
established "integration of European nations" causes nationalism and racism to thrive in
response to people's deprivation of basic human and civil rights – which is an introduction
to new increasingly dramatic clashes that will develop based on the prevalent logic
imposed by monopolist capitalism, and also based on the increasingly contaminated
natural environment and on the biological deterioration of European nations. The ecocide
capitalist terrorism unavoidably generates nationalism which is no longer based on the
struggle to obtain and preserve a job or a living standard, but on the struggle for survival. It
becomes more and more obvious that with "the uniting of Europe", instead of developing
optimism and an atmosphere of tolerance, which would correspond to the "humanist
ideals" referred to by politicians, the citizens' fear of the future and intolerance are
growing. "Humanist speeches" cannot conceal the growing crime, unemployment, falling
apart of the "welfare state" and, along with it, of social protection, devastation of
environment, drug abuse, violence, suicides, fanaticism, extremism, the flourishing of
Satanist sects and of fascism, the breaking up of the family, the growing number of
parentless children, human‐trafficking and child‐trafficking aimed at sexual abuse or the
taking of their lives to "obtain" organs (in England alone more than 40,000 underage
children "disappear" annually), the spreading of AIDS and other diseases that would
decimate the poor, loneliness that has achieved epidemic dimensions…
The "United Europe" generates racism, similar to that developed in the USA. East
European and Balkan nations are getting the status of "nations with no culture", which
means "lesser creatures". The languages spoken by the Gastarbeiter population are not
being perceived as part of the European cultural heritage, but become a motive for
discrimination. As a mass phenomenon, migrant labourers keep their children from
learning their own mother tongue in order to mask their origin and avoid humiliation.
Bearing in mind that an insignificant number of children of migrant labour achieve college
and university education, it becomes clear that depriving them of their mother tongue
represents obliteration of their cultural being, through which act they are predestined to be
the "dirty labour force" ‐ to perform the hardest and the most dangerous jobs. Within the
“European Union” one can clearly discern the racist pyramid of power based upon
economic, political and military supremacy: Germany, France and England are on the top,
Italy, Spain, the Netherlands, Belgium... are below them. The Balkan peoples are located at
 11

the bottom of the pyramid. In the "United Europe" the place reserved for them is the one
Afro‐American occupy in the United States of America. On the "road towards Europe" the
Balkan nations should lose their own historical (cultural) self‐conscious and libertarian
dignity in order to become a garbage collector labour force, while the Balkans should
become the septic tank of Europe. The Balkan nations are commanded to renounce the
libertarian myths that are the basis of their historical and libertarian self‐conscious, while
at the same time, they are expected to cling to the myth of "Europe" as a "community of free
nations": libertarian myths are being replaced by colonial ones. The "uniting of Europe" in
accordance with the American model, which means to be based upon the interests of
multinational corporations and their struggle for supremacy, leads towards annihilation of
"nationalism" which translates into annihilation of the cultural heritage of European
nations and their right to make sovereign political decisions. The USA is populated by the
dregs of European and other nations degenerated with the "American way of life" and the
Coca Cola "culture". In Europe, we refer to historical nations who associate their national,
civil and cultural identity with their own country in which they were born, and for the
freedom of which their ancestors fought. This country is their vital and spiritual homeland
and the basis of their human self‐image.
"European identity" cannot be built on formal principles (such as a constitution),
but based on a libertarian tradition and on the cultural heritage of European nations.
Europeans must be judicious and resolute people who defy the processes of destruction of
cultural heritage and of life in general; people who would, through political struggle, turn
objectively accumulated potential for creation of a new world based on reason and freedom
into the realistic potential for liberation. Europe (world) should become a garden where
flowers of all European cultures flourish together. It is of no importance which flower is
"bigger", but that each of them emanates its own scent. It is about implementation of the
leading ideas of the French Revolution, ideas that are not only humanistic, but have become
basic existential principles. Only based upon a struggle for the new world can the
emancipating legacy of the European and other nations living in Europe be achieved.
Europe will overcome the growing social crisis by creating the new world – or it will
collapse. For the European nations, acceptance of the "American way of life" means suicide.
In the increasingly merciless global economic war between the most powerful
multinational corporations, social institutions become an instrument used to assure "stable
development" of the capitalist order. Everything is in the game: the entire institutional
mechanism has to develop in accordance with the growing demands imposed by the
interest on the assets. It is not true that “politics ceased to depend on economy in a classic
way", as Habermas claims, but, on the contrary, it is entirely controlled by the logic of
economic relations in an attempt to turn the society into a producing‐consuming camp
within which the reasoning and behaviour of people would be entirely subdued to the
existential interest of the capital. The state becomes the vehicle for "introduction" into a
society of the basic relationship logic as a supreme principle for the organizing of social life,
 12

so that "efficiency" (once "righteousness") becomes the key political principle.

"Superstructure" becomes the means that should make the logic of basic relations become
a driving force of the entire social life and play an active part in its dehumanization. Its
activity primarily goes for "planning the future" as an active impact for increasing the
certainty for survival of the established order. With the descending of the superstructure
towards the base, the circle has been closed: the state becomes a totalizing ratio of the huge
capital that needs to integrate the society (primarily to preserve "social peace") and enable
stable development of capitalism. In insisting on "the introduction of elements of
superstructure into the base" there is the intention to prove that reason has won over
chaos (the so‐called "organized capitalism"). In fact, "reason" has become a form of
manifestation of the irrational processes of capitalist reproduction. The basic support of
"reason" becomes the instrumentalized (destructive) ratio turned into a vehicle for
development (science, technique, organization, etc.) and protection (economic, police,
ideological and other forms of repression) of the established order. Its sterilization has
been successfully performed; it has been cleansed of all "value‐related prejudices" and has
become a blind and efficient vehicle for control over man. It is about the so‐called
"technical mind" that has accepted contemporary forms of technological planning, applying
them (adapted and improved) to human behaviour planning. In that sense, the very
political make up of the society, the way politics is carried out, becomes more and more
separated from the people and accepts the logic of technocratic efficiency as a basis for
establishing a "rational" social order. However, the attempt to constitute a society, set
within the tumult of global events, based on "reason", is like attempting to reinforce the
walls of one apartment in a building that is falling down. The stability of each separate
capitalist society depends on the stability of the global capitalist order. If its foundations
are in crisis, with "rational measures", which means through integration of the society
under the sponsorship of the state, the crisis can only be alleviated (a so‐called "controlled
crisis"), its blows can be received less painfully, but the crisis cannot be solved. The
"rational policy" of the most developed capitalist states is limited to the building of a sort of
breakwater that blocks the waves of crisis and makes them spill over those less capable
(the least developed countries) to resist the crisis.
The capitalist ratio is the means for destruction of the critical mind that enables a
vision of the future and a possibility for building the free world based on reason. Instead of
being oriented towards creation of social relations where man would have a chance to be a
man and to provide for his own existence, reason becomes an extended arm of the
economic (profit‐oriented) strategy which tends to transform all social relations into
segments of its own development. Destruction of mind by the entertainment industry, in
which sports have a key role, is an integral part of the process of destruction of "traditional
humanity" and the creation of the "new man" reduced to a robotized freak. The capitalist
totalizing of the world implies degeneration of the man by imposing the "one‐dimensional"
(Marcuse) way of thinking which requires: a positivist attitude towards the world;
 13

instrumentalization of everything and of everyone; quantitative dimension; mysticism in a

"spectacular" package; progressivism based on the absolutized principle of performance,
which in turn is based on the absolutized principle of profit... It is a way of thinking which
abolishes not only the essence (freedom, justice) but also the existence (biological survival,
nature), which means that it is of a fatalistic nature. At the same time, an idealized image of
the classical and of the medieval periods becomes the foundation for development of an
idea of transcendence that becomes a vehicle for annulling the visionary mind and the idea
of a future. Christian (and almost all the other) churches are natural allies of capital, which
attempts to destroy the self‐conscious of the modern man (citizen) as a constituent subject
of a civil society and the creator of his own world. Christianity and other apocalyptic
religions contribute to a development of the awareness that the destruction of the world is
unavoidable. It is one thing to preach such ideologies in a situation where there is no real
threat of global destruction, as it used to be in the medieval period, and something
completely different when such a threat becomes more and more real.
Manipulation moves from an ideological to a psychological level. Consciousness
has been "outgrown" – the sub‐conscious matters. Both the advertising industry and the
political (ideological) sphere operate based on that principle. All efforts are being invested
to keep man from understanding his own tragic position in the world where destructive
nothingness rules. It is media terror dominated by the entertainment industry and
advertisement video clips – which create distorted mirrors where man can only see “his
own” degenerated image. Capitalism systematically destroys man's ability and need to
raise essential questions about his own (social) existence, as well as his potential to answer
them. Almost the entire media space is controlled by those who destroy life and
marginalize the essential, while attributing a crucial dimension to the marginal.
"Sensational affairs", "historical matches", media "star" shows, "spectacular" Hollywood
films and TV soap operas – become the vehicles for averting people's attention from the
issues which determine the survival of mankind or its idiotization. Blocking reason and
giving vent to the man's repressed being, his growing discontent, fear, anxiety and
insemination of man by the ruling spirit of capitalism wherefrom the "positive man" is to
be born – this is the essence of the "spectacle". Therefore the growing importance of sport.
Psychological manipulation in it is based on the Iuvenal's maxim panem et circences
innovated in a capitalist manner: the less bread there is, the more abundant bloody games
there are. The growing discontent of the oppressed is burning in stadiums – those fire‐
stakes of capitalism. Sport is a spectacular form in which destructive capitalist
irrationalism emerges – based upon the absolute principle of performance (profit) and
upon the capitalistically mutated Social Darwinist principle. If existential and humanist
(mind–related) criteria are taken as an overall goal, it is clear that longing to break records
leads towards the self‐destruction of man, and towards the destruction of his cultural
being: "progress" becomes a way of obtaining legitimacy for destructive sport practices.
Only when the tendencies of development of sport are adequately perceived can its essence
 14

– namely, its destructive character – be understood. One of the key tasks of sport is to
eliminate visionary conscious. It represents an educational model that recognizes its own
outcome in the present way of living elevated to the level of a mythic phenomenon. Sport is
one of the most usable ways for transforming man's life‐creating energy into destructive
practice. “Sportivization” of society has become one of the key forms of capitalist totalizing
of the world. In the same way the Nazi Olympic Games were used to disguise the real
intentions of the Nazis, contemporary sport is being used to conceal the existential "match"
between the West and the rest of the world, in which there are no winners and losers, but
only the exterminated and those left alive.
The story of the "American dream" is over. The assassinations of Martin Luther
King, John Lennon and numerous other people who fought for a humane world have clearly
demonstrated that the notion of "a better society" represented the greatest threat to the
ruling capitalist groups because it provided a possibility for the development of a political
platform that could direct the growing discontent of the oppressed towards the creation of
a new (righteous) world. The major goal of the capitalist propaganda machinery is to kill
the people's hope that the future is possible and that fighting for it does make sense.
Capitalism is not to blame for the people's growing discontent, but those "irresponsible"
politicians who promised a "happy" future are. The "vision of the future" becomes a
commodity that is being sold to people through TV shows by nullifying their need to
fantasize about freedom and justice. This commodity glorifies (destructive) technique thus
creating the illusion of the "progressive nature of capitalism". Scientists are "concerned"
with what will happen to the planet in 5 million years from now but show no interest in
what will happen to humanity within the next hundred years. Instead of reliance on the
"American dream", which was till recently used by the capitalist propaganda machinery for
integration of citizens into the ruling order, the main vehicle for strengthening the global
capitalist dictatorship today is the intimidation of citizens with the "terrorist threat".
Ideologists of capitalism represent life as if nothing serious was going on – as if
the world were not on the very edge of total ruin. The bourgeois critique of capitalism is
not directed against capitalism but against the very critique that tends to raise essential
issues, primarily the issue related to the trend of development of capitalism – which is a
precondition for determining its essence. Their "critique" of capitalism is in fact directed at
the very critical thought which advocates the superseding of capitalism and the creation of
the new world. Bourgeois theoreticians treat capitalism as a non‐historical order, meaning,
as a given fact which cannot be questioned. From this position result statements on the
"necessity" of capitalist globalization, based on the interest of multinational corporations
and the annihilation of life, which fail to mention the unavoidable fall of capitalism as one of
the historical stages of the development of mankind. “Coca Cola intellectuals”, by definition,
use the expression "communism" while talking about the USSR and other countries of
"real‐socialism" ‐ intending to "prove" that "communism failed" and to repudiate the
Marxist critique of capitalism and the idea of a future. In their ideological blindness they fail
 15

to notice that while criticizing Marx they actually employ his own historical concept, only
adjusted to the requirements of preservation of capitalism. Francis Fukuyama in his book
"The End of History and the Last Man" finds that the main reason for the failure of
"communism" in the East is related to the fact that this order was based on "social justice":
struggle for social justice becomes an anti‐existential principle. Long before Fukuyama, this
notion was "assessed" by Auguste Comte, and by his follower Pierre de Coubertin: the
struggle of the oppressed for freedom and justice hinders "progress" – incarnated in the
bourgeoisie – which means that it jeopardizes the very survival of mankind. Fukuyama's
critique of the former "communist" societies remains limited to rejection based upon an
intention to create a rationally founded economic order that serves the fulfilment of human
needs – which would enable man to overcome the increasingly deep existential crisis
generated by capitalism. His theory, too, points out the leading tendencies in the
development of Western political thought: things are no longer being placed on an essential
level, but onto a purely existential level. This means that all vehicles that provide a
possibility for the survival of capitalism are legitimate – at the price of erasing the
emancipating legacy of civil society and of "traditional humanity". For Marx socialism is a
transitional phase between capitalism and communism – which represents the ultimate
superseding of capitalism and the beginning of the real history of mankind. This means that
(re) establishing capitalism is not possible if communism was previously achieved. The
dimensions of the bourgeois theory's absurdity can be perceived in the context of the
notion that declares capitalism to be "post‐communism"! At the same time, theoreticians
such as Habermas speak about "late capitalism" that is of a completely different nature
from that of the capitalism Marx is dealing with. It achieves those characteristics Marx
attributed to socialism, which means that "late capitalism" implements Marx's idea of
"socialism". Horkheimer treats his own analyses in "Dialectic of Enlightenment" as a purely
academic stance. His attitude towards sport indicates that he sterilizes the critical, change‐
aspiring charge when dealing with the concrete political sphere, thus crafting entirely
arbitrary structures in order to preserve the ideological vault of capitalism, which appears
in sport in a condensed form. As for the Heidegger's Sorge, it is of an abstract nature for it
relates to the abstract "world" and the abstract "man". The focus should, instead, be on the
concrete concern of the concrete man, meaning the man who lives in the capitalist world
where destruction prevails. It is no longer man’s fear that he has to face his own
unavoidable, natural death, but the anxiety that he has to confront the increasingly realistic
possibility of destruction of life on Earth, and consequently of mankind itself. In the first
case, the concern remains in the sphere of necessity; in the second case the concern is
related to the sphere of freedom: man cannot avoid his own death, but he is in a position to
prevent the destruction of humankind and to create a human world. In this context the
issue of death and extinction can be broached. Death does not have to mean extinction if
man leaves behind him his opus for which he will be remembered, meaning an opus that
eventually contributes to the survival of mankind. In the context of the natural (life) cycle,
 16

death is a precondition for the birth of new life – it is life‐creating. The essence of the
capitalist death is the destruction of mechanical nature and of technical form, which is also
the destruction of man and life, and consequently of the death‐birth chain which creates
life. Capitalism has not only deprived man of his spiritual homeland (Heimatlosigkeit), but
also of his vital environment through the annihilation of nature and of man as biological
being; it does not only deprive man of his human essence, but questions his survival.
Capitalism has "blended" the existential and the essential concern: struggle for survival
becomes struggle for freedom, and struggle for freedom turns into struggle for survival.
The so called "leftist thought" did not adequately respond to the development of
capitalism. It invested most of its energy into a futile dispute about the past – instead of
directing its focus towards the future and uniting its efforts to criticize capitalism as a life‐
annulling order. Instead of designing contemporary notions that would enable the creation
of a political concept that would be a road sign for the radical fight with capitalism as a
destructive order, it continues to use the conceptual tool set created by Marx and Engels,
"swept away" by capitalism long ago, as well as Hegel's (Marx's) dialectic, which can be
taken for the starting point for the critique of capitalism only conditionally – for its
(historical) pyramid of freedom is based upon existential certainty. The capitalist train did
not halt in the station in which, according to Marx, it should have been stopped (by means
of the socialist revolution), and it continued to move – dragging the entirety of humankind
towards the abyss. The theory of the so‐called "scientific socialism", which is an ideological
match to the theory of capitalism as the "end of history", insists on the absolute
performance principle and, in that context, on quantitative indicators of "progress" – thus
hopelessly drowning in the muddy waters of capitalism. It is not by chance that sport (as
well as the other repressive forms of physical exercise), meaning the ideology of "record‐
mania", was granted such importance in Soviet society. Deprived of its humanist essence,
Marx's idea of socialism was transformed into Stalinist practice in the East; in the West
many "communist parties", taking the dogma of "realized socialism" in the USSR for
granted, transformed the Soviet practice into the "idea of socialism" that should be longed
for. The offered "project of the future" is still based on the notion that capitalism is an
unjust, not a destructive order. The most important task of the global anti‐capitalist
movement is not only to liberate humanity from oppression, but to prevent its annihilation.
Therefore awareness of the consequences of the development of capitalism represents a
conditio sine qua non of the struggle against capitalism.
Struggle for the survival of life and, in that context, the fight against capitalism
open a possibility for the creation of a wide political movement that will surpass the
classical class divisions and class struggle, but also open a possibility for the dilution of the
fight against capitalism by directing the change‐aspiring energy towards "ecological
projects" that remain limited to the hopeless curing of the consequences of capitalism and
its "improvement". Capitalism has "solved" the conflict between determinism and freedom;
between "objective potentials" for revolution and revolutionary voluntarism – by
 17

destroying the emancipating (cultural) heritage of humanity, man as a biological being and
nature. The only real (existential and essential) solution would be an overall war of
humankind against capitalism, which implies using every means that might bring about its
destruction. This fight would be not only defensive, liberating, or revolutionary, but a fight
that has never been fought before: a fight for the survival of mankind and for the
preservation of life on Earth. Having in mind the intensity of global destruction, it becomes
obvious that communism is not merely a libertarian possibility, as it is for Marx, but an
existential necessity.
The "positive side" of capitalist globalization is that it inevitably generates the
international anti‐globalist movement that, in time, will develop into a more radical
international anti‐capitalist front. From confrontation with the existing world, it will
develop into the struggle for the new world. Marx's exclamation from “The Communist
Manifesto": "Proletarians of all countries unite!" – becomes a libertarian end existential cry
of awakened and fully aware humankind. Mass anti‐globalist rallies are important, but only
if they make up a part of the day‐to‐day fight against capitalism. If not, they become a part
of the political circus and lead the change‐aspiring energies astray. The issue of political
struggle is primarily organizational. Individual forms of confrontation are not irrelevant,
however, though they are not sufficient for essential achievements. If organized struggle is
lacking, their impact remains as limited as that of stones thrown into a rising river – which
only unified efforts can overpower. Organized struggle does not mean the domination of
man by organization, if it is based upon self‐initiative and if each individual is aware of the
fact that the fight for survival of mankind is the issue. It is a challenge compared to which
all other issues in dispute become almost insignificant. Among those discussing the
"workers issue", some are unhappy with the conformist behaviour of a considerable part of
the working class in the most developed countries. However, that results from its position
in the society. That it is not "terminated" as a political subject in the fight against capitalism
confirms in the best way the "concern" of the capitalists for the creation of working class
(self) conscious and for prevention of its political engagement. In fact, the workers'
discontent is growing and so the forms to confront it are increasingly merciless. The
"consumer society" has not only exhausted its own potential for integrating workers into
the capitalist world, but it is, itself, disintegrating, and, consequently, the walls of the
concentration camp – in which a majority of workers are still kept – are falling down.
Regarding American “democracy”, US citizens never had an opportunity to hear the truth
about one single issue on which their freedom and destiny depend, and never, as
emancipated citizens, took part in defining and implementing the strategy of social
development. They live in a world that is a total lie and never had an opportunity for real
choice. What will happen when the fence comes down – in a society where no democratic
institutions exist to offer the possibility to articulate people's discontent over the
achievement of general social goals?
 18

The prevailing philosophy does not identify the confirmation of the authenticity
of its positions in life, but only in philosophy – and so on ad infinitum. It becomes an
institutionalized reason alienated from man and thus a vehicle for averting man’s
attentions from making key vital decisions – which only assists the ruling order. A
phenomenological conceptual vault becomes the way to the creation of the virtual
conscious in people's minds and of the destruction of man's reasonable relation to the
world. The right issue can only be the concrete historical issue. Today, it is the issue of
survival. "Traditional" philosophical issues can be discussed exclusively in the context of
this basic historical (existential) issue. Otherwise, they turn into the creation of a labyrinth
where the reason capable of revealing the destructive tendencies of capitalist development,
preventing annihilation of life and winning the cause for a humane world, should
disappear. One of the most important tasks of critical theory is to liberate the mind from
"traditional" philosophy – which diverts the attention of reason away from concrete
existential and essential issues, the solutions of which require radical confrontation with
the ruling order and the creation of a new society – which is a privilege of "philosophers"
(now reduced to intellectual technicians) and a means for suppressing man's libertarian
struggle: the struggle for freedom (survival) becomes "non‐reasonable" activity and
consequently loses the legitimacy of an authentic change‐aspiring practice. Political
engagement indicates the true nature of philosophy – which is just a snail's shell in which a
capitalistically degenerated reason is hiding. It mediates between man and the world
facilitating the annihilation of life and of man as reasonable being. The truth is not a
suprahistorical fact reachable through science and philosophy alienated from man. It has
always been concretely historical, as is, also, the struggle to achieve it: today the truth is
survival, and the way to reach it is the struggle for survival. This is the concrete basis of the
"will to power" of contemporary man and the criteria for determining the appropriateness
of political action.
Critical theory does not hide behind philosophical "objectivism" but has a clear
value‐based political orientation: it invests efforts for the annihilation of capitalism and is
based upon man's right to life and freedom. It does not attempt to create a new philosophy,
but tends to abolish philosophy as a separate sphere that mediates between man and the
world and to implement the emancipating legacy of modern society symbolically expressed
in the guiding principles of the French Revolution: Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité. In classical
German philosophy, which shaped the self‐conscious of modern man, the notion of reason
was related to the notion of freedom. Today reason is not only the basic precondition for
freedom, but also for existence: the struggle for reason becomes the struggle for survival.
The critical theory of capitalism should be modernized through the introduction
of new notions, having in mind the fact that the trend of the development of capitalism also
influences the critique of it. Two key notions should become the basis for the creation of
the contemporary critical theory of capitalism: the capitalist destruction of life and,
opposed to it, the life‐creating human practice. They are dialectically opposed: the
 19

totalitarian capitalist destruction of life leads to an integration of humankind based upon a

totalizing life‐creating practice. If in the past it was still possible to claim that no clear
starting point for the foundation and development of the critical theory of society existed,
today the increasingly dramatic annihilation of life, meaning the ecocide nature of
capitalism, does represent the unifying starting point for both critical thought and change‐
aspiring (political) practice. This is related to the subjective nature of freedom and to the
transformation of the objective potential of freedom, established within civil society, into a
realistic potential for the liberation of man. The real significance of struggle is not in
achieving some superhuman goal, but in the development of human potential and of the
society as a brotherhood community of emancipated individuals who are capable of
directly managing their own (social) life. It is not a task for an abstract man, but for every
man. Humanity is endangered, for the life of each individual man is directly endangered.
Historically, man had a chance to achieve his own humanity through the struggle against
tyranny; today, he has a chance to achieve his own humanity, and a chance to survive
thereby – by fighting against the ruling life‐annihilating order. The readiness to sacrifice his
own life for freedom becomes the readiness to offer his life for the survival of humankind.
The capitalist maelstrom of death transforms everything that man created – social
institutions, technique, science, economy, education, medicine, art, religion, sport, media –
into a vehicle for the operating of capital, which means for the annihilation of life. No social
sphere remains man's ally. There is no one else from whom he could seek help but other
men: sociability is an existential imperative. Only now, when he has been left alone in his
struggle against capitalism, has man the opportunity to express his own human values, to
become the true Man and to transform the world into a community of free people. The
most extensive and the most dramatic battle ever fought is in progress: either man will
triumph over capitalism, preserve life on this planet and create the world compatible with
his own image – or he will be annihilated.














 20

SPORT AND CULT

The Cult of Competition


Sport is a capitalist competition. Not every historical form of competition is sport,
but the one which is the embodiment of the Social Darwinist principle bellum omnium
contra omnes and the absolutized principle of the quantitatively measurable performance
shaped in the Olympic maxim citius, altius, fortius – which corresponds to the market
economy and the absolutized principle of profit. Just as capitalism is essentially different
from the Hellenic slave‐owning and feudal order, so is sport essentially different from the
ancient agon and knight tournaments. The Olympic Games were an authentic play of the
aristocratic Hellad; knight tournaments were an authentic play of feudalism; sport is an
authentic play of capitalism. The theory of sport reduces sport to a suprahistorical
phenomenon the essence of which comes from the „unchangeable human nature“, whereas
man is reduced to a „beast“ and human society to a „civilized“ menagerie. However,
individual competition (achievement), which is based on the principle of «Equal chances!»,
is a historical product and corresponds to the original spirit of capitalism (liberalism)
which atomizes society according to the principle homo homini lupus. The elimination of
the „opponent“ through victory achieved by an ever better result (record) becomes a
capitalist form of a („civilized“) natural selection. „Primitive peoples“ do not know of
individual competition and individual achievement, nor do they know of the principle of
record. The same applies to the Hellenic society: man is a member of polis and „God's toy“
(Plato). The purpose of competition is not a record but a victory achieved by the Olympic
agonistes as the „gods' electee“ which gives him the possibility of acquiring a place on
Olympus among the immortal Olympic oligarchy.
The history of sport is the history of capitalism. In its original sense the term
„sport“ (since 1828, before that desport, desportare) does not denote a competition
dominated by the cult of victory and the cult of record, but a pastime, a voluntary
participation in the activities designed to act out the aristocratic way of life through a
symbolism and forms of behaviour deriving from the aristocratic world, and which are the
embodiment of the aristocratic system of values expressed in the principle „order and
measure“ (ordre et mesure). „Sport“ was a privilege of the aristocracy through which its
exclusive ruling class status was confirmed, which means that it was not a way of
integrating the working „masses“ into a spiritual orbit of the ruling class, as it was to
become in the bourgeois society. It was not dominated by a fight for victory through the
elimination of the opponent nor by the idea of progress, but by such a way of behaviour
(„gentleman's manners“) which distinguishes the members of the aristocracy from the
„lower classes“. Likewise, the original concept of „sport“, as an entertainment, is not
derived from the relation to work and the „world of concerns“; it rather denotes the
 21

lifestyle of aristocracy as the parasitic class. It is only in the developed capitalist society
that the term „sport“ came to designate the „independent“ spirit of capitalism which is the
embodiment of the principles bellum omnium contra omnes and citius, altius, fortius and
appears as the sphere of „freedom“ opposite to work. As far as the principle of „chivalry“ is
concerned, which is used by the ideologues of sport in order to give it a „cultural“
legitimacy, in its original sense it corresponds to a static aristocratic order in which the
dominant social status is not acquired by a merciless struggle for survival, as it is the case
in capitalism, but by birth.
Sport acquired its institutional character in the second half of the XIX century and
represents a way of dealing with the leading ideas of the French Revolution, critical
rationalism, emancipatory possibilities of the newly formed democratic institutions, as well
as with the philanthropic and dancing movements. It is not a product of an advanced
bourgeoisie which, inspired by the spirit of the Enlightenment and ideals of the French
Revolution, strives to create a new society, but of the imperialist circles which strive to deal
with the emancipatory heritage of the XIX century civil society and conquer the world. The
modern Olympic Games are an expression of the „mondialist“ spirit of imperialism and as
such rejection of the cultural (religious) being of the ancient Olympic Games, as well as of
the Olympic ideas and movements of the Modern Age – which are based on the Hellenic
spiritual heritage, national cultures and the emancipatory heritage of civil society (Gutc
Muths, Schartan, Brookes, Lesseps, Grousse...).
In its original form, sport does not rely on bodily activism which is supposed to
enhance the development of working or artistic capacities, but on the „chivalrous tradition“
which is of a belligerent character. Sports contests represent a war not waged by weapons,
but by the bodies of „opponents“, and thus are a struggle with the pacifist conscious and
preparation for an armed conflict. Hence the ruthless „rivalry“, which involves the ability
and readiness to kill the opponent, represents the main characteristic of sports
„brotherhood“. Sports terminology indicates its essence: sports contests which do not
involve elimination are called „friendly“, which means that the competitions in which the
victory is an imperative – are hostile. The natural selection being the carrier of „progress“,
it is understandable why the bourgeois theorists speak of war with such enthusiasm: they
regard it as the highest and the most direct form of the law of natural selection. From
Coubertin's Olympic doctrine it clearly follows that sport belongs to the sphere of war and
military training and that it is the main vehicle for dealing with the pacifist conscious. The
view of Carl Diem, a loyal interpreter of Coubertin's doctrine and one of the leading
ideologues of German (Nazi) expansionism: „Sport is war!“ („Sport ist Krieg!“), most
adequately expresses the essence of sport. It should not be forgotten that Coubertin started
the Olympic campaign with an overt aim to effect changes in the French education system,
in order to transform the French bourgeois youth into colonial phalanges. A colonial
campaign „without proper sports preparations“ represents, according to Coubertin,
„dangerous unmindfulness“. It is no wonder that England, as the leading colonial power,
 22

where there is place only for „strong individuals“, was the main source of Coubertin's
Olympic inspiration. Furthermore, it is no wonder that Coubertin, in the bloody fights on
ancient Olympic playgrounds and medieval tournaments of haughty aristocrats found a
source of the „chivalry spirit“ which a bourgeois should strive for. War on a sports field was
meant to preserve the militaristic traditions of the warring aristocracy and „overcome“
them by a belligerent and progressistic spirit of monopolistic capitalism. The ability to
„look death in the eyes“, which appears in the form of a man reduced to „opponent“, is one
of the most important characteristics of Coubertin's „new man“, while the ability and
readiness to kill a man represents the highest challenge for his „utilitarian pedagogy“.
Writing, after the First World War, on the highest evaluative challenges of the British ruling
circles, Bertrand Russell, one of the most important British philosophers in the XX century,
concludes: „In an ordinary high class British family the killing of birds is considered to be
quite honourable and the killing of people in war – the noblest of occupations.“ (1) A
„need“ of the aristocrats to kill is not an expression of human nature, but an expression of
the pathology of the aristocratic order which degenerated man and regarded the killing of
people as the supreme virtue. The same applies to greediness: it is not an authentic human
need, but is an expression of the pathology of capitalism attributed to man in order to
„prove“ that capitalism is based on human nature and therefore eternal. The behaviour of
„hooligans“ is similar: it does not indicate the nature of young people, but the nature of the
ruling order and the position of young people in society.
In sport, the belligerent spirit of capitalism becomes „independent“ and, by way of
„sports competition“, strives to resurrect the spirit of the ancient slave‐owning aristocracy,
as well as the „chivalry spirit“ of the bloodthirsty medieval lords. The militarization of the
body, spirit, human relations and the relations between nations and races is the highest
„cultural“ form in which the ruling belligerent spirit appears. In antiquity, in the form of the
struggle of individuals for acquiring a place on Olympus the ruling class struggled to
preserve its privileges; in modern society, in the guise of a sports competition, the parasitic
classes struggle against the emancipatory heritage of humankind and man as the universal
creative being of freedom. A sports competition becomes a combat with a competition
which does not involve elimination and domination of one man over another, particularly
with a competition which involves the development of man's universal creative powers and
offers the possibility of overcoming the existing and creating a new world. In sport, there is
no outplaying; it is rather that the contest comes down to a struggle for survival and
domination which is completely in line with the dominant spirit of capitalism: the stronger
go on, the weaker are eliminated. The purpose of sport is not the development of play, but
the preservation of the ruling order.
Interestingly, it does not occur to the bourgeois theorists ‐ according to whom
gladiator's fights, knight tournaments, duels and war are „competition“ ‐ to refer to the
class struggle, struggle for women's emancipation, struggle for liberation from the colonial
yoke and particularly revolution – as „competition“. Likewise, in spite of the fact that they
 23

emphasize the struggle, it does not occur to them to include in the concept of play the
struggle between old and new which involves the expansion of the horizon of freedom –
without which there is no true play. Basically, the purpose of competitive play is not the
development of the human, but the release of „negative energy“ so as to prevent it from
being channeled into a political struggle aiming to eradicate the causes of social hardship.
Play becomes the sterilization of a critical and changing conscious. In Russell, also,
competition does not involve a struggle against the unjust and destructive ruling order,
meaning a struggle for freedom and survival; a struggle between old and new; between
good and evil; the development of man's artistic (erotic) nature – it rather involves a
struggle against nature, which means the acquisition of technical skills the purpose of
which is to establish control over nature and its exploitation.
Sport is an authentic ideology of liberalism: the cult of victory and record was a
form in which appeared the myth of capitalism as an order in which „Everyone has a
chance!“ and which is capable of providing a stable progress that inevitably brings good to
the citizens in every aspect of their lives, which is expressed in the maxim „Competition
generates quality!“ In monopolistic capitalism, based on the principles „Destroy the
competition!“ and „Big fish devours small fish!“, sport has become an anachronism which
maintains the appearance of a „competitive society“ and as such is destined to
degeneration. Instead of a „personal initiative“ and „individual achievement“, the
competition of sportsmen becomes a form of struggle between the most powerful capitalist
groups for domination – by means of a dehumanized science, medicine, technique ... The
principle of competition has become the principle of domination, the latter being the
principle of destruction. In a „consumer's society“ the original sports spirit has become
completely distorted and sport has turned into a banal circus performance governed by the
rules of show‐business. In his original Olympic writings, Coubertin indicates where
professionalism and commercialization of sport lead to. According to him, „money is the
biggest enemy of sport“, as it turns sport into a „fairground“, and (professional) sportsmen
into „circus gladiators“. Similar views were expressed by his followers from IOC.
Contemporary sports theorists, talking of „original“ Olympism, never cite these Coubertin's
views, as they reveal the true nature of sport and thus the true nature of their „theoretic“
activity.


The Cult of Record


Strivings for records condition a specific (concrete historical) nature of sports
competitions. A victory over the opponents is worthless without setting a record. It
becomes a universal measure, alienated from man, for determining the performance
(value), which means a peculiar „superior power“ to which man is submitted. A record is
 24

the market value of a sports result, and the prevailing logic in sport corresponds to the
process of the reproduction of capital: the apsolutized principle of record corresponds to
the apsolutized principle of profit. The increasing domination of the apsolutized principle
of performance in sport has led to a gradual elimination of combative individualism, the
corner‐stone of the ideology of liberalism. It has nothing to do with the struggle between
people for victory, but with a contest without contestants, where man fights „phantom“
records incarnated in the measuring instruments which are the symbols of a dehumanized
and denaturalized „pace“ of the capitalist time. The history of the ancient Olympic Games is
a succession of winners; the history of sport comes down to a linear increment of numbers
to which the names of depersonalized „recorders“ are assigned. The apsolutized
performance (record) acquires a mythical dimension: sports „achievements“ become the
measure of „progress“ and „perfectioning“ of humankind and thus historical milestones.
Simultaneously, the quantitative comparison becomes an „objective“ criterion for the
distribution of positions on the social ladder of power, which appears in the form of
Arnold's elitist „theory of pyramid“ that Coubertin was to adopt: a hundred people should
devote themselves to physical culture if fifty of them are to engage in sport; fifty people are
to engage in sport if twenty of them are to specialize; twenty people are to specialize if five
of them are to become capable of „astonishing bravery“ (prouesse étonnante). (2) The
pyramid of success indicates a hierarchy of „natural selection“ in sport and a mechanistic
logic of „contest“ which corresponds to the market „competition“ and „industrial society“.
The qualitative measurement becomes a form of domination of „progress“ over man
confirming its superiority and eternity. It is not a historical product, but a „fact“ which
cannot be brought into question and thus is an instrument for training the oppressed how
to accept inequality in society as something inevitable. At the same time, a record is not
important as a human achievement, but as a means of proving the „progressive“ nature of
the ruling order. As there are no medical or moral barriers to the progressistic principle
citius, altius, fortius, it is clear that man's „perfectioning“ leads to his (self) destruction.
Sport crushes the modern (humanistic) idea of progress which involves qualitative leaps in
the development of society, the affirmation of man as a being of freedom and the creation
of a novum. It enables only (endless) quantitative shifts, advancing in the given spatial and
time dimensions, which involves progressing without a progress.
In sport, there is an evident distinction between intellectual and physical labour,
as well as specialization (at an increasingly early age). Each sport has a specific training
technique, which means that each sport in a specific way cripples people both mentally and
physically and turns them into specialized sportsmen‐recorders. The one‐sided sports
activity leads to the hypertrophy of some and atrophy of other extremities, organs, bodily
and mental functions. A sportsmen becomes a specific working force (a self‐destructive
character), a tool for labour (highly specialized machine) and material for processing (body
as a raw material) – for producing a particular record. The bigger the gap between man's
biological powers and the record that must be reached, the more the sports training
 25

contributes to man's self‐alienation as a human being and the destruction of his individual
dispositions and abilities. Based on the absolutized principle of performance, sport turned
a healthy physical strain into an exertion that destroys man as a living being. A sportsman
becomes a robot and as such a commodity on the market of sports show‐business, while
„sports technique“ becomes a technical form of the destruction of man's natural and
cultural being. The methods and means applied in sport are those used in the industrial
production and modern science: sport is an engine for the production of recorders
(records). The maxim „Recorders are born in vials!“ suggests the real nature of „top sport“
which is, as its name suggests, the highest challenge for sport generally. Behind technical
terms and scientific formulations an industry of death is hiding: „top sport“ has become a
supreme form of man's destruction. Sport is a means by which man, as a biological and
human being, turns into a mechanical device. At the same time, it brings about an ecocide
conscious and ecocide relation of man to his (her) own body. The „competitive mind“
becomes a form of irrational processes of the capitalist reproduction which, by way of a
„sports spirit“, are infused into man. The „aggressive animal nature“ is replaced by a self‐
destructive fanaticism.


The Cult of the Body


The dominant cult in sport is the cult of the body and muscular strength which is
expressed in Coubertin's maxim “combative spirit in a muscular body” (mens fervida in
corpore lacertoso). While in the ancient bodily agon there is a spontaneous relation of man
to the body, which arises from the body being experienced as a constituent part of the
universe and the source of man's vital energy, sport is dominated by an instrumental
relation of man to the body. Everything is submitted to a modeling based on the
capitalistically (ab) used technique and science: just as in antiquity the physical appearance
was meant to be united with the (geometrically constituted) universe, so is in the modern
world the physical appearance meant to be united with the Social Darwinist and
progressistic spirit of capitalism. Also, in sport, the cult of the body has nothing to do with a
broader religious context, as it was the case in antiquity, but is a means of creating a
positive character and positive conscious, as well as a means of demonstrating the
expansionist power of capitalism. In sport, unlike the gods in antiquity, there are no
anthropomorphic symbols representing the dominant power. That role is assumed by
sportsmen, and their body and appearance are completely subjected to the nature of the
ruling order. Instead of the ancient holistic approach to the body, the emphasis is placed on
the expansive muscular strength and mechanization of the body. In sport, man fits in with
the capitalist universe by way of the body and bodily posture which is in accordance with
the dynamic and progressistic nature of capitalism. The „sports spirit“ is a manifest form of
 26

the expansionist spirit of the ruling order, while the „sport body“ represents the most
authentic capitalist form of physical degeneration and thus is a „supraclass“ and
„supraracial“ model of the body. It is an ideological body which expresses the totalitarian
and ecocide nature of the ruling order. A dehumanized and denaturalized world, based on
the capitalist destruction, corresponds to a dehumanized and denaturalized body and a
destructive body movement.
Sport is an area in which the technicization of the environment, man and
interpersonal relations attained the climax. It is one of the most important instruments of
capitalism for destroying a humanistic and creating a „technical civilization“.
“Sportivization” of the world is the most radical form of man's denaturalization and
decultivization and a means of his being involved in the life and spiritual orbit of „technical
civilization“. Science strives to create a being (machine) which will be deprived of all those
human qualities that hinder the breaking of records and the production of increasingly
bloody sports spectacles. Sport draws on a mechanistic philosophy of the body and finds
mimetic impulses in the industrial and militaristic movements. Instead of a natural
movement and natural body, the prevailing movement is mechanistic, the body becomes
the cage of technical rationality, while the „competitive character“ becomes the
embodiment of the ruling destructive spirit. Coaches become body technicians and slave
drivers who are to enable the achievement of a desired result (record) at the cost of man's
destruction. At the same time, man's spirit is also being crippled and the cult of a
technicized body is being created and thus the cult of a „technical civilization“. This way of
thinking absolutizes the quantitatively measurable result achieved at the cost of the
destruction of man's natural being. Sport creates a capitalist ideological sphere and the
appropriate „public opinion“ by destroying the emancipatory heritage of the civil society
which offers an opportunity for man to get rid of the ecocide capitalist tyranny.
„Disciplining“ the body in the bourgeois physical culture and sport reflects an
endeavour to bring nature under control of the ruling order: „taming“ of the body
corresponds to the „taming“ of nature. Sport does not cultivate man's natural being, but
„disciplines“ it through a technocratically based drill dominated by the mechanics of the
physical, turning the body into a machine. In contrast to the Middle Ages, where dealing
with the body becomes dealing with the „false“ earthly world, the bourgeois pedagogy
suppresses and destroys in man all those things that do not fulfil the needs of the capitalist
order and can jeopardize it, and develops all those things that contribute to the
preservation of that order. Hence, Coubertin insists on a „utilitarian pedagogy“: the „good“
is that which is useful to the ruling order. An aggressive belligerent („healthy“) egoism, an
insatiable „need“ for acquisition and ruling (oppression) – those are the „true“
characteristics of a „model“ bourgeoisie. Coubertin's principle of „greater effort“, which
conditions a relentless relation of man to his body and to which, in the psychological
sphere corresponds the principle of „greediness“, is analogous to a colonial‐plundering
relation to nature. The „development of sport“ is based on an ecocide logic: the physical
 27

drill destroys the body, which is for man his immediate nature, and thus breaks man's
connection with nature and makes life in nature impossible. The technicized living
conditions, which means capitalistically degenerated nature, become man's living
environment he „spontaneously“ strives for and in which he can survive. Sport clearly
illustrates the fact that the capitalist way of production does not turn nature into useful
objects but degenerates and destroys it: the relation to the body reflects the relation of
capitalism to nature. In sport, the capitalist exploitation of nature is fully realized,
according to the principle of an ever better result (profit) in an ever shorter time. On this
the principle of early selection is based, the principle which cripples the body, destroys
man's erotic nature, his mind and spirituality, and creates a sado‐masochistic character. In
the contemporary world („consumer society“), the sports body has become an instrument
for producing a sports spectacle, meaning a spiritual drug, and a moving advertising
billboard.
Sporting physical drill involves a modelling of the body according to progressistic
(quantitative) criteria which lead to man's (self) destruction. The highest challenge is to
reach the given „model“ of the body which is the projection of the result (record) striven
for. Instead by art and naturalness, sport is dominated by technique which involves an
instrumentalized body reduced to a technical device and technicized skill conditioned by
the nature of sport and the achieved „level“ of results. Man is reduced to a tool for the
production of records, and his body to a raw material which, through physical drill and
scientific methods, is to be „transformed“ into a „sport body“. In sport, the ruling model of
the body is not appropriate to a particular cultural pattern; it is a direct incarnation of the
ruling relations and values: a sportsman is an anthropological form in which the ruling
order appears. Like in antiquity, the citizen of modern society is to completely fit into the
established (capitalist) universe; he is to be spiritually, physically and actively united with
it. Sports aesthetics does not derive from culture; it is based on the nature of sport as a war
waged with bodies, on the strivings to set a record and on the nature of spectacle – which is
a commercial package of sports merchandize. The holistic approach to the body has been
discarded (proportionality, harmony), as well as the softness of movements and bodily
expression, the pulsation of the erotic, emotional and spiritual, the movement of man to
man and the ancient kalokagathia which insists on the unity of the beautiful and the good.
Mimetic impulses are not found in nature nor in the cultural sphere, but in technical
processes: technical „perfection“ represents the highest challenge for sports aesthetics. It is
corresponded by a body reduced to a highly specialized machine, mechanics of movement,
technicized (ecocide) mind, a suppressed and mutilated Eros, as well as man's crippled
emotional and spiritual being. The mutilated bodies of contemporary gladiators become
the highest attainment of the „beautiful“.
The body is not a form of man's existence as an independent being, his
possession; it is an instrument for achieving political and economic goals. Within this
context, man's relation to his own body is mediated by the ruling ideology. The alienation
 28

of the body from man becomes man's alienation from his own self. „Disciplining“ of the
body, the maxims mens sana in corpore sano, mens fervida in corpore lacertoso and citius‐
altius‐fortius – represent the forms of establishing an institutionalized oppression over man
which means not only a destructive instrumentalization of the body, but the destruction of
personality. Instead of a respect for man's specific individuality and his human complexity,
the priority is given to a dehumanized (destructive) principle of performance and the
appropriate model of man. The one‐sided oppressive physical activity creates a physically
one‐sided and spiritually mutilated man. In contrast to the sophists, who by human nature
mean the „unity of the body and the soul but, above all, man's internal disposition, his
spiritual nature“, (3) in sport, just as in Christianity, the dualism of the body and the spirit
is established. Instead of a „divine spirit“, sport is dominated by the spirit of capitalism
incarnated in sportsman's muscular body in combatant effort, but, instead of the soul, the
character (sado‐masochistic, murderous‐destructive) becomes the meeting point and
support of man's governing spirit. In sport, man is reduced to a depersonalized model of
„sportsman“, which means that he is deprived of elementary humanity, thus becoming part
of the „team“ of capitalist gladiators, stunt men and circus players. He does not regard his
fellow sportsman as a man, but as an „opponent“ who should be removed from the way.
Physical injuries and killing become a legal and legitimate form of „relation“ to the
„opponent“. The same applies to man's relation to his own body. Torturing of the body and
its destruction is the basic way of achieving „victory over the body (pain)“, which gives rise
to a (sado) masochistic character and „victorious will“. Man is reduced to the body, while
strength, speed, stamina, killing and destructive power (skill) become the basic way of his
self‐evaluation. Sportsmen turn from living beings into robotized beings guided by a (self)
destructive fanaticism. At the same time, in sport man is subject to an authoritarian order
and is accustomed to „responding to a whistle“ ‐ without reasoning. The „golden rule“ of
every coach is that „players do not think, but do what they are asked to do“. A sports
training does not serve to cultivate man, it mutilates humanity. It is reduced to a technical
drill which resembles a military drill, the difference being that in sport the ruling principle
is not that of the optimal but of a „greater (destructive) effort“.
Sport deprives man of his erotic nature. A man and a woman are not sexual
(natural, affective, human) beings; they are raw materials and tools for setting records.
„Specificity“ of the woman's body is that it is „weaker“ than man's, which means that it
achieves „poorer“ results. If life‐creation is the basic existential principle, then precisely by
virtue of her body the woman is superior to man since she possesses a life‐creating (fertile)
body. By accepting the governing evaluative model as the basis of her own evaluation, the
woman renounces that which makes her a specific human being and reduces herself to an
„inferior being“, a surrogate, or a bad copy of man reduced to a robotized gladiator. Sports
pedagogy deals with Eros which induces man to develop his affective nature and closeness
with other people, and turns his energy into the driving force of „progress“: a muscular
male body in combatant effort, as a symbolic form of the governing spirit, is the highest
 29

sporting challenge. Love destroys the fanatic concentration of a sportsman on achieving

victory (record) and thus changes his relation to the body of the beloved person, as well as
to his own body. It ceases to be a machine and becomes an erotic challenge – a source of
pleasure, and thus questions training that mercilessly destroys the organism, doping‐
treatments which decrease sexual potency, as well as the (self) destructive „competitive
motivation“.
On the example of bodily exertion we can also see how untenable is Plessner’s,
Habermas’s and Rigauer's theses that sport is the „duplication of the world of labour“.
Labour is dominated by the principle of optimal effort, while sport is dominated, as we
have seen, by the principle of „greater effort“ which basically means a merciless destruction
of organism – based on the apsolutized principle of performance. The rhythm and intensity
of sports exertion destroy the biological rhythm of organism. Sport abolishes the
distinction between tiredness and over fatigue – which is a pathological state of organism.
„To increase physical fitness“ involves suffering and blocking of pain which is organism's
natural defence reaction to excessive exertion. Cells are destroyed as well as muscles,
spine, heart, joints, liver, and this results in a functional and constitutional disharmony of
the body and organs, some extremities, organs and functions of organism are
hypertrophied and some are atrophied...
Sport is a capitalist way of producing physically and mentally ill people. In the
beginning of the XX century, the French physician Phillip Tissié, who analyzed the
functioning of organism of long‐distance runners, came to the conclusion that excessive
physical exertion led to the degeneration of cells, and that the sportsman is a chronically ill
person. Sports physicians do not struggle for a healthy man, but for the creation of a „sport
body“ and its „servicing“. What is a pathological state for „ordinary people“, for sportsmen
is a „normal state“. Special terms have been coined, such as a „sport heart“, turning
chronically ill sportsmen into „supermen“. Off course, this applies only while the medals
are being won. Physicians take active part in this physical and mental destruction of people.
A typical example is the medical report on the West‐German heptathlon contestant Birgit
Dressel. In spite of being „a hundred percent healthy“, Dressel died of „toxaemia“ in agony.
She was 27 years old. No one was held responsible. That is how life of sportsmen ends
throughout the world... Coaches ruin the lives of a large number of children in their
preadolescent and adolescent period. The most obvious example is gymnastics, where little
girls are monstrously degenerated. As far as sports injuries are concerned, only rugby in
the USA records 650 000 seriously injured people annually. It is estimated that most
orthopedists in the West earn their livings on „correcting“ the consequences of injuries
incurred in sport activities.
Body doping is but one of the means used to make the organism of a sportsmen
achieve results which exceed his biological capacities. Anabolic steroids, „bathing“ in
oxygen, blood doping, doping‐pregnancy, virilisation, „therapy“ with the hormone of
growth, erythropoietin, computer „processing“ of muscles and shock treatments (as in the
 30

„training“ of horses), genetic engineering – without all these means the „progress“ in sport
cannot be imagined. What the sports industry is doing to sportsmen resembles the
experiments on human beings performed in Nazi laboratories of death. Body doping is
carried out by sportsmen being fanaticized, which (only conditionally) can be called mental
doping and which blocks the power of reasoning and generates a will for self‐destruction. A
need to escape from poor slums and anonymity, dreams of making „big money“, the
dominant evaluative model, the achieved level of results, the imposed pattern of sports
conduct which involves the production of increasingly bloody and destructive spectacles –
all this creates the background for a fatalistic acceptance of one's sports „destiny“ and for
the development of a self‐destructive conscious. The maxim mens sana in corpore sano, and
particularly Coubertin's maxim mens fervida in corpore lacertoso, clearly indicates that
sport does not count on the development of mind, but on the development of a belligerent
(murderous‐destructive) character and an instrumentalized body.
Sports theorists, like Matveev, see in the increase in the bodily strength and
speed, and consequently the „results“ achieved by today's sportsmen in relation to the
ancient „sportsmen“, the chief indicators of the „development of mankind“. The playing
skill, the development of man's cultural being and interpersonal relations, as well as „moral
qualifications“ on which Coubertin insisted when he spoke of the religious spirit (religio
athletae) that pervaded the ancient Olympic Games – all this is being ignored. At the same
time, the emphasis placed on these indicators as the criteria according to which the
development of mankind is determined devaluates today all those who are deprived of
physical capacity required for the „highest achievements“ incarnated in sportsmen and
their records. In addition, ancient athletes achieved results which many people today
cannot achieve. Does that mean that they are degenerates?


Maurice Merleau‐Ponty:
Body as “Being‐in‐the World”


We can agree with Merleau‐Ponty's claim that to experience the world by way of
the body is the original and basic mode of “being‐in‐the world” and of man's relation to the
world. However, in Merleau‐Ponty, “being‐in‐the world” has an objectivistic, that is to say
an abstract, character. He departs from the body as the given and overlooks that “being‐in‐
the world” is not an autonomous process, which means that man does not experience his
body directly, but through the concrete totality of his own epoch and the prevailing
ideological “model” of the body, that is to say as a concrete human (social) being. The
human body is not a natural datum and as such a phenomenon sui generis, it is a historical
product. Not only is the relation to the body today essentially different in comparison to the
ancient and Christian civilizations, but we deal with an essentially different body. Each
 31

civilization creates a specific body and a specific relation to it – and thus a specific man.
Even in antiquity it was realized that to produce a particular body means at the same time
to produce a particular type of man (master race and slave). The class and racial
physiognomies are of utmost importance in bourgeois anthropology and the bourgeois
Hellenists who idealize the antiquity place special emphasis on it. The specificity of
capitalism is that it does not degenerate the body by depriving it of vitality (dying out of
bodily functions) through a meditative activism (asceticism), as is the case in Christianity,
but by transforming it into a machine through an instrumentalized (technicized)
destructive and productional (profiteering) activism. The sports body is a typical product
of “technical civilization”, meaning man's body degenerated in a capitalistic way. At the
same time, modern man's “being‐in‐the world” means having a (critical) attitude to the
existing world, as man is always “more” than that to which he is reduced in the existing
world. The animal also is a body, but it experiences the world surrounding it in a basically
different way than man. Man is a libertarian‐creative being and experiences the world by
way of humanized (socialized) senses, which means in a human way as a complete human
being guided by a vision of the world he can create: animal is what it is; man is what he can
be.
Merleau‐Ponty claims that the body is a “way of appropriating the world”, but the
body of today's man has already been appropriated by capitalism and corresponds to the
capitalistic appropriation of nature: it has an instrumental and destructive (denaturalizing)
character. The relation to the world through the body is the relation of a capitalistically
degenerated body (man) to a capitalistically degenerated world. An unreflected “naïve
touch with the world” (Merleau‐Ponty) is determined even before the birth – and it is not
“naïve”. By the very act of conception, which is increasingly only a technical insemination of
the increasingly ill woman with the increasingly ill semen, a being is created which, while
still in his mother, is exposed to the fatal influence of the environment. Man is not “thrown
into the world” (Heidegger), but is begotten in a fatally ill world and inevitably acquires the
features of that world. Man “enters” a degenerated world as an already degenerated being:
delivering of a child by a woman is only a manifest form in which the world delivers a man.
Subjectivity is essentially determined before man has become aware of himself as a
personality, which means before a self‐conscious subjectivity. It is precisely at the level of
physicality or unreflected perception that a child unconsciously adopts the life style and
value models which determine his future behaviour: the body is the reservoir of the
unconscious. The relation to the body in childhood largely conditions the development of
personality, affective nature, mind, behaviour... The “embryology of the human mind”
(Piaget) is conditioned by physical development and the conditions in which it occurs. The
way in which a child is delivered, its first contact with the world, mother, light, the
environment in which it grows, movements it masters, things it touches, sounds, smells,
food and the rhythm of feeding, physical contact, surroundings, way of dressing, air,
diapers, water, movements around it, restricted living space, toys, relation between
 32

parents, tension, aggressiveness of the environment – the entire living environment has a
specific character and predetermines man's relation to the world. In a child's growing there
is no spontaneous behaviour, which represents the pulsing of the original living rhythm of
man's natural being; the dominant rhythm is rather that of repression which “draws” man
into the existing world by suppressing and degenerating man's original nature and turning
him into a pathological person. It is already in the early childhood that the “seed of evil” is
inserted into man and the way it will develop and manifest itself is the matter of social
circumstances, concrete life and personality. The so called “aggressiveness”, which directly
affects the physical growth, does not stem from “man's animal nature”, but is a pathological
(psychical and bodily) reaction to the repression man is exposed to from his early years.
When it is “spontaneous”, it is a compensatory behaviour which does not eliminate the
causes of discontent, but contributes to their development.
In modern society, the relation to the body is mediated by the capitalist universe
(industrial mimesis, the principle of rationality and efficiency, destructive
instrumentalism...) which appears in the form of a technical sphere, alienated from and
dominant over man, which is an immediate living environment and imposes the logic of
living. It is by way of this sphere that the capital rules man and nature. Just as in antiquity
man was the slave of the ruling order by way of the sphere of Olympic gods, so in
capitalism he became the slave of the ruling order by way of science and technique. The
instrumentalization of the body is based on the capitalistically‐based division of labour,
that is, on specialization and thus on man's mutilation. Marx speaks of man being
transformed into a freak in the industrial process of production, which is brilliantly
demonstrated by Charlie Chaplin in his movie the “Modern Times”. The capitalistic form of
alienated labour processes the body by turning it into a technical (working) tool, and
reduces the mind to an operationalized intellect. A capitalistically degenerated body has
degenerated senses and motoring. The dominant characteristics are the bodily mechanic,
precision of movements, aesthetics of the machine, deerotization, hypertrophy of some and
atrophy of other functions, spiritless body and movements; instead of the ancient principle
metron ariston, prevails an aggressive muscular body; the principle of optimum effort is
replaced by the principle of “greater effort”; the prevailing character is (self) destructive
and the prevailing movement is adjusted to the capitalist rhythm of reproduction, etc. Thus,
it is not about a humanization, but about a technicization of the body (nature). The
capitalist way of industrial production transformed man into a robotized freak. It is best
seen in sport, in the principle “Recorders are born in vials!”, in which a robotized body is
the highest aesthetic challenge. If the body is neither natural nor human, then not only can
man not “be‐in‐the world”, he can no longer be at all – since he is no longer a man.
Physicalness as “perceptiveness with its own spatiality and time” (Merleau‐
Ponty) is but an illusion: capitalism appropriates man by way of a capitalistically
appropriated (degenerated natural) space, which means by way of destroying him as a
natural and human being. “Peculiarity” of the body is not the self of man, but the self of the
 33

ruling order – as man is alienated, which means that the body is alienated from man and
instrumentalized (degenerated) in a capitalist way. An instrumentalized relation to nature,
which is reduced to the object of exploitation and destruction, conditions also the relation
to the body which is man's immediate nature. The existing world is unnatural and inhuman
and man survives in it by way of a surrogate body. People live in towns which are capitalist
ghettoes and in which the capitalist degeneration of nature, life and man has reached the
climax: man is “illuminated” by artificial light, he breathes polluted air, drinks polluted
water, eats poisoned food, lives a kind of life which destroys man's connection to nature
and his natural being… As far as time is concerned, capitalism instrumentalizes man by
imposing on him the rhythm of life suitable to the pace of capitalist reproduction and which
is of a technical and destructive character. It is a totalizing time which, above all, conditions
the bodily rhythm and movements and crushes the biological rhythm of body's functioning.
As man is, by way of his body, “immediately in the world”, the most fatal and
inevitable form of the impact of capitalism, as the order of destruction, on man is through
the body: the crisis of the world is, at the same time, the crisis of the body. Hence the basic
form of man's self‐alienation is the alienation from one's own body. Man experiences
himself as an otherness as against the existing world through the suffering which is the
consequence not only of his unsatisfied primary needs, but also of their mutilation. He flees
the world by fleeing from his body, or by fleeing to his body (narcissism). Most people in
the West experience everyday frustration because they discard their own body as
worthless, unfitted to the ruling (consumer‐advertising) model of the body which becomes
the basis of social evaluation. Man experiences his body as a punishment, as something
alien, and tries to mask it (“fashion”), or change it with exhausting physical exercises,
“treatments”, operations... A capitalistically degenerated man has an instrumental relation
to his own body based on the principle of profit. Physical appearance and health are not the
purpose, but a vehicle for achieving social prestige and existence. The desirable model of
the body is that which is in line with the dominant value‐related model dictated by the
dominant fashion concerns. The frequently changing fashion forces people to ever more
frequent changes, which means an increasingly merciless treatment of the body. An
industry was born for the production of images. The image becomes a commodity similarly
to garments. The entertainment industry offers increasingly diversified forms of physical
degeneration. Plastic surgery, body‐building, fitness‐centres and diets – all these serve to
make man conform to the dominant model of the “beautiful” according to the standards of
advertising industry. “Barbie” doll becomes the “most beautiful” form of man's devaluation.
As far as “Rocky”, “Rambo”, “Terminator” and other Hollywood freaks are concerned, they
are the picture of the contemporary capitalist “superman”, whose cultural conscience has
been “erased” and who is guided in his behaviour by a destructive idiocy.
The nature of a “spontaneous” movement is conditioned by the environment,
circumstances and way of life. A “spontaneous” movement in a city is essentially different
from a spontaneous movement in nature. The character of the movement conditions the
 34

nature of the body (sense motoring), the development of the intellect, interpersonal
relations... Technicized movements, arising from the technical world and of a destructive‐
consumer character, represent the dominant form of repression over man. At the same
time, physical movement has a symbolic significance: drinking “Coca‐Cola” is not only
meant to satisfy thirst and is not only a physical act; it is a symbolic relation of man to the
existing world, to future, to himself and other people. Likewise, physical presence at a
“McDonald's” restaurant and the consumption of their surrogate food represent a symbolic
form of being‐in‐the world and the production of the ruling order, and the same can be said
of the boxing punch, technicized physical exercises, going to the stadium... “Searching for
answers” in children's “spontaneity” and in the cultures where man as an individual has not
yet been emancipated, through the means and forms which are the products of capitalist
civilization, is but a deviation in man's struggle for emancipation. “Bad” rationality cannot
be replaced by mystique, which is but a return to primitive forms of consciousness. The
bourgeois theory no longer seeks to affirm the capitalist civilization, but to deal with the
idea of future and mind itself. “To listen to the irrational” becomes the renouncement of
cultural legacy and escape from life. The voices of the irrational are a cry of the suppressed
and degenerated human needs, of a subdued personality. “To listen to the body”, which is
the most direct product of the existing world, means to submit to the ruling order.
In contrast to the former ruling classes, the bourgeoisie strives to include the
working layers into its spiritual, as well as into its living sphere. The capitalist way of life
(“consumer society”) becomes a totalizing principle of life which spares no one and from
which there is no escape. The commercialization of life is the worst form of totalitarianism
ever created in history, since it completely submits nature, society and man to the
destructive mechanism of the capitalist reproduction. Its essence is expressed in the
monstrous maxim “Money does not stink!” ‐ which illustrates the very gist of the ecocide
capitalist terrorism. According to the dictate of the absolutized principle of profit, the
totalizing of the world by “technical civilization” is in place – and it destroys the possibility
of creating a humanist civilization ‐ as well as of nature, body and bodily movement, which
directly conditions the “development” of senses and man's mental capacities. The dominant
form of bodily activism becomes a consumer activism. The commercialization of the body is
the “highest” form of capitalist degeneration of the body (man). Man's body is not only part
of a capitalistically degenerated world; it becomes a means of destroying the natural and
the human and as such the enemy of man. A direct product of the “consumer society” is a
man‐consumer corresponded by a consumer‐body in which the surrogates of “consumer
civilization” are to vanish. Capitalism destroys the body by turning it into a destructive
mechanism – causing hypertrophy of those physical functions which offer a possibility for
the development of consumer society, and the atrophy of those functions which are not of a
profitable character. The dominant rhythm is that of the capitalist reproduction which
destroys the biological rhythm of life – without which there is no healthy man. Man is not
only guided by a consumer activism as a value‐related challenge, but his body cannot
 35

survive without an ever bigger number of devices and aids, as well as artificial living
conditions. The capitalist totalizing of the world involves the capitalist totalizing of the
body, which means its distortion and the creation of a chronically ill man who can survive
only with an ever bigger amount of medicaments and medical interventions. Man's survival
is increasingly mediated by artificial means which turn him into an invalid. The body has
lost its natural needs: it can no longer process natural food; it lives on medicaments and
through medicaments. Man's whole life is under “treatments” which, ultimately, are to
enable him to survive in a functional harmony with the ruling order. Material wealth does
not provide him with a healthy life; it rather causes a specific mental and physical
degeneration of plutocracy. The relation to the body shows that the development of the
“consumer standard” involves the destruction of the living standard. Work, way of life,
movements, rhythm of living, diet, sleeping, space which is a modern ghetto (towns), air,
water, food, tobacco, drugs, beverages, the way of life which destroys man's natural being,
night life – all these forms of life become a way of man's degeneration. Cholesterol, cellulite,
diabetes, cancer, cardiovascular diseases, neurasthenia, depression, AIDS, etc. – are not the
“diseases of contemporary world”, but are capitalistic form of man's physical and mental
degeneration. It is about a capitalist mutation of man performed by depriving man of
natural and human life‐creating force and degenerating him into a plastic and technical
“being”. At the same time, an increasing number of threatening diseases are not naturally
conditioned and of a natural character; they are the products of laboratories and are of a
genocidal and profitable character. We are dealing here with a capitalist production of
diseases which are being “treated” by turning man into a profitable patient, which means a
chronically ill person. “Physical needs” of today's man are determined by propaganda
machinery and his social position. Man, who constantly devours increasing amounts of
increasingly low quality food, is the most important strategic goal of the food industry. It
creates an increasingly ill man who is, naturally, “attended to” by medical and
pharmaceutical industry. The consumption of an increasing amount of food is not the need
of our bodies, but is a compensation for a frustrated humanity. Capitalism is turning the
consequences of the destruction of nature and man into the sources of profits and is
developing ever more horrible mechanisms of destruction. The human body becomes a
universal destructive machine and a universal garbage collector which should devour the
ever more poisonous surrogates of the capitalist civilization. At the same time, existential
anxiety, everyday humiliations, loneliness, hopelessness generated by the destructive
capitalist nothingness, mentally distort man, and this is a direct cause of the degeneration
of the body.
The essence of historical phenomena can be realized properly only if we realize
the tendency of their development, which means the tendency of the development of the
world in which they arise and develop. What the body is can be realized only in the context
of the tendency of the development of capitalism. At the methodological level,
phenomenology offers a possibility of grasping the phenomena, through “intentionality”
 36

and the “phenomenology of genesis”, in the context of their change (becoming). The
“facticity of the world” (Merleau‐Ponty) is not what by itself “creates Weltlichkeit der Welt”
(worldliness of the world); it is the dominant (destructive) tendency of its development. It
directly influences man's physical and mental development and conditions his relation to
the world.


The Cult of the Existing World


Sport is the cult of capitalism. In his Olympic writings Coubertin writes of
Olympism as the “cult of the existing world” which appears under the ideological veil of the
“cult of humanism”. The starting point for establishing sport as the cult of the existing
world, however, is not humanism, but Social Darwinism and positivism. Sport is the
reaction of the bourgeoisie to the guiding ideas of the French Revolution, the emancipatory
legacy of the civil society and the ideal of future which becomes the landmark of a political
movement striving to overcome capitalism. It is a form in which the bourgeoisie, which
came to power on the wave of bourgeois revolutions, performed a spiritual
counterrevolution. Instead of of “Freedom”, “Equality” and “Brotherhood”, the principle of
“progress”, reduced to the “development” and “perfectioning” of capitalism, becomes the
supreme political principle; instead of a struggle to realize basic human and civil rights,
there exists a conflict between nations and races and colonial expansion ; instead of a
respect for cultural tradition, sport is used for destruction of nations' spiritual heritage and
thus their libertarian dignity... Sport becomes the most important “mondialist” ideology
and stadium the most important “cultural” venue of the capitalist world.
Unlike the religious cults based on transcendental values, sport is a positivist cult
reduced to the divination of the existing world. The prevailing symbolism in the stadiums
expresses the prevailing spirit of the existing world and represents a means for integrating
people into the ruling order. Not war, but life based on Social Darwinism and progressism
is the source of sport. Instead of traditional religions, Olympism becomes the highest
(positive) religion appropriate to the spirit of the modern world: the spirit of Olympism is
the spirit of capitalism. Unlike traditional religions, sport is not an attempt to make life
meaningful; it is a shock‐therapy meant to alleviate the ever bigger sufferings caused by the
everyday meaningless and ever bloodier life. It crushes the critical visionary mind, the idea
of future and man as a living (biological) being. The “creation of future” in sport is based on
the positivistic maxim “to know in order to predict, to predict in order to act” (savoir pour
prevoir, prevoir pour agir). A fight between people is possible, according to the rules which
are the embodiment of the ruling spirit, but not for the purpose of changing the established
order. In it, there is no fight between the good and the evil, which means that the basic
 37

humanistic principle is excluded from sport, the principle without which there is no
civilization. Sport is the most authentic anticipation of a capitalist “future”.
Sport is an eroticized cult of the existing world. Deerotization of man and
relations between people (genders) is accompanied by an erotisation of the relation to
sport and sport persons as a symbolic incarnation of the ruling spirit. The Olympic
spectacle, by its aggressive choreography, represents a peculiar love foreplay in which the
senses are stirred and man is kept in the state of erotic arousal. The modern Olympic
Games become a supreme ritual of man's submission to the ruling spirit, similarly to the
ancient Olympic Games, at which man surrendered himself to the Olympic gods ‐ the
difference being in that now we are dealing with a deerotization of the ancient physical
culture through progressivism, which involves quantification and industrial mimesis. Since
the most important task of the sports pedagogy is to fully incorporate man into the existing
world, it is also dominated by an appeal for harmony which is the “sister of order”
(Coubertin). At the same time, great importance is attached to the rhythm as “progress” has
a dynamic character. It symbolizes the throbbing of the living pulse of capitalism and a
never ending renewal of its life‐creating force which appears as a fatal power.
Sport has become the most important political weapon of the class domination by
which the bourgeoisie destroys the class conscious of the working people, critical mind,
libertarian dignity, depolitizes the oppressed, achieves “national integration”... In contrast
to the earlier games, which expressed the spirit of the ruling order and had a class
exclusivity, sport is a “supraclass” game which expresses the progressistic capitalist
universalism by means of which the bourgeoisie draws into its spiritual orbit not only
workers, but women and members of “lower races” as well. It serves to “overcome” class
antagonism (“sport has nothing to do with politics”), achieves “class reconciliation” and
thus “social peace”. For the ruling class, sport is an “ideological political cudgel” (Hoch)
which destroys the critical mind and workers' drive for changes. It is a vent releasing the
discontent of the oppressed and preventing the creation of an organized political
movement that can jeopardize the ruling order. The conflict between classes is transferred
from the political (social) sphere to stadiums, the war waged in sport being the
embodiment of the capitalist way of life. When a man gives vent to his discontent on a
stadium, he does that in a way which does not question the existing order, but reproduces
it. Sport is a capitalist ideology which “levels off” class differences based on the ruling
principles of capitalism. To win! – that is the existential imperative both for those who are
at the bottom and for those who sit in “blue loges”. Capitalism does not leave anybody
alone. The existential uncertainty is Damocles' sword hovering over everybody's head.
Trying to escape from the bottom and struggling not to come to the bottom – this is what
makes the rich and the poor “get closer”. “Enjoying” wealth means letting off the fear of
poverty. Sport repeatedly produces the awareness of an unavoidable world based on the
Social Darwinist principle “The stronger win, the weaker are eliminated!” (Coubertin). It
provokes a conflict between people (nations, races and genders) thus producing the
 38

existing world of injustice. Sport serves to provide the oppressed with “opponents” in the
form of an “opponent team” and “opponent supporters” so that they can vent their anger at
them because of their humiliating position. It absorbs the increasing discontent of the
oppressed working people and their children – whose future is being destroyed. Capitalism
produces an unhappy and mutilated man, and at the same time creates ever bloodier
compensatory mechanisms and a need for them – which is attributed to the “evil” human
nature. Sport clearly shows the truth that politics is an art of directing the discontent of the
oppressed towards the realization of inhuman ends. That is why in sport everything is
allowed: murder, serious physical injuries, verbal abuses... “Victory” on a sports field is the
defeat of humanity.
Sports spectacles have become the chief and cheapest spiritual food for those
deprived of their rights. To drive the oppressed into stadiums and sports centres has
become the most important political task of the ruling regimes. Hence everything is being
done to enable their regular occurrence. Those who adopt laws prescribing long‐term
imprisonment for children who run into the field during a game, are the main promoters of
sport, which is an institutionalized violence with a spectacular dimension; those who
struggle to “abolish” capital punishment as a “non‐civilized” measure are the chief
organizers of the ever bloodier sports spectacles in which premeditated and accidental
murders as well as the infliction of serious physical injuries are legalized; the European
legislation in no way tries to stop a monstrous abuse of increasingly younger children and
their turning into sports slaves; the duration and intensity of trainings are not limited; the
selling of players by clubs is legalized; segregation according to the gender has been
institutionalized; the use of dope is elevated to the level of the state policy – hiding the
interests of multinational concerns and ruling political clans; “physical culture” has been
expelled from schools and “sports education” has been introduced in which, instead of
cultural conscious and tolerance, prevail physical strength and the spirit of ruthless rivalry;
young people deprived of their rights acquire the status of “hooligans” and thus of social
outcasts; instead of pedagogical measures for preventing the violent behaviour of young
people and creating the conditions for changing their ever harder social position, we are
facing an increasingly brutal police oppression... All those things that express the existential
spirit of capitalism – murder, physical injuries, destruction of humanity – acquire in sports
fields a spectacular dimension. The principle “Victory at all costs!”, which corresponds to
the principle “Profit at all costs!” ‐ becomes a supreme and unquestionable sports principle.
Officially, “sport has nothing to do with politics” but, in fact, it is a universal
political instrument of the world rulers in their attempt to preserve capitalism.
“Sportivization” has become the most important ideological form of the capitalist totalizing
of the world, while stadium has become the most important cult venue of the
contemporary world – where to the ruling spirit a critical and change‐oriented mind is
sacrificed. Sport, as the chief “mondialist” religion, becomes a means for destroying
traditional religions, cultural heritage of peoples and political ideas and movements which
 39

oppose the “new world order”, which means a destructive (ecocide) capitalist
totalitarianism. Coubertin does not hide that the chief task of IOC is to create, through
sport, a global positive one‐mindedness. The establishment of a total and unquestionable
unique (capitalist) worldview has become the leading political principle. In the world, there
are thousands and thousands of sports manifestations every day; the sports commentaries
from the sports fields are given the prime time in the news and cover most of the space in
public media; “sports” TV channels broadcast sports programme non‐stop; sport is
becoming the chief advertising billboard in an increasingly ruthless economic war and the
most important political platform; sports paganism becomes a means of Christian churches
(and other leading religious communities) for courting the “masses”; the ruling “aesthetic
model” becomes the sports body; everyday language takes over sports terminology,
especially the political language and that of business; politicians and capitalists place
primary importance to their sports biographies, the photos of them are taken while
engaged in a sports activity, they strive to attain a “sporting image” which is meant to
demonstrate their “victorious spirit”; sport becomes the chief means for “money
laundering”, meaning a mafia business of utmost importance; coaches acquire the status of
supreme managers of capitalism; sportsmen become moving billboards, while stadiums,
sports and betting places become the temples of capitalism.
The role of a journalist is to give a “spectacular” dimension to the increasingly
cruel sports reality. There is not a critical detachment from the aspect of morality, social
interest or any other norms apart from sport. Sports commentators glorify violence and
destruction and in a perfidious way encourage conflicts between the oppressed, which
appear in the form of supporters, between nations, genders and races. They seek to
establish a direct contact between sports spectacles and subconscious: a sports spectacle is
meant to “draw” discontent from the oppressed and direct it towards the “opponent”.
Sports articles are of an increasingly primitive character: they correspond to the sport
which destroys the power of reasoning and creates a massive idiocy. The ever more
aggressive sensationalism is a commercial form of ever more meaningless texts which give
a “fatal” dimension to marginal phenomena and a marginal dimension to the crucial issues
for humanity. Writing on the nature of modern capitalism Marcuse concludes: „The non‐
functioning of television and the allied media might thus begin to achieve what the inherent
contradictions of capitalism did not achieve – the disintegration of the system. The creation
of repressive needs has long since become part of socially necessary labour – necessary in
the sense that without it, the established mode of production could not be sustained.
Neither problems of psychology nor of aesthetics are at stake, but the material base of
domination.“ (5) Capitalism creates not only repressive, but also (self) destructive needs.
Suicidal “feats” become the biggest “test of courage” and are thus a form of dragging people
away from the field of (political) fight for the realization of their human rights and the
survival of the world. The same applies to boxing and other bloody spectacles. Instead of
directing their dissatisfaction to the abolishment of the world of misery, people direct it to
 40

bloody clashes with other people. Sport is the most important instrument of capitalism for
degenerating man. It destroys not only the body, but also the critical change‐oriented
(visionary) conscious and produces (self‐destructive) fanaticism. By way of sport man is
held outside historical space where the governing values are conserved – which is the
essence of the view that sport is a phenomenon sui generis and “has nothing to do with
politics”. Instead of changing the ruling order which increasingly generates evil, the order
changes man by destroying in him everything that makes him human and can become the
basis for the development of a critical mind and changing practice. The emancipatory
legacy of civil society has been discarded and “new” fascism is being established which is
the incarnation of the ecocide spirit of contemporary capitalism. By becoming the order of
destruction in a pure sense (“consumer society”), capitalism cast away its “humanistic” and
“progressive” mask. Sport is no longer used for preserving the faith in the “eternal values of
capitalism”, the critical change‐oriented mind is being destroyed which, above all, means
the confidence that a free and righteous world is possible. Manipulation shifts from the
ideological sphere to the psychological one: stadium becomes a psychotherapeutic
institution. Instead of the cult of victory and records, the dominant cult is that of a spectacle
which is the main spiritual drug by means of which the ruling oligarchy holds “masses”
under control; instead of becoming “contestants” and “recorders”, sportsmen become
circus players, gladiators and stuntmen.
Just as the true picture of war are not military parades, but killed and mutilated
people, desperate mothers, burned houses and fields, starving children dying in mud – so
the true picture of sport are not smiling faces of sportsmen at the opening ceremony of the
Olympic Games, but their degenerated bodies, ruined health, destroyed youth, life without
a future... A man deprived of rights, abused, defeated and destroyed – that is the true
picture of war and sport alike.















 41

SPORT AND CULTURE

In the philosophy of play it is generally agreed that play is one of the most
important pillars of culture. The analysis of concrete views on play indicates that no
difference is made between culture and civilization. More precisely, the discussion on play
comes down to a delusory rhetoric which, through humanistic phrases, is to give “cultural”
legitimacy to the phenomena which are essentially anticultural. Hence it is no surprise that
the philosophy of play attaches great importance to sport as a specific play in which the
“cultural heritage of mankind has been preserved”. Accordingly, stadiums and sports halls
become the temples of “culture”, and sportsmen the “bearers of the highest cultural
values”. As sport, through its politization and commercialization, becomes more and more
anticultural, so do the masters of sport more and more aggressively seek to disguise sports
spectacles in the veil of “culture” and thus prove that sport, as a symbolic expression of the
basic principles of capitalism, belongs to the “highest cultural achievements”. The “cultural
programme”, which regularly follows the opening of the Olympic Games – in which
enormous sums of money are invested and the most modern technique is used – is nothing
else but a “grandiose” expression of a megalomaniac primitivism of their organizers
designed to blind man and destroy his visionary mind. Today's sport has fully realized the
endeavours of the ruling order, ever more dominant in other social areas, to create a
surrogate of “culture” by which the emancipatory heritage of civil society and man's
libertarian dignity will be destroyed. Man's becoming a “cultural being” comes down to his
cooperation in crushing man's authentic human needs and capacities. As a result of the
ever more ruthless economic war, the capital not only strives to reduce culture to its
advertising programme, but to submit man's conscious, his behaviour, interpersonal
relations, practically the entire social life, to his own interests. It is about the creation of a
surrogate life corresponded by a “consumer culture of living”, a “new” form of paganism
reduced to the glorification of the existing world. Sport becomes a spectacular form of
worshipping a surrogate life. Unlike other areas which “cover” the so called “free time”,
such as music, theatre and other segments of what is referred to as the “cultural sphere”,
offering possibilities of a critical confrontation with the existing world and the creation of
the idea of a better (humane) world, sport as an institution is the ideological expression of
the existing world and thus crushes the idea of future. The philosophical basis of sport is
positivism, which, as shown in Marcuse, beginning with Auguste Comte, has led to fascism.
On these authoritarian spiritual and political grounds a sports movement developed. Sport
is not an expression of the cultural (emancipatory) heritage of modern society; it is an
authentic expression of a life based on Social Darwinism and progressism, and thus is the
most important tool for the creation of a “new man”, whose advent symbolically suggests
the end of the “old” and the beginning of a “positive world” in which the cultural heritage of
 42

mankind is abolished. At the same time, sport destroys the traditional forms of physical
culture. It can be illustrated on the example of karate and other martial arts of feudal Japan,
which are, reduced to “sports competition”, deprived of the cultural (religious) essence and
have become a capitalistically degenerated (decultivated/denaturalized) contest.
Interestingly, the views of leading theoreticians of “real socialism” on sport are almost
identical to the views of bourgeois theoreticians. Matveev's conclusion is typical in that
respect: “Sport historically appears, most probably, as one of the oldest components of the
general human culture.” (1)
Sport has become one of the most important means for destroying culture. It is
given an ever larger space in media at the expense of culture: sports spectacles have
become the most important “spiritual food” for the “masses”. The proportion of payments
received by teachers and sportsmen respectively most obviously shows the tendency of
development of the contemporary world. In the beginning of 1970s in Yugoslavia, teachers
in secondary schools received approximately equal payments as the leading basketball
players. By the end of the XX century, the most popular basketball players received 1
million Deutsch marks per season, while teachers received 250 Deutsch marks per month.
A similar proportion can be found as regards teachers and sportsmen in sports which make
the core of sports show‐business, established both in Europe and the USA. It is no accident
that in the USA almost one hundred million citizens are illiterate, while in England, the
cradle of capitalism, over 25% of citizens cannot use the English script.
A direct link between the development of sports show‐business and decline in
the cultural level of citizens in developed capitalist countries can be proved statistically. It
is of utmost importance for the political structuring of society as well as for the overall
social development, since decultivation of citizens, especially the working population which
is ever more deprived of their rights, has become the most important way of their
depolitization. The creation of massive idiocy is a strategic landmark of the bourgeoisie in
its hopeless strivings to prevent the disintegration of capitalism. This is why sport has a
paramount political importance.


Max Horkheimer: Sport as the
“Continuity of Cultural Tradition”


In his study on the importance of sport in modern society, written in the 1960s,
Max Horkheimer comes to the conclusion that “sports rules and sports mentality” ‐ “are a
modern expression of great cultural traditions of the past, Christianity, as well as the Age of
Enlightenment in France and the philosophy of Immanuel Kant. Without this sports spirit
the survival of a fair and peaceful competition between nations could not be imagined”.
Claiming that sport is an “expression of freedom”, Horkheimer concludes that “in our
 43

modern civilization, which is threatened from all sides and which experiences the
disintegration of the family and other sources of culture”, sport has become “a kind of a
separate world, society within society, where we can place our hopes”. (2) While in Bloch
we can find a positivist determination of sport which becomes an evaluative neutral
phenomenon, whose concrete nature is determined by the nature of the political
movement which uses it for realizing its own ends, (3) in Horkheimer sport becomes a
symbolic incarnation of liberty, imagination, the creative, and thus obtains a place
alongside art, philosophy, literature, as well as other “sources of productive imagination”.
(4) How could Horkheimer, after all he had written, come to such conclusions? It is
precisely Horkheimer, together with Adorno, whose views offered the possibilities of a
radical criticism of sport. In the “Dialectic of Enlightenment” we can find the following
thought: “Even the fact that hygienic factory premises, Volkswagen and the sports palaces
stupidly liquidate metaphysics would be irrelevant; it is not, however, irrelevant that these
things themselves in the social whole turn into metaphysics, into an ideological curtain
behind which real evil is concentrated.” (5) Speaking of the nature of “Western
democracy”, Horkheimer and Adorno say: “No one can officially be responsible for one's
thoughts. But, that is why everybody is from an early age included in the system of
churches, clubs, professional associations and other relations which are the most sensitive
instruments of social control.” (6)
Horkheimer does not strive to establish the nature of sport as a concrete
historical phenomenon, but departs from an ideological picture of sport, created by the
bourgeois theory, according to which sport is a phenomenon sui generis and as such an
unquestionable pillar of the “humanistic” vault of capitalism. Why did Horkheimer give
sport such a dimension? Is it because sport has become a global phenomenon and acquired
such popularity? His insisting on sport as a “peaceful competition” between nations would
suggest something like that. Horkheimer regards the contests between nations on the
sports field as the ideal of a “fair and peaceful cooperation”, without asking why nations
should compete on the sports field in ever bloodier fights of modern gladiators which
generates a nationalistic fury (pseudo‐collectivistic conscious), instead of cooperating by
way of spiritual means based on the wealth of national cultures? Here it should be noted
that, for Coubertin and Nazi ideologues of sport, the most important feature of sport is that
it deals with the pacifist conscious of young people and represents a preparation for
colonial exploits and war. Horkheimer can be asked other questions as well. How come that
capitalism has such a destructive influence on all social institutions while sport remains
outside its scope of influence? By reducing sport to a phenomenon sui generis, Horkheimer
rejected the possibility of analyzing the development of sport as the most representative
ideology of capitalism which shares its destiny.
Bearing in mind the nature of sport as a concrete social phenomenon, we can
conclude that in his relation to sport Horkheimer was not guided by a (critical) mind, but
by the strivings to confront the devastation of cultural heritage. Obviously, Horkheimer
 44

strives to elevate sport to the level of a symbolic phenomenon by which the emancipatory
achievements of modern society that are less and less present in other spheres can be
preserved. If Horkheimer's theory were true, sports stadiums and halls would be cultural
temples and sportsmen would be the cultural elite of mankind. In fact, stadiums and sports
palaces have become bonfires burning the cultural heritage of mankind, and sportsmen
have become gladiators, circus players and stuntmen. To make things even more ironic, the
main participants, and thus the bearers of the “cultural heritage of mankind”, are the least
educated layers of the poor, primarily the children from black ghettoes in the USA and
Africa, who in the “civilized (Western) world” have the status of a “lower race”. Horkheimer
does not realize that sport destroys national cultures and creates uniformity in terms of
physical “qualities”, while Social Darwinism and the absolutized principle of a
quantitatively measurable result (expressed in the maxim citius, altius, fortius) become the
basis for man's “self‐assertion” and the establishment of “interpersonal” relations.
Likewise, it is hard to understand that Horkheimer does not mind the killing and the
infliction of serious injuries in sport being legalized; he does not mind the institutional
segregation according to the gender and degradation of women to “lower beings”; the fact
that “work with children” is not restricted and that children are exposed to excessive
physical strain and humiliations; that specialization starts at an increasingly early age and
comes down to physical, mental and social mutilation of children; that in sport, the selling
of people is “normal”, etc.
Morgan's interpretation of Horkheimer (7) suggests that for Horkheimer sport
represents a compensation for what man has been deprived of in technicized labour. Hence
he rejects Plessner's and Habermas's theory, according to which sport is the “duplication of
the world of labour”, and regards sport as a separate world with the rules of its own.
Horkheimer does not struggle for a new world and, in that context, against the causes
leading to the destruction of the cultural heritage of mankind, but tries to use sport, as a
condensed expression of the basic principle of capitalism, for saving the cultural heritage of
mankind – from capitalism itself.
Interestingly, Horkheimer wrote this text at the time when sport was becoming
the chief weapon in the “cold war” confrontation; when Afro‐Americans, as the racial group
in the USA most deprived of its rights and poorest, were becoming the “drawing power” in
the American sport; when the legendary champion for human rights of Afro‐Americans,
Martin Luther King, called “black” sportsmen “black gladiators of the XX century”, who are
the “shame for the black race” as they allowed white racists to use them in order to cover
up the humiliating position of Afro‐American population in the USA.
About ten years after the publication of the cited text, in an interview with
Helmut Guminior, published under the title “Longing for something completely different”
(“Die Sehnsucht nach dem ganz Anderen”), Horkheimer says that “the end of serious
philosophy is nearing” and that there is a danger of human society being reduced to “a
colony of ants”.(8) Bearing in mind the key theses from his “Dialectic of Enlightenment” and
 45

“Critical Theory”, it is difficult to understand that Horkheimer does not see the link between
the development of mass sport and mass sports spectacles and the destruction of mind, and
that he does not realize that from its very beginning sport has been a means for destroying
reason, Eros, imagination, which means a creative personality, and for creating a loyal and
usable subject.


Sport and Christianity


What does Horkheimer's claim that sport is based on Christianity mean?
According to the Christian doctrine, “God” created man from dust and inspired him with life
in the form of soul. The purpose of the earthly life is to liberate the soul from the “bodily
prison” in order for it to “soar to eternity”. This corresponds to the conception that the true
movement is not that of the body through physical time and space but the movement of the
spirit through a timeless and limitless space. For Plato, the body is the “prison (grave) of
the soul”. According to St. Augustine, “God orders the spirit, and spirit orders the body”:
physical movement is the expression of spiritual movement. Thomas Aquinas thinks that
man should try to “conserve his health” and “preserve body in a good condition”. This is
close to the principle “take care about the body, but do not create the cult of the body”
(cura del corpo si, culto del corpo no) which, in the eve of modern times, was established by
the Catholic Church as the expression of its inability to oppose new tendencies in the
development of the world. Philanthropists turned upside down the original Christian
dogma. Guided by the maxim “Fresh, Pious, Free!” (“Frisch, Fromm, Frei!”), they do not see
the body as the “prison of the soul”, but as the “temple of the holy spirit” (Pestalozzi). As far
as “Christian reformers” are concerned – such as Kingsley and Maurice, Pope Leo XIII,
protestant pastor James Naismith (“creator” of basketball), Pennsylvanian bishop Talbot
(who said the words: “It is important to take part in the Olympic Games, not to win!” ‐
which will be ascribed to Coubertin), abbot Didon (from whom Coubertin took over the
maxim citius, altius, fortius) – they regard sport as a means for depolitization of “masses”
and sports organizations as a collaborator in the struggle against the libertarian working
movement. In sport, the soul is abolished, and thus the bond between man and God, while
the body becomes an organic and symbolic, unbreakable bond between man and the
existing world. Unlike Nietzsche, who, in opposition to Christian “despisers of the body”,
sees in it the origin and the basic condition of man's “self‐propriety”, in sport, the body is a
means for abolishing man's self‐propriety and his complete incorporation into the existing
world. Thomas Arnold turned sport into an instrument for creating the cult of a “muscular”
body and a character suited to the nature of capitalist society, but planted on it Christian
moralism (“muscular Christians”). Modern Olympism, which is most completely shaped in
Coubertin's writings, discarded the normative sphere and became a cult of the existing
 46

world in the pure sense of that word: sport is the crown of the positivist thought, which
strives to pin man down to the existing world.
According to the Christian doctrine, men are not “rivals”, but “brothers”. Hence it
is dominated by the principle of “love thy brother”, which implies a movement of one man
towards another – which is the movement of man towards “God” as true humanity –
instead of the movement of man against man, as it is the case in sport, which involves the
infliction of serious physical injuries and killing. According to the Olympic doctrine, man is
not “a being created by God in his own image”, but is a “lazy animal” (Coubertin) in which,
through an unrestrained fight for domination and the principle of “greater effort”, a fighting
spirit is to be developed and thus a super‐beast. In Christianity, the prevailing idea is that of
transcendence, expressed in “God”, while in sport it is the positivist cult by means of which
the existing world is to be divinized: sport represents the culmination of “modern”
paganism. Christianity strives for the higher; sport strives for the bigger: it divinizes
“progress” dominated by the absolutized principle of performance. Unlike sport,
Christianity established the fight between good, manifested in “God”, and evil, manifested
in the “devil”. The cross symbolizes a crossroad: it is up to man whether he will choose the
“road of good”, or the “road of evil”. Unlike the Christian “paradise”, where the prevalent
values are contrary to the existing world and offer an opportunity for establishing a critical
(not change‐oriented) relation to it, sport is a projection of the dominant relations and
values and as such is the abolishment of a critical distance to the world and man's
immersion into that world. Instead of an illusory “world of happiness” which, if one lives
the life of a humble Christian, awaits man after death, a play is offered as the “oasis of
happiness” and thus an “earthly paradise”. In sport, the Christian “meekness” is discarded:
the cult of a muscular body and a belligerent character serves to create the cult of
thisworldy life: eternity is transferred from “Heaven” to earth. Nothing remains of
“muscular Christians” but their muscles and an insatiable greediness which becomes the
driving force of “progress”.
Instead of the Christian modesty and humbleness, sport is dominated by the spirit
of aggressive elitism and haughtiness; instead of the spirit of the submissive – the spirit of
the masters; instead of asceticism – greediness; instead of the cult of the spirit – the cult of
the muscular body; instead of strivings for the “other world” ‐ divinization of the existing
world; instead of sin and redemption – the abolishment of moral reasoning and
responsibility; instead of the Christian “Goodman” ‐ a sportsman, a robotized gladiator,
becomes the incarnation of a positive man; instead of the Christian depersonalized soul – a
depersonalized (robotized) body... The dominant principles in sport are the following:
homo homini lupus est and bellum omnium contra omnes, mens sana in corpore sano, mens
fervida in corpore lacertoso, citius‐altius‐fortius ‐ which are opposed to Christianity and
founded in an order based on private property and atomized (petit) bourgeois. In spite of
insisting on private property as a “holy” institution, the church is based on collective
property and collectivistic spirit, which resembles (only formally) the communist principle
 47

“everyone according to abilities, to everyone according to his needs” (Marx). It is not the
“faith in God” but the collective property which is the integrative power preventing the
disintegration of the church, which would undoubtedly occur if, within the church, the
“holy” private property were to become the dominant form of ownership.
The establishment of a rigid dualism of the body and spirit, the body being
subordinated to the spirit, is one of the most important common points of sport and
Christianity. In this context, both ideologies instrumentalize the body and regard is as a
means for realizing “higher” ends. While in Christianity the body is a tool for the realization
of “God's will”, in sport, it is reduced to the means for realizing “progress” which comes
down to the realization of strategic interests of the ruling order. In sport, the relation to the
human body is close to that which Descartes shaped in his mechanicistic philosophy of the
bodily, although here it is mediated by the absolutized principle of performance which
conditions the development of a (sado) masochistic character. Unlike the Christian
meditative activism which insists on asceticism and leads to the restraint and dying out of
physical functions (kneeling is the most authentic Christian bodily posture), sports activism
(based on the absolutized principle of “greater effort” corresponded by the maxime citius,
altius, fortius) leads to a limitless intensifying of physical exertion, and thus to suppression,
degeneration and destruction of spirituality – the basis of religion, which means of the very
possibility of “reaching God” ‐ and turns man into a pure matter having a mechanicistic
form. A spiritless and instrumentalized man, reduced to a “sportsman”, becomes a manifest
form of capitalist nothingness.


Sport and Enlightenment


As far as the Enlightenment is concerned, sport discards the faith in reason and
the pedagogy which departs from man as a reasonable being. It insists on a muscular body
and a belligerent character, which is expressed in Coubertin's maxim mens fervida in
corpore lacertoso. It is a Social Darwinist basis for the “will to power”, its “anthropological”
foundation being in greediness. Sport, just as the bourgeois physical culture which
abandoned the emancipatory traces of the Enlightenment (on which the philanthropic and
dancing movements were based), is dominated by a technical‐productivistic rationality: the
body is reduced to a machine, and movement to the mechanics of movement. The perfect
functionality of a machine, which means that the body becomes an instrument for
producing performance in a pure sense, becomes the highest aesthetic challenge. Sport
does not represent the realization of the emancipatory legacy of the Enlightenment, but
one of the most fatal tendencies in the development of the Enlightenment thought, which
was pointed out by Horkheimer and Adorno: “the transformation of the Enlightenment into
positivism”. (9) It is precisely Horkheimer (Adorno) who insists on the criticism of the
 48

absolutized principle of quantitatively measurable performance prevalent in sport: “What

is not given to the measurement of calculability and usability is suspicious to the
Enlightenment” – “the number has become the canon of the Enlightenment”. (10) And he
continues: “Bourgeois society is ruled by equivalence. It makes the dissimilar comparable
by reducing it to abstract quantities. To the Enlightenment, that which does not reduce to
numbers, and ultimately to the one, becomes illusion; modern positivism writes it off as
literature. Unity is the slogan from Parmenides to Russell. The destruction of gods and
qualities alike is insisted upon.” (11) In sport, there is no dialectical confrontation between
good and evil, freedom and slavery, old and new... Quantitative shifts without qualitative
leaps become an expression and a measure of “progress”, which creates and illusion that
capitalism is capable of “moving forward” forever – at the expense of the destruction of
man and nature. In sport, there is no “cultural time” (Bloch), which means there is no
historical movement; it is dominated by a mechanicistic time with a mythological aura
(“immortal spirit of antiquity”). The “history of sport” is reduced to a linear sequence of
figures to which the names of impersonalized champions are attached. Sport represents the
means for creating the cult of capitalist “progress”: quantitative comparison becomes a
superhuman force to which man is fatally submitted. Sport most convincingly confirms
Horkheimer and Adorno's conclusion from the “Dialectic of Enlightenment” that “the curse
of a constant progress is a constant regression”. (12) At the same time, there is a “reflexion
on the destructiveness of progress” (13) and on the “renouncement of all hope”. (14) Sport
is based on technological rationalism which is a manifest form of the destructive capitalist
irrationalism. The absolutized principle of performance, expressed in the record as the
market value of result and thus the end in itself, represents a manifest form of capitalist
reproduction, based on the absolutized principle of increasing the profit: the speed of the
reproduction of capital is the power dictating the rhythm of social events and conditioning
the dramatics of human life. At the same time, in sport there is no will for creating a world
based on reason and freedom – the most important emancipatory intention of the German
classical philosophy; it is dominated by physical strength, speed, stamina, as well as a
ruthless (destructive) belligerent character. Capitalist degeneration of the emancipatory
physical culture corresponds to the degeneration of the emancipatory spirit of the
Enlightenment. From a world founded on reason, we have come to a world founded on the
number.


Fair‐play and Kant's “Categorical Imperative”


As far as Horkheimer's appeal to Immanuel Kant is concerned, in Kant's
conception of play sport is denied a playing character. In his comments on Kant's views on
play in his “Critique of Judgement” (“Kritik der Urteilskraft”), Danko Grlić concludes that,
 49

according to Kant, play, “in contrast to work, is a free human activity of the human body or
spirit which occurs without a direct practical purpose or usage that would exist outside the
activity itself. Play is played out of sheer joy of playing and everything else that from the
outside wants to determine or restrict it, to direct or instruct it, spoils the very free
character of play, restrained by no one and nothing. Hence, even when play is placed in the
service of a particular purpose: exercising, strengthening of spirit, competition or fight for
victory, it loses its authentic original sense, since it is contained in the very uncertainty,
uninhibitedness, in a free motion not determined by the conditions of the actual, real life,
but solely by the rules of the world of play. Therefore, play can follow only its own
immanent purposefulness and not a purpose beyond itself, however “noble” or “great” it
might be. Play becomes a “purposefulness without a purpose”. (15)
In Kant, the dominant world is the a priori “world of play”, which has nothing to
do with reality and is bounded by its own rules. It is an apparent (idealized) opposition to
the existing world and thus is a datum independent of man and society, where what is not
possible in society becomes possible. Kant does not speak of the essence of play as a
concrete social phenomenon, but seeks to establish a normative project of play which
becomes a prism through which social relations proclaimed to be “play” should be
observed. “Free play” is based on the mind which is “free” from reality and exists only in
conceptual terms, that is, as the ideal of play not matched by any of the existing plays –
which appeared in a given historical moment and are a playing form of the manifestation of
the ruling relations and values. Play, in its essence, corresponds to Kant's world of
noumenon and accordingly is of an a priori character.
In his “Anthropology” Kant says: “Labour and play can be compared like war and
peace. The former exerts a kind of force on our capacities, directing them to a given end;
the latter /play/ places them in a free motion, by which the powers of the soul
proportionally engaged and enlivened are precisely that which gives us pleasure; in
contrast to that, the forms of labour are ends.“ (16) In Kant's philosophy , the world is not a
whole; it is divided in the world of concern and the world of happiness, the world of labour
and the world of play – which are spheres independent of man, and in which man exists.
Consequently, man is not a whole being which as such relates to the world; he is artificially
divided in the worker and player. Labour becomes a negative foundation in relation to
which the concept of play is determined: labour is compulsory – play is free; labour is a
target activity which engages man one‐sidedly – play offers the possibility of realizing
spiritual forces and as such is a pastime. The real world of non‐freedom is confronted with
the abstract world of play which is proclaimed to be “freedom” ‐ and which is only an
ideological cover for the existing plays the nature of which is conditioned by the ruling
relations and values. The “idea of play” becomes the ideological picture of a social
phenomenon whose essence is determined by the concrete totality of the ruling relations.
In Kant, strivings for play are not an expression of man's strivings to become free
as a social being, but to experience freedom – in a world of non‐freedom. Instead of
 50

freedom in society, Kant offers man a “pastime” in play; instead of a vision of a free world,
Kant offers the idea of a “free play”. “Spontaneity”, “purposelessness”, and the like are
determinations of play which suggest that free play in a world of non‐freedom is possible.
One must but immerse oneself into the “world of play” to experience freedom. Play
becomes a mystical force giving man happiness in an extreme misery. Pursuing happiness
involves an escape from the existing world of misery and renouncement of the right to a
happy life: misery in everyday life is a conditio sine qua non of happiness in play. Play is
possible only in the existing world of non‐freedom and it cannot involve strivings for a
world of freedom (libertarian play), nor the culmination of the world of freedom (genuine
play). It is a (apparent) freedom from the existing world, but not freedom for a future
world: it does not have a visionary dimension. Pursuing freedom in the illusory world of
play becomes the substitute for a struggle to create a world in which man will be free.
Instead of aspiring to a happy life, man should unquestioningly accept the world of
sufferings and direct his aspirations to happiness towards the sphere of play which in Kant
is an unrealizable ideal, while in reality it is only a playing form of the manifestation of the
ruling relations and values. Kant's conception of play is a way to obtain for the existing
relations which were proclaimed “play” such a philosophical foundation which makes them
apparently independent. In fact, it is not the concept of play which is determined, but the
relation of man to the existing world conceived as a given fact. Play is not an illusory world
of freedom, but a concrete world of non‐freedom to which man should relate as if it were a
world of freedom. Play becomes a “free” form of letting off the steam of non‐freedom.
Unlike Schiller, Kant does not depart from man's playing being, but from the play
as a repressive normative vault by which man's “aggressive” nature is held under control.
He is not guided by a (romantic) faith in man, but strives to oppose the “evil” human nature
in order to prevent the disintegration of society. His ideal of man represents the ideal of a
model citizen. Kant's pedagogy does not insist on man's humanization but on his
“disciplining”, which means on stopping the animalistic from jeopardizing humanity; on
“cultivation”, which means instruction; on “civilizing”, which means to be accepted in
society and to exert influence; and on man's “moralization”, which means to make him opt
for good ends which can be universally accepted. (17) Play is a repressive estheticized
model of behaviour which produces a moral consciousness. Man can be free only within the
boundaries established “solely by the rules of the world of play itself” ‐ which is a
phenomenon sui generis, the meaning of which and the rules of which do not depend on
man, nor on social relations. Instead of man being free as a playing being, which involves
the creation of new playing forms within the creation of a new world, he is submitted to the
given normative mould of play. It is not about the nature of play and the nature of its rules,
the emphasis is rather on a subjective moment: “play is played out of the very joy of
playing”. Since for Kant play is a phenomenon sui generis, man does not play, but is in play:
the “joy of playing” is not the joy of man as a playing being, but a peculiar quality of play.
The true purpose of play lies in “uncertainty, uninhibitedness, in a free motion not
 51

determined by the conditions of the actual, real life, but solely by the rules of the world of
play”. Play is not only opposed to work but is a given independent of the conditions of real
life. Man is abolished as a social (historical) being, and play as a concrete social (historical)
phenomenon. The abstract man becomes free in the abstract play. Kant's “world of play” is
analogous to Schiller's “aesthetic state”, the difference being in that Schiller's world of play
is attained through a developed aesthetic being and romantic daydreaming. Hence, for him,
the prototype of genuine play is not children's play, as it is for Kant, but the play of an
emancipated man who opts for play with his free will, guided by a developed aesthetic
being. If Kant's conception is consistently followed, the authentic play of adults is not
possible since, on the one hand, they, burdened by labour, have lost the ability of
experiencing the joy of play and, on the other hand, the ruling forms of play arise from
social reality and have, just like labour, a purposeful (instrumental) character.
Kangrga's interpretation of Kant's notion of “spontaneity”, which is the key
notion for understanding play, is interesting. According to Kangrga, in Kant, the dominant
idea is that of man's self‐creation through the production and appropriation of his own
imminently human world according to the principles of spontaneity and freedom.
Spontaneity = intelligence = freedom = practical mind – these are the basic postulates and
relations in Kant's philosophy. The spontaneity of reason – spontaneity as intelligence
suggests man’s designed, transformed, cultivated nature. Spontaneity is not an act of
nature, but of reason (intelligence). According to Kangrga, the notion of spontaneity in Kant
is determined “from the horizon of the already man's world, or better: the establishment of
that world”. (18) Self‐consciousness of human action is a historical act. The relation
between freedom and nature (impulses) is conceived from one highest point, and it is the
idea, that Self, freedom – which Kant sees in revolution. Kant's ethics draws on the
following concepts: duty, moral law, freedom, categorical imperative, morality ... (19)
Kant's philosophy of freedom (spontaneity) is, in fact, the philosophy of duty, of learned
and unquestionably accepted restraints. A revolution is to enable the abolishment of the
selfwilledness of the aristocracy and elevate the moral law, which can save society from the
“evil” human nature, to the level of a universal principle which applies to all citizens and is
the essence of his “categorical imperative”. Kant does not depart from man as a social being
oriented towards other both existentially and essentially, but from a (petit) bourgeois who
is guided by greediness: private property is the basis of “socialization”. Hence Kant attaches
such importance to the repressive normative mind: moral norms become a spider's web in
people's heads, which is to curb egoism and prevent disintegration of society.
Kant does not depart from man's “interior”, but from his intellect (reason).
Intelligence is awareness of the necessity of accepting the repressive normative vault. The
very knowledge of the good and the awareness of a need to do it induce man to perform
good acts. “Good” has an existential character, but it does not mean doing good acts
departing from a free man and society as the community of free people, but from the ruling
order. Kant's “categorical imperative” does not inspire man to do good starting from his
 52

noble nature, it is meant to prevent him from doing evil. Kant does not argue for a world of
free people, but seeks to build institutional barriers which will prevent the disintegration
of the civil society based on private property. Kant's subjectivism is an illusion. The nature
of his “ought” (Sollen) is already determined by the nature of the ruling order, by what is: it
constitutes his normative vault which is to protect him from disaster. The a priori of Kant's
moral philosophy is founded on the bourgeois society that cannot be questioned. Kant's
“categorical imperative” represents an attempt to “reconcile” man with the existing world
at a formal‐logical level and on the basis of the established dualism of “being” (Sein) and the
“ought”. It is not the life principle of a free man, but of an atomized citizen who departs
from his being by nature an “evil” being and feels that only unquestionable submission to
an a priori normative order offers a possibility for the survival of society. Hence Kant's
pedagogy is not focused on man's humanization but on his disciplining.
In spite of the fact that Kant emphasizes the active, subjective aspect of reality
(Kangrga), his theory only apparently opens space for man as a playing subject. The
development of play does not involve the development of man's playing being (Eros,
emotions, senses...) and interpersonal relations but of a repressive normative vault and the
strengthening of the ruling order. Play is not an expression of man's need of another man; it
is not the development of interpersonal relations based on the principles of brotherhood
and solidarity; in it there is no motion of man towards man... “Spontaneity” remains in the
sphere of reason (awareness of a need of communal life), and not of the whole humanness,
which means man's unconditional and spontaneous need of another man. The tacit purpose
of a “purposeless” play is “free” creation of the ruling relations and values, ultimately, the
production of a loyal citizen and his pinning down to the existing world. The “spontaneity”
does not reflect the (critical, change‐aspiring) relation of man to the world, but an
unquestionable acceptance of the existing world and the dominant rules. Play becomes a
“spontaneous” way of the production of the world as an object by an objectivized and
instrumentalized man. “Freedom” becomes an ideological and “spontaneity” a practical
form of the establishment of the order of non‐freedom.
Play, as a repressive normative vault, is that according to which the nature of the
playing disposition is determined. It is not a product of an authentic (creative‐libertarian)
human nature, but is the highest form of “spontaneity”, which means the abstract
transcendental subject which is the incarnation of the repressive normative vault and
which becomes the carrier of play and the basis of its self‐reflection. Transcendental Self
replaces “God”, only this time it is not called “love” but “duty”. It is the incarnation of reason
alienated from man, which appears in the form of the unquestionable ruling normative
vault. The transcendental Self becomes the absolute and as such does away with the critical
mind – which is not and cannot be humanly grounded. Hence the deduction from the a
priori world of noumenon is the basic activity of thought. Revolution raises it to the pedestal
of a universal principle that applies to all citizens, and becomes the unquestionable
criterion for determining the human intention. By the very establishment of the
 53

transcendental Self the barriers of the “ought” are placed. The “humanization of nature” is
not based on a respect for nature, but it is submitted (suppressed, mutilated...) to the
normative model of a “citizen”. From it follows “disciplining” reduced to a physical drill
which is different from animal training only in that it is “voluntarily” (reasonably) adopted.
Doing “good”, which expresses the “common interest”, is of a repressive character because
it is in opposition to the logic of everyday existence that induces man to treat others like
enemies and because man is by his nature an “evil” being guided by greediness – which
threatens the survival of society. Revolution appears as the act of a mind that will create a
new (civil) order, and not a world of free people. It is not an expression and confirmation of
man's libertarian nature, it is the performance of his civil duty to abolish the order based
on privileges and create a new institutional vault that will control his “evil” nature. Kant's
(revolutionary) “ought” deals with an order based on privileges, but also with aspirattions
to realize the guiding principles of the French Revolution. Kant opts for (bourgeois)
revolution, but not for man as a revolutionary. Revolutionary self‐consciousness does not
touch the original humanness: the shield of an egoistic (petit) bourgeois does not allow it to
enter man's being. In revolution, the citizen's consciousness did not only win over the
consciousness of the aristocracy, but also over the consciousness of man as a universal
creative being of freedom who is capable of creating a world in his own image.
In Kant the aesthetic and the ethical are given in unity, but they appear as a
subjective principle. It is about a “taste” formed by the mind (intellect) and turned into a
moral consciousness by means of which the selfish and aggressive (petit) bourgeois is
“disciplined”. The “beautiful” turns into the “good” by way of a repressive normative
consciousness and not by way of man's humanization. Kant eliminates the possibility of a
direct and spontaneous establishment of interpersonal relations, which proceed by way of
a “moral consciousness” that becomes and ideological (self) consciousness of civil society
and is based on the “awareness of one's duties”. Kant's “subjectivity” is a form in which
appears the imposed normative pattern of a model citizen. It is not based on man's
authentic (self) consciousness, but is a transcendental “consciousness” by which a citizen
must be guided in order for the society to survive. Moral (self) consciousness is a form
depriving man of authentic humanity (moral being) and authentic self‐consciousness,
which means a critical, change‐aspiring and a visionary consciousness. Kant affirms
activism which appears as the creation of the world, and in that context the category of
“possibility”, but his “ought” is but an abstract possibility of the creation of novum since it is
a normative reflexion of the world in which man is deprived of his authentic subjectivity. In
Kant there is only an apparent contradiction between “being” and the “ought”: the
normative project is not the opening of a new human space and in that sense a struggle
against the ruling order; it is the essence of the existing world turned into norms. His
thought is not visionary, but positivistic: “ought” is not a normative projection of the future,
but is an idealistic interpretation of the existing world.
 54

Kant's philosophy offers a formal possibility of the establishment and justification

of a “moral” vault of sport which is expressed in fair‐play. His “categorical imperative”
shows on the example of sport its social conditioning and limitation: “the principle of
universal law” in sport can be as follows “The stronger win, the weaker are eliminated!” It
is the only possible principle – in order for sport to survive and for survival in sport. The
alleged subjectivism (“the maxim of your own will ...”) is but a form in which the ruling
relations appear: it is not man's free choice; it is the “free” choice of a “sportsman”. Man is
not guided by moral principles that contain a visionary (utopian) or transcendental idea.
What precedes conscious is a (positive) character – which occurs in living a life based on
Social Darwinism and the absolutized principle of performance (profit) and on which the
corresponding normative conscious is “spontaneously” built. In sport, there is neither civil
duty nor human responsibility. It is dominated by the existential spirit of capitalism which
does not tolerate any rational or moral constraints. That is why Coubertin glorifies the
“passionate cry” of the winner and confronts the “meticulous rules” that can apply to
“ordinary people”, but not to sportsmen who are the incarnation of the ruling order in its
pure form. Sport is dominated by the “law of the stronger”, not by a moral judgment.
Victory, achieved through a better result, is the only criterion according to which the
“good” is assessed. According to the dominant evaluative criteria in capitalism, the “loser”
occupies the lowest place on the social ladder. This term represents the nastiest insult
which suggests that it is the existential logic of capitalism, and not humanist challenges,
that creates the criteria for determining what is “good” and what is “bad”. In sport, sense
experience is not transformed into a moral feeling; it is rather that the character of a “lazy
animal” is transformed into the character of a super‐beast through the principle of “greater
effort” (Coubertin). It mutilates the senses that can receive only those impressions which
cannot lead to the development of man's aesthetic or libertarian being. Sport is in itself a
non‐aesthetic phenomenon and annihilation of man's aesthetic being. There are no
aesthetic (nor customary, moral, legal, religious) norms that can hinder “progress” based
on Social Darwinism and progressism. In sport, the ideal of the right conduct is not
evaluative grounded, but springs from a logic imposed by life itself, the logic reduced to a
struggle for survival and such that is beyond good and evil, beautiful and ugly... The
“pursuit of human perfection” is the point at which, at an ideological‐propagandist level,
the sports ethics and sports aesthetics coincide.
If we are to attribute to a man that he is “bad” because of a “bad” act, what is
necessary is not only that the man is aware of his having committed a bad act, but his
intention of harming another man, as well as his wish and actual need to act in that way. In
sport, there are no direct and spontaneous interpersonal relations; there is a relation
between “players‐opponents” conditioned by the spirit and rules of sport which is
dominated by an instrumentalized violence as the incarnation not only of the institutional
vault of the ruling order, but, above all, of the belligerent and progressistic spirit that rules
the world and is of a destructive nature. Man becomes to man a means for satisfying
 55

inhuman “needs”, which are imposed on him by the governing evaluative vault (“victory”
which will bring to a sportsman “fame” and money), and as such is a necessary evil
(“opponent”). To injure the opponent is not an expression of man's “aggressive nature” and
the object of moral judgment; it is of a functional character and thus is a legitimate means
for preventing the opponent from realizing his intention. At the same time, there is no
intention of hurting the opponent, but of preventing him from carrying out his action. Since
it is a colleague from the sports show‐business who shares the same destiny and tomorrow
may play in the same team, there is no wish, let alone a real need, to hurt the opponent
player. In boxing, it often happens that people who are friends, or even close relatives,
become unscrupulous rivals in the ring trying to beat their opponent by striking such blows
that can cause serious physical (mental) injuries and death. Sport is a war waged by the
bodies which have a depersonalized dimension. A blow hurting one's opponent, and thus
preventing him from realizing his intention, is not a blow struck upon a man, but upon a
faceless “opponent”, who appears in the form of a body with the (“objective”) dimension of
a training sack. At the same time, during the training, a sportsman treats his own body in
the same way he treats the body of his opponent. Guided by the logic imposed by sport,
man above all becomes his own opponent. A ruthless treatment of oneself is the basic way
of acquiring the capacity and readiness to be ruthless to others; the mutilation of one's own
body is the basic presupposition of an aggressive relation to one's opponent; to harm
oneself is the basic presupposition of harming other people. Hence one of the most
important tasks of sports pedagogy is to create a sado‐masochistic character.
Fair‐play is not a moral (self) consciousness; it is a technique of relation between
“sportsmen” based on a functionalist principle: “good” is that which does not jeopardize
playing, which means the ruling order and “progress” (citius, altius, fortius) on which the
“perfectioning” of the world is based. Instead of protecting man from an inhuman order, an
order that produces evil is being protected – the evil attributed to man's “nature” in order
to justify the repressive institutions which include play. Infliction of physical injuries and
killings are legal and legitimate constituent parts of sport – if they are carried out according
to the given rules. The norms of fair‐play are not designed to eradicate the murderous
violence, but are a control mechanism intended to stop man from acting in a way that can
jeopardize “play”, which means the ruling order. It means that fair‐play does not stop only
evil, but also that non‐violent behaviour which is opposed to the logic of sport as an
institutionalized violence. A boxer, who does not strive to hit his opponent but only avoids
being hit himself, will be reprimanded by the referee, and if he continues to behave in the
same way, he will be disqualified. In most playing sports to avoid violence means to
“sabotage play”, which results in the sportsman losing his place in the team. In football, the
player who deliberately hurts the opponent gains most recognition if it prevented a kick of
the opponent towards the goal. What can we say of rugby, hockey and other “bloody”
sports in which the infliction of physical injuries represents the most important part of
“play”? It is obvious that “anthropological” demand conceals an existential imperative. To
 56

injure or kill the “opponent” does not express man's need to hurt or kill, but is a necessary
means for achieving victory, which means it is imposed by sport as an institution. The most
important task of a coach is not to subdue the “aggressiveness” of his players, but to make
them “attack” the opponents by threatening them with punishments, with losing their place
in the team and with abuses which question their “masculinity”, which means that
everything is at the ruling existential and evaluative level. What is important in a sports
spectacle are not human motives, but the effect produced by a sports contest, meaning that
the crowd is to experience the fight as authentic – and gain the impression that there exist
consciousness, intention, desire and a genuine need to “crush” one's opponent. The
increasingly bloody sports spectacles are not only a compensation for an increasingly
bloody life, but are meant to create the impression that people are by nature “evil” and that
only repressive institutions of the capitalist order can protect society from “human
aggression”. And finally, if people are “by nature aggressive” and if it is the “source of all
evil”, why is the “civilized world” organizing increasingly bloody sports contests as public
manifestations and in a spectacular form, thereby glorifying violence?
Fair‐play is a “moral” mask of an immoral world based on the principles “Destroy
the competition!” and “Money does not stink!”. It is not a moral code based on the
observance of universal human values, but is a technical code based on the principles that
make the essence of sport (capitalism) and involve the mutilation of one's own body,
infliction of serious physical injuries and killings, monstrous abuse of children, institutional
degradation of women to “lower beings”, destruction of cultural (self) consciousness and
man's libertarian dignity, creation of hordes of modern barbarians… Fair‐play is not an
appeal to a moral conduct and sanctioning of violence; it is but a mask meant to obtain a
“humanistic” legitimacy for the principle “might is right”, which on stadiums is being
realized in the form of a spectacular destruction of humanity. In that context, boxing is
referred to as a “noble art”. It is the highest form of hypocrisy of the thought which is found
in ideologues of capitalism: if sport is by its nature “noble”, why are then noble feelings not
developed in people, but the spirit of intolerance, which makes it a bastion of belligerent
fanaticism? As far as the demand for a “fair fight” is concerned, it indicates that
unquestioning observation of the rules on which the capitalist world is based must be
above personal and group interests. It is also the basis of a “depolitization” of sport and the
Olympic Games: sport (Olympic Games) must not be in the service of temporary individual
or group political and material interests if its significance as a strategic political means for
preserving the ruling order is not to be questioned. This is the role of “international sports
associations”, headed by IOC, and this is on which their indisputable arbitrary role is based.
It is interesting that for bourgeois theorists war, just as the gladiators' fights and
“knight tournaments”, falls into the category of “sport competition”, and sport in play: sport
becomes an instrument giving war a playing character. It is no accident that the principle of
“chivalry”, which is a “romantic” mask by which the bloodthirsty medieval noblemen
obtained an angelic look, has become the most important way of giving a “cultural”
 57

legitimacy to sports competitions. It is based on the right to kill, which means a capacity
and readiness for murder: man's right to life is submitted to the right of the order to
survival. People are not brothers guided by humanity and love of freedom; they are rivals
guided by ambition and pursuit of fame. Chivalrous ideals are becoming the means for
crushing the guiding ideas of the French Revolution, without which there is no modern
humanism, and represent the “avoidance” of democratic institutions created in the civil
society and the establishment of a direct domination of the capitalist order over people.
In the contemporary professional sport, which has become part of the
entertainment industry, there has been established a specific “sports ethics”. Instead of the
fair play of a gentleman who is guided by “chivalrous manners”, we are dealing with
professional ethics. Sportsmen approach training and matches in the same way – as a
serious business. Play becomes labour. Therefore in “true professionals” there are
relatively small oscillations in play. Whether they lose of win, they continue to run and play
with “full steam” right through the end. We have come to an apparently paradoxical
conclusion that professionals “work off their play”. Hence hardworking, discipline in
performing the task, tenacity, seriousness, reliability are the characteristics which are far
more appropriate for a “true professional” than spontaneity, imagination, liveliness,
unpredictability, individuality... Unlike a worker, a sportsman does not temporarily let only
his working ability, but sells his body and his personality. He is not only a working force,
but is a working instrument and the object of work. At the same time, he is a moving
advertising agent both for the club and for the sponsors, which conditions not only his
behaviour on the field but also in life. An indisputable loyalty to the masters and the
established order is the basic condition of survival in the sports show‐business. With the
fight for profit becoming increasingly tougher, the main challenge for a sportsman ceases to
be his effort and the quality of the opponent, and becomes the extent to which he is to take
risks, which means, how much he is to jeopardize his health and life – in order to achieve
victory and record. A sportsman acquires the status of an entertaining commodity on the
market of sports show‐business and becomes a tool for one use only. From an injured
player one does not expect a human reaction, to cry or call for help, but to behave like a
robot that has discharged his duty and can be thrown on the dump of “consumer society”.
Readiness to self‐destruction becomes the main feature of a “good” sportsman. It is no
longer a working ethics, but a (self) destructive fanaticism.


Sport and Language


If we proceed, only conditionally, from Heidegger's view that “language is the
home of being” (“Die Sprache ist das Haus des Seins”), then sports language is a fortress in
which resides the true, dehumanized and denaturalized being of sport. Sports language
 58

(above all speech) is reduced to a means for manipulation by which man is reduced to an
instrument for achieving inhuman ends. It is dominated by a war terminology, bad
language and abuses; by the rhetoric of circus announcers which is to give to the marginal a
“fatal” dimension; by a mythological presentation of events and persons which is to deify
the fight for victory and destroy man's self‐conscious as a libertarian and creative being; by
“progressive” demagogy which destroys the power of reasoning and creates a fanatical
(self) destructive conscious...
The claim that sport is a “universal language” (a peculiar Esperanto) can be
accepted only conditionally. Sport has its meaningful structure, grammar of motion and
skills. As such, it represents the model of behaviour with a symbolic and “communicative”
character. The fact that people come from different cultural spheres does not essentially
affect the possibility of “communication” by way of sport, since it does not derive from any
particular culture and is based on a “universal” capitalist civilization. At the same time, with
sport becoming a universal and global means of capitalism for depolitization of the
oppressed and their idioticizing, a global (“international”) sports vocabulary is being
created – the vocabulary which appears in various linguistic forms. On stadiums
throughout the world we are witnessing the formation, in relation to the global capitalist
plutocracy which uses the “language of business”, of a global supporting “mass” that uses
the same supporting vocabulary – which is one of the manifest forms of the globalizing
capitalist primitivism. The language of the crowd, reduced to fascist, sexist, racist,
nationalistic and local‐chauvinistic slogans is but an echo of what is going on in life and
what, through the fight of contemporary gladiators, in a condensed form appears in
stadiums and sports centres. The language of supporters is of an irrational character
expressing pathological psychic states and creating collective supportive “conscious” ‐
which destroys the critical, change‐aspiring conscious and degenerates humanity.
In sport the “body language” amounts to the struggle of mechanical beings. A
sports body, body posture and body motion are based on the model of the “iron” body,
fighting posture and aggressive motion emanating a ruthless belligerent spirit. They
represent the symbols of the ruling order by means of which it is writing a message
addressed to mankind. The maxim mens fervida in corpore lacertoso indicates a symbolic
character of the body: sportsman is a moving sculpture of capitalism and its advertising
billboard. Playing proficiency, reduced to a playing technique, represents a “civilized” body
language which is reduced to a war waged with bodies: the grammar of body motion is
reduced to a war strategy. The very looks, stance and motion convey to the “opponents”
that they are not friends, but deadly enemies. Sport destroys the pacifist mind and
maintains the state of constant war between people and nations, destroys a critical relation
to the ruling order of injustice and completely integrates man into the existing world. It is
the incarnation of the “mondialist” spirit of capitalism and as such is the means for
destroying the cultural heritage of mankind. Instead of enabling a meeting of cultures, on
sports fields, by means of muscular bodies of fanaticized crusaders, a war is waged
 59

between the most powerful capitalist corporations. In a wider political context, a sports
fight is of a class character: by it the bourgeoisie “pacifies” (depolitizes) the oppressed
working “masses”, draws them into the spiritual orbit of capitalism and destroys the
libertarian mind.
By technicizing the “theoretical approach” to sport, which is mostly expressed at
the linguistic level, the process of dehumanization and denaturalization of the sports
environment and man is coming to a conclusion. For interpersonal relations in physical
education, sport and recreation the term “communication” is repeatedly used, and it means
the information feedback established between technical processes – as against the term
“understanding each other”, which suggests the establishment and enrichment of
interpersonal relations. In sports theory the popular terms are the “mechanics of the
bodily”, the “mechanics of motion” and others, up to defining the whole area of man's
physical activism by the syntagma “kinesiological sociology”. This tendency indicates that
sport is increasingly submitted to the “mechanisms of functioning” which are typical of
technical processes. In that context, the relation to the human body is mediated by the
productivistic‐manipulative nature of technique. The contemporary scientific approach
(according to the level of the development of natural sciences and the goals set before
them) disintegrates the organism into processes, components – which corresponds to the
established specialization in working processes and the strivings to achieve a
(quantitatively measurable) effect in the least possible time. If we remember that the
development of science is dictated by the logic of the “consumer society”, then it is clear
that we are here dealing with the instrumentalization of science and technique for the
purpose of achieving inhuman and anti‐existential goals. From a means for manipulation
and submission technique has become a means for man's destruction.
Sports language is not a form of cultural cooperation between nations; it does not
produce man's cultural being; it does not enable the humanization of interpersonal
relations and the establishment of a critical, change‐aspiring relation to the existing world
of injustice and non‐freedom, but is a form of “communication” which corresponds to the
“international” spirit of capitalism. The sports language is the manifest form of a world
based on the principles bellum omnium contra omnes and citius, altius, fortius and as such is
a technical means for destroying the cultural conscious. In sport, man is between the anvil
of a technocratic ratio and the hammer of a mythological conscious, which corresponds to
man's positioning between “world of the factual” and “spectacle” ‐ which is a form in which
the ruling relations and values appear. The technicization of the world is corresponded by a
mythological conscious which, as a contemporary dogmatic, gives meaning to life, while
scientific discoveries become the foundation of a new, technologically based mysticism.
Everything is being done to destroy the mind which is capable of showing the ruling
(destructive) tendencies in the development of society and the objective possibilities for
the creation of a new world. Sports language suggests the real nature of “globalism”: it
creates a civilization without culture, which means “new” barbarism.
 60

Body Language of Deaf‐Mute Children

Here we shall also say something about the play of deaf‐mute children, which is
not based on a conflict but on cooperation. The analysis made according to the impressions
from the rehearsals for the performance “Little Mermaid”, conducted by the dramatist Igor
Simonović, who also directed the play.
Play offers the possibility of the development of more complete interpersonal
relations than speech. Through play deaf‐mute children literally become an organic
community. What they cannot express in words or song, the children express through body
motion: it becomes the main means of understanding, expression of thoughts and
emotional response. Hence children have a need for constant motion whereby their whole
body is activated. Play offers children the possibility of giving meaning to a physical motion
and direct emotions towards the establishment of interpersonal relations. Since there is no
language as an objective form they can relate to through listening and speaking, disabled
children repeatedly create by their bodies symbolic forms which make the language they
use in communication. In play, the grammar of physical motion on which the structure of
understanding in the group is based is spontaneously established. The body language
expresses the personality of the children in a much more complex and adequate way then it
is achieved by voice, since they participate in its creation with their whole being. Hence a
number of layers in their relations and such a peculiar personal expression. Most
importantly, their body language is a direct expression of their emotional and spiritual
charge. They are not capable of lying, as is the case with children who treat the spoken
language (also) as a means which is to conceal their emotional state, since they cannot
create from body expression such an external form that can be misleading. This is the
essence of their spontaneity, openness and naiveté... At the same time, this is the biggest
obstacle for the children to be pushed into the mould of a role that restrains the
manifestation of their authentic individuality. It is much harder for them to be “somebody
else” than it is for the children who can speak. This is of utmost importance for determining
the performances the children are to play. It is much more difficult for them to act, since
their whole life is already “acting”, as they are necessarily oriented to a dramatic body
expression. While children with normal speech faculties express their emotions in a louder
or lower voice, faster or slower speech, harsher or softer words, through screaming or
singing, disabled children express variety of emotions and degree of emotional charge
through grimaces and unarticulated speech sounds, as well as through the dynamics and
dramatics of the body motion. For them, the ability to control the body motion means the
suppression of emotions, spirit, imagination, while the lavishness of body movements
directly conditions the possibility of the development of their relations. Since with the body
motion it is much harder to adequately and precisely express thoughts and emotions, their
movement is often characterized by confusion. At the moments of emotional tension the
 61

group feels panic. The children constantly turn one to another and follow their friends'
movements in order to understand what they are trying to say. They have a need to relate
to the space in such a way as to be able to see at every moment what is going on not around
them, but in front of them. Hence they spontaneously try to organize the scene in a way
which will enable them to establish a frontal intimacy. It is of utmost importance, since
children are then sure they can control the activities on the scene, which means that they
understand each other all the time. The space must always be in front of them, and the play,
scene and light are all adapted to that. Those dear children do not like to be in the shadow.
Nor should they ever be. Nowhere.


Dancing Movement


Dancing movement, which was shaped at the end of the XIX century, expressed
the basic traits of modern physical culture: the restoration of ancient spiritual heritage, by
giving priority to the spiritual and musical, and a return to nature and natural movement. It
is about the right to a body movement free of canons that served to prove the aristocratic
elitist (class) status. Nature, spirit and music became collaborators of the advanced
bourgeoisie in their fight against the ancien régime. In the second half of the XVIII century a
French dancing teacher Jean‐Georges Noverre confronted the aristocratic bodily canons as
artificial and, like Rousseau, called for a “return to nature”. French actor Francois Delsarte
developed a teaching according to which bodily posture affects the spirit and, conversely,
our spiritual activity affects the body. Proceeding from his own experience he came to the
conclusion that every movement causes a particular (lawful) expression and believed that,
by relying on expression, a harmonious development of the body, spirit and soul can be
achieved. He, like Nietzsche, believed that man can, by way of “noble” movements, become
noble and established the “gymnastics of expression” (Ausdrucksgymnastik): man is to
avoid learning the unplanned, accidental and patterned, so as to be able to independently
move and use each part of his body. Such relaxation exercises do not weaken us; they
rather save us from unnecessary muscular exertion. In connection with that, without
strength one cannot achieve the harmony of movements, and therefore he introduced
exercises for the body (torso) and for keeping the balance. His student, Steele Mac Kaye,
realized his ideas in Boston in the form of “aesthetic gymnastics”. Delsartes' student
Geneviève Stebbins wrote a book “The Delsartes System of Expression”, which contributed to
the spreading of his ideas. Drawing on the European “gymnastics of breathing”, she came to
the following conclusion: “We breathe as we think, we think as we breathe.” She believed
that man's ability to strain and relax in the right way – which involves mastering of a
special breathing technique – represents the “fundamentals of life”. Thus there are
exercises for straining and relaxing the head, chin, etc. All this was shaped in “home” and
 62

“school gymnastics”, “aesthetic and dramatic gymnastics” ‐ and appears within the
comprehensive literature on gymnastics. According to American physician George Taylor,
who shared her views on “healthy gymnastics”, Stebbins strove to establish a bridge
between body and spirit by way of breathing. Hedwig Kallmeyer, one of their students,
introduced this system in Germany. In 1909, she founded in Berlin the “Institute for the
Body and the Culture of Movement” (“Institut für Körper‐und Ausdruckskultur”), which
insisted on “bodily posture” based on breathing, straining and relaxing of muscles. Her
work followed the work of Isadora and Elizabeth Duncan, who came to Europe from
America in 1899. Isadora argued for a harmonious education in the “Greek sense” of the
word, which means discarding the artificial and the unnatural and drawing strength of
bodily expression from music. In 1904, Elisabeth opened in Berlin her own school, in which
children, through running and jumping, were taught natural movements and thus achieved
a natural dancing charm. Her institution became the mixture of a higher school for girls and
institute for gymnastics. It can be said that her main orientation was rhythmical
gymnastics.
Jacques Dalcroze, a musical pedagogue and composer, sought, at the Geneva
Conservatory, to develop musical skills in children by way of gymnastic exercises. The
results of his research were presented in 1905, at a congress in Soloturn, and his teaching
on the connection between gymnastical‐rhythmical and musical‐rhythmical and their
mutual conditioning has been widely recognized. He posed the question on man's essence
in a new way and contributed to a breach with purely intellectual upbringing. The principle
of play which he adopted is reduced to the following: a student beats a rhythm to the music
he hears or has within himself and then begins to move, first following the dancing steps he
recalls, and then gradually demonstrating his own creative powers. The exercises are
performed now individually and now in groups, setting in motion, through this shared
activity, a mysterious fluid of the feeling of community – which enables prolific
improvisations. Striving to popularize his teachings, Dalcroze visited London, Paris,
Amsterdam and Vienna, and in 1911, in Hellerau near Dresden he founded his own
institute. The visitors of the institute included Paul Claudel, Bernhard Shaw and Max
Reinhardt. His method was adopted in Europe and America. The festivals in Hellerau in
1912 and 1913, and in Geneva in 1914, attracted the public attention. During the First
World War and in the post‐war period Dalcroze worked in Switzerland. In 1927 he
returned to Germany where he achieved success, and he was equally successful in America
and England. His methods were to be applied in over 20 countries. The headmaster of the
school in Hellerau, Christine Baer‐Frisell, transferred the school to Laxenburg near Vienna,
one of the royal palaces. From this shool came also the famous dancing teacher Rosalie
Chladek. A contribution to the development of the dancing movement was given also by the
(pro‐Nazi oriented) philosopher Ludwig Klages, who paid special attention to the
clarification of the concept of rhythm. According to him, life is a rhythmical state. Rhythm is
opposed to tempo: “Tempo repeats, rhythm renews” (“Takt wiederholt, Rhythmus
 63

erneuert.”). Here we should also mention W. Grässer, who published the book “Bodily Sense,
Gymnastics, Dancing, Sport” (“Körpersinn, Gymnastik, Tanz, Sport”), in which rhythmical
gymnastics represents, as “metaphysics of physical culture”, the basis of gymnastics which
gives artistic expression to “bodily life impulses”. Speaking of sport, Grässer points out:
“What is important in it are not rational ends ... but the experience of the body”. George
Hebert also belongs to those who, with their system of physical exercises, gave momentum
to the development of man's playing being. During his voyages as a naval officer, Hebert
came into contact with South‐American Indians, especially those near the Orinoco, from
Columbia and South Seas. Fascinated with their bearing, appearance and physical
capabilities, he came to the conclusion that it was the result of their free life in nature.
Similarly to Rousseau, he demanded that physical education be “natural and at the same
time useful”. Hebert's conception, based on the principle that “every man carries within
himself a dancer”, is completely opposed to the conception of “human nature”, dominant in
the sports theory, according to which man is a bloodthirsty animal. He resolutely rejected
sport, was against artificial movements and artificial obstacles (apparatus), discarded
commands and argued for free, individual exercises, gradual improvement in performance
and exercising with pleasure. His physical culture primarily involved running, climbing,
balancing, singing, gymnastics of breathing... Hebert's system of exercises was part of the
European movement of physical culture called “natural gymnastics” (Naturgymnastik),
which appeared in Austria, but left traces also in Germany and Sweden, as well as in the
entire modern education. (20)
In dancing, as the highest form of physical culture in civil society, the dominant
movement is that of man towards man (in traditional dances also the movement of man
towards nature), whereas man becomes an inspiration for another man, the picture of and
challenge for his humanity; bodily movement is the expression of an emotional and
spiritual movement; play has a collectivistic character, so the human group appears as a
playing community in which individual (spiritual and bodily) differences are not an
obstacle for establishing and developing of play (interpersonal relations); instead of an
imposed (quantifying) pattern of movements, play is dominated by spontaneity; instead of
the “disciplining” of the body, which subdues man's impulsive nature, it focuses on man's
humanization; instead of a productivistic‐belligerent, there is an artistic movement
expressing love, tenderness, joyfulness, solidarity, passion, victory of life over death,
procreation, natural cycle and the like. It is no accident that almost all representatives of
the dancing movement rejected sport as a pedagogical instrument. When dancing
technique is concerned, dancing movement contributed to the development of new forms
of motion and created a new relation to the body which offers the possibility of a more
complex expression of man's playing being. We deal here with technical presuppositions
for the development of creative flexibility and thus creative personality. Speaking of
Dalcroze, Magazinović concludes: “In the beginning of his work, Dalcroze transferred
musical metron and rhythm (agogic, tempo and dynamics) to body motion. It is only during
 64

his work that he realized that the human body itself possesses rhythmical lawfulness of
movements and that the sense of physical rhythm creates a technical background of
rhythmical‐musical performances through body movements. Before that the European
educational public had not been aware of one‐sidedness of contemporary physical
exercises, which knew only of the principles of muscular tension, while of the principle of
relaxation it had no idea whatsoever, and thus was almost rhythmical. Dalcroze's exercises
in rhythmical gymnastics, which by bodily movements attempted to express dynamic tonic
variations, contributed to the realization of the need of the principle of movement
relaxation and bodily rhythm in alternating straining and relaxing of the body, as the
expressive instrument in the art of movement in dancing and acting. Thereby gymnastics,
as the basis of physical‐aesthetic education, as the system of bodily rhythm harmonized
with musical rhythm, gained in value.” (21)
Dancing movement was formed against the aristocratic forms of physical culture,
based on the principle ordre et mesure – which is in the most authentic way expressed in
ballet. It is an endeavour to adapt bodily movement of an atomized citizen to the dynamic
rhythm of the capitalist way of life, and free oneself of the patterns that curb self‐initiative
and thus the feeling of “freedom”. Dancing movement does not depart from the whole of
the emancipatory heritage of civil society, but from partial starting‐points and thus leads
man to ghettoization. In dancing movement there is no confrontation with the existing
world, nor the visionary dimension. The development of man's playing being is not seen in
the context of man's liberation from the chains of a repressive civilization and the creation
of a humane world; an illusion is rather created that freedom in play is possible in spite of
the fact that man is not free in society. The representatives of the dancing movement do not
see man as a complete social being, but reduce him to a “dancer”. At the same time, they
depart from the dualism of body and spirit and try to bridge it through the development of
playing techniques. Instead of the fight for a new world, they offer an escape from the
world and autistic immersion into oneself through specific techniques of physical exercises.
Hence the insistence on physical activity which excludes man from the world and directs
his attention to what is going on in the body. The obsession with one's own body is
proportionate to the intensity of the experience of a world deprived of humanity. Pursuit of
“internal harmony” becomes an answer to the chaos of everyday life, where there is less
and less space for humanness. Dancing movement, which was mainly supported by rich
patrons, was reduced to a hopeless attempt to offer man, on the basis and within an
inhuman world (or by fleeing to nature, which more or less comes to the same), a
possibility of realizing his true human potentials, and thus humanize the existing world. It
is an activism which, ultimately, leads man astray in his endeavours to win the cause not
only for a better world but for survival. Play turns into a fight with man's critical, change‐
aspiring energy and becomes a form of his depolitization. Instead of a fight to eradicate the
causes of non‐freedom and destruction of humanity (nature), it directs man to create such
forms of behaviour which in the existing world are to offer him an (illusory) opportunity to
 65

attain his playing being. Hence one of its basic features is to insist on “spontaneity”,
regardless of the fact that man's “freedom” in non‐freedom means letting off the steam of
non‐freedom – and regardless of what man himself (fanaticized, alienated, stupefied) may
think of it. “Free play” becomes a compensation for an unfree life and a hopeless attempt to
escape from life – and as such the space of “happiness”. In any case, “free play” becomes
determined relative to life in which there is neither play nor freedom. Hence the main role
of “players” is to give to the ruling destructive order a playing dimension and show that
“freedom” and “happiness” are possible in a world of non‐freedom and unhappiness.
As far as the struggle for women's emancipation is concerned, dancing movement
is (another) wrong road with a sectarian character and leads women to ghettoization. A
struggle for “free sensuality” becomes a substitution for the struggle for women's human
and civil rights and escape from reality. The views of Isidora Duncan on women's
emancipation are more of a cry for humanity, then struggle for freedom. By opposing the
traditional ballet, unnaturalness of its technique, patterned movements, dressing and false
spiritual expression, degradation of women to means for entertainment – in the article
“Dancing of the Future” (published in Leipzig in 1903) Duncan speaks of what the “future
dancer” must be and thus indicates the true position of women in dance (and society): “The
future dancer must be a women whose body and spirit are so harmoniously developed that
her body motion is natural expression of her soul. She will not belong to a particular nation
but to the whole of humanity. Nor will she represent fairies by dancing, maenads or
coquettes, but will through dancing express her femininity and her humanity... By dancing
she will incarnate the changing life in nature and the movements of her body will emanate
her thoughts, her hopes. She will in her dance incarnate freedom, and to women she will
bring knowledge of strength and expressive beauty of their bodies.“ (22) Her “dancing of
the future” will express “all that is beautiful, healthy and honest in human life”. (23) This
article could be entitled: dancing of the future – in a world without any future. Duncan's
noble vision remained entrapped in a world that degenerates every attempt of man to gain
freedom through the development of his playing being. According to Russian critic J.
Svetlov, Duncan was the first who managed to realize the “fusion of pure playing plastic
with pure music”, and “restore to the movement an ancient simplicity”. (24) Duncan and
her co‐players managed to “set free” the dancing movement of chains of traditional dancing
patterns, but not to set man free from the chains of capitalism.
Dancing movement pursued “perfection” in the existing world and ended on the
market of “consumer society”. Its basic intention, to be the incarnation of the ruling rhythm
of life in a “spontaneous” playing form, brought about its degeneration. Aerobics and other
forms of commercialized physical activism are the “final” forms of the capitalist
degeneration of dancing movement: in capitalism only those forms of bodily activism
develop and survive which correspond to the ruling spirit and can become the source of
profit. A variety of bodily expressions in dancing are not the confirmation of “freedom” but
a manifestation of an increasingly various repression by the ruling order over man. Even
 66

the dances which are meant to establish a critical detachment to the existing world indicate
that man cannot liberate his body through play, without at the same time liberating himself
as a social being of the repressive (destructive) civilization. Only in a humanized nature and
a society of free people the genuine dancing movement is possible – as the realization of
man's genuine playing being.


Rudolf Laban: “Movement Education”


Rudolf Laban is one of the founders of dancing movement. His school follows the
ancient model and insists on a general physical development. After the First World War the
school became a peculiar women's commune in which special importance was given to the
work with the “untalented”. With his “movement education”, which rejects classical
gymnastics that is linked to a particular space and apparatus, and involves canonized
movements, Laban had great influence in the USA – through the book “Labantation” written
by Ann Hutchinson, which was to become the theoretical basis of a movement that would
develop under the name “modern dance”.
In her interpretation of Laban's conception of dancing Maletić concludes that
according to it the “development of a sense of movement is directed towards a fuller
understanding and experiencing of movement as art”. (25) And she continues: “...to focus
on the rhythmical structure of movement taking into account the feelings they arouse in us
means to understand their significance and their meaning. By developing and cultivating
the kinaesthetic and similar feelings, we strive to acquire ability to turn a number of
spontaneous motor reactions into consciously chosen, disciplined and purposeful actions.
By a subtle sense of movement, we will be able to remember our experience of it, to
recognize it, analyse it, compare it with others, assess it and repeat it.” (26) Speaking of the
dancing technique, Laban concludes: “We should acquire ability to perform every
imaginable movement, and then choose those which are most appropriate to our nature
and most desirable. It is something that only each individual can find for himself. Therefore
the most useful thing is to practice a free use of kinetic and dynamic possibilities. We need
to know the general possibilities of motion of a healthy body and spirit, and those specific
constraints and capabilities that derive from individual structure of one's own body and
spirit.” (27) Laban's conception represents the construction of a peculiar grammar of
movement that is to be taught through a mental and bodily drill, which becomes a
“privilege” of those who have appropriate bodily capability and excellent physical
condition. It is then that man can opt for the movements that suit him best. Laban insists on
mastering the dancing technique, whereas the body is reduced to a tool for processing and
an instrument for producing movements – and then the development of an “artistic
movement” occurs. Technical processing of the body becomes the basis of an artistic
 67

expression, while “artistic dance” comes down to a superb technique of dancing. Practically,
the very system of drill suppresses man's erotic nature, develops in him a masochistic
character, decultivates and denaturalizes him, mutilates him as a social being and turns
him into a “dancer”: the acquisition of the ability to perform a superb dancing is reduced to
dealing with man's playing being. Instead of a playing, a technical body is created; instead
of trying to develop man as a universal creative being of freedom, for whom play is one of
the forms of creative manifestation, a specific dancing technique is developed which
enables man to express his feelings and experiences: instead of trying to totalize the world
by man's playing being, we deal with man being ghettoized in an artificial playing space.
Laban sees the body as a means for producing dance: just as an artist produces a
painting, so a “dancer” produces an “artistic movement” (dance). It is an
instrumentalization of the body in which does not pulsate the “playing impulse” (Schiller),
but the rhythm of life. Laban's dance finds mimetic impulses in life, nature, traditional
dances – which in dancing acquire a spontaneous technical expression. Movement is
adapted to “situations” that occur in life and becomes their reflexion – starting from the
principle that “art is a subjective expression of an objective reality”. Playing becomes a
playing form of man's integration into a non‐playing world. The basic presupposition of
Laban's dance is that man directly draws from the life rhythm and unreservedly adapts to
it: the rhythm of dance becomes the rhythm of life. Dance is reduced to the technique of
movement (bodily‐technical expression) by way of which life pulsates in man. It becomes a
playing form of the manifestation of the rhythm of life which through the dancing
technique is imposed on man. Laban insists on music, in which the rhythm of life is
expressed, as the basic means for determining the rhythm of movement. Music does not
arouse human feelings, does not direct man to experiencing life and his own (tragic) state
in it: it is a technical mediator of rhythm. The development of moving ability does not
enrich man's cultural being or one's interpersonal relations; movement is not an
expression of the experience of life, nor is it an expression of religious inspiration; it does
not express man's authentic affective nature... Dancing does not strive to attain the essence
of human being, or to anything (transcendental or utopian) that is beyond the existing
world. The abstract “life rhythm” becomes a mask for a concrete life rhythm determined by
the speed of the reproduction of capital.
Just as in Huizinga's conception the “colourfulness” of the (idealized) Middle Ages
is to compensate for increasingly gloomy everyday life, so in Laban's “art of movement” the
growing wealth of artistic expressions is to compensate for a life with less and less
freedom. The fewer possibilities man have to realize his playing being in his everyday life,
the richer the world of play should be. By striving to eliminate the rational, a possibility is
created for a “spontaneous” bodily expression in which man's position is manifested in the
context of capitalist irrationalism. However, it is precisely the playing rules, playing skill,
playing space and choreography that pose the rational framework and condition the nature
of “spontaneity” in playing. Systematism, details, precision and consistency of Laban's
 68

conception suggest the extent to which capitalism deprived life of it playing content, and
man of his playing being. Play becomes a rational reflexion of the ruling (non‐playing) life
rhythm. There is an instrumental relation to the body: it becomes a tool for the “creation of
movement” and “performance”. Man does not experience his body as a social being, but as
an isolated physicality which through artificial movements develops a “kinaesthetic sense”.
“To experience one's own body” does not mean to experience oneself in the world and in a
relation to it; it is reduced to man's (quasi) narcissistic obsession with his body and to the
development of the cult of a “playing body”.
In Laban's theory, historical (cultural) forms of play are primarily seen in a
technical, and not in a cultural, context. Speaking of kolo, Maletić says: “More than holding
each other's hand, shoulders or waist, what connects the participants in kolo are a shared
motivation to dance and a shared mood aroused by a movement which is conditioned by
the same motor and sound rhythm.” (28) Kolo is a folk organic community which is, by its
existential and cultural nature, essentially different from ballet – which represents the peak
of the aristocratic physical culture. What makes kolo beautiful is the life (erotic) and
libertarian spirit and, in that context, the cultural heritage expressed in folk costumes and
music. As far as Nietzsche's thought is concerned, which is cited by Magazonović in the
beginning of her treatise on dancing, from “Thus Spoke Zarathustra”: “In dancing I can
speak but of the picture of the most sublime things.” ‐ we deal here with the copying of
aristocratic aesthetic patterns by way of a spontaneous bodily movement which makes us
“noble”. Dancing becomes the most direct form of the creation of the aristocratic
community as an organic community. Laban's dancing is not grounded in culture. Bodily
movement is “set free” by being deprived of cultural content and reduced to a technical
movement – and by having lost its class exclusivity and thus becoming a way of drawing
people into the spiritual orbit of the ruling order. Hence dancing – similarly to sport,
religion and other phenomena that serve to meet the strategic interests of capitalism –
obtains an evaluative‐neutral character and becomes a “non‐political” phenomenon. Bodily
movement is deprived of a symbolic meaning, which exists only in a concrete culture. The
“liberation” of the movement of cultural content corresponds to the abolishment of man as
a social (historical) being and his being reduced to a “dancer”. Instead of a cultural, we deal
with a technical pattern of movements and a space which is part neither of a natural nor of
a social environment. The dancing group is not a cultural community of people, but a
community of bodies of “partners” connected by the dancing technique, above all its
rhythm. It is about artificial movements based on an artificially intoned rhythm, which
insist on a mechanicistic and geometrical expression. The highest ideal of dancing is a
geometrically constructed acrobatics in which man demonstrates the ability of his body to
perform motions. There is no ancient techne which involves a skill expressing the
wholeness of man as a cosmic, which means political (social), being; the starting point is
rather a movement based on modern technique. The development of human powers
appears in relation to nature: dancing technique becomes a form of mastering and
 69

instrumentalizing natural forces. Thus a jump becomes the “primordial expression of joy
and triumph over a momentary mastering of gravity”. (29) Freedom appears in relation to
nature at the level of physical capacities of a “dancer”, and not of the creative powers of
man as a social being. It is reduced to the development of technical execution of movements
– which occurs under a mystical aureole creating an apparent spiritual escape from the
existing world. In this context, the emphasis is on the abundance of physical movements
and on the individual choice, and not on the (repressive) form of bodily expression, as is
the case in ballet. The “freedom of the dancer” becomes the “freedom” of surfing on the
wave of life the rhythm of which is determined by the dynamics of capitalist reproduction.
“New dance” becomes a substitution for a new society; “the liberation of physical and
psychical powers” becomes a substitute for the liberation of man's true playing being;
“freedom in dancing” becomes a substitute for man's freedom in society... A slave that
jumps, runs, dances – continues to be a slave.
In Laban's grammar of movement there is no libertarian movement, nor a
movement that expresses man's strivings for new worlds. Fight against injustice is not a
“life situation” from which springs a motivation for play. Instead of a pursuit of freedom,
the emphasis is on the ideal of a “beautiful dance” which involves an aesthetic pattern
based on the miming of the ruling life rhythm (harmony). Each movement appears on a
scale of movements and its aesthetic value is measured against the standards of acrobatics,
and not by the judgment of taste dominant in art. The difficulty of performance, variety
and, above all, the dynamics of movement (rhythm) is what creates “beauty”. Dancing is not
the cultivation of man as a natural and social being, but the estheticizing of technical
movements in which pulsates the life rhythm of the ruling order. Laban's conception
abolishes the conflict between civilization and culture by creating a civilization without
culture, whereas cultural heritage, through dancing, is turned into a technique of
movement that is to enable man to accommodate to the life rhythm of an anti‐cultural
world. The theory of dancing built on the basis of Laban's conception becomes the
theoretical foundation of the technique of bodily movement which seeks its verification in
the sphere of a dehumanized science and mystique and not in the sphere of culture and
critical mind. In that context, the nature of folk and other dances is discussed in technical,
and not cultural and libertarian (visionary) terms. Since for Laban dancing is a “subjective
reflection of the objective reality” while reality is dominated by destruction, dancing
inevitably acquires a destructive character and a technical form.
In the archaic period man strove to follow the rhythm of natural events (above
all, the sunset and sun rising, moon, etc). The same goes for the folk culture which was
based on working cycles connected with the seasons. By the development of the religious
conscious, the rhythm of life is connected to symbolic events in which the will of gods is
recognized. In antiquity, man was „Gods' toy” (Plato), while the world was gods' playing
ground: the life rhythm was submitted to the cosmic rhythm, which involved the “holy
rhythm” of the Olympic Games (Olympiads). Christianity has its own calendar that
 70

determines the rhythm of a Christian’s life and has nothing to do with the natural rhythm.
In Rousseau, the origin of the playing disposition is the natural movement. For Romantics,
the bodily movement is the expression of the flight of the spirit to new worlds (Schiller,
Goethe, Klopstock). In Huizinga, the origin of the playing disposition is the divine spirit
which transfers man from “banality” into the sphere of (aristocratic) culture. Nietzsche’s
“eternal recurrence of the same” (ewige Wiederkunft) is based on the cosmic rhythm of
creation and destruction: play is a form of the pulsation of cosmic forces and as such is the
transformation of energy into life. For Fink, play is the “symbol of the world” in which
pulsates the rhythm of becoming and perishing. In Caillois, play is a repressive normative
vault, which holds man's “aggressive” nature under control. Gadamer insists on the “to and
fro motion” which is of a mechanicistic character. Coubertin tries, by way of the Olympic
Games, to abolish the historical rhythm of the development of the world and impose a
“holy” four‐year Olympic rhythm which corresponds to the progressistic character of the
capitalist development and represents the revival of the life force of capitalism: the
Olympic Games are a “festivity of youth”. At the same time, Olympism, as the crown of
Comte's positive philosophy, obtains a religious character for the irrational process of
destructive capitalist reproduction. As far as sport is concerned, it is an area in which the
ruling life rhythm blends into the rhythm of play. Laban tries to integrate man into the
existing world by giving him a playing image. Laban's relation to labour is characteristic: “A
number of people, maybe an increasing number, feel that our working life is like our
dreams full of symbolic actions, and that it is a special medium, in which those actions find
their aesthetic expression. That medium is obviously within the area we call dancing and
acting.” (30) Labour, as an activity alienated from man, involves a rhythm of exertion by
which man's playing being is being destroyed and he is reduced to a mechanical component
of a machine. Laban reduces play to a behaviour with rhythmical character, which means
that it is based on the repetition of movements and actions – regardless of whether it is
about the manifestation of man's creative‐libertarian nature or about repression. It is a
positivist approach which amounts to the “humanization” of the existing world by way of a
dehumanized rhythm which is, in fact, a manifest form of the pulsation of the existential
rhythm of the ruling order. Hence the concept of play is determined at the level of
behaviour which is of a formal character: “preparation, action, respite” ‐ which can be
added to any human activity, including labour where man is reduced to a technical tool, as
well as to war and other murderous and destructive activities. Clearly, Laban's
determination of play lacks a value‐related definition, which means an emancipatory
definition. It is a play in formal or technical, but not in human (historical, cultural,
libertarian, social) terms. The rhythm of capitalist totalizing of the world is expressed in a
dynamic rhythm and a variety of technical forms of movement. Those movements were not
developed relative to the destructive tendencies of the development of “technical
civilization”, but relative to the patterns of movements based on the repressive aesthetics
of a statical (aristocratic) world, which is ghettoized in the form of the “oasis of happiness”
 71

(Fink) in which, by way of music and physical motion freedom is to be attained – freedom
which does not exist in society. What remains is the dynamics of movement and an
abundance of bodily expressions – which is appropriate to the development of a “consumer
society”. Play offers a variety of forms of motion which become a vehicle for creating a
“spectacle”, meaning playing consumer goods. The same applies to jogging, fitness‐centres,
aerobics, etc. All this falls into the category of a commercialized physical activism and as
such belongs to the commodities on the increasingly rich market of “physical activities”. As
far as the frequency of sports performances is concerned, it corresponds to the rhythm of
the reproduction of capital, which means the rhythm of the destruction of culture and life:
the entertainment industry follows the rhythm of capitalist reproduction. The growing
discontent requires a growing consumption of the “negative” (change‐oriented) energy of
the oppressed. This is what conditions the frequency of the increasingly bloody and
destructive sports spectacles.
Dancing movement crushes the historical movement, while “dancer” crushes man
as a historical being. Playing space symbolizes man's enclosure in the dimension of the
present time; dancing movement is a means of creating a “one‐dimensional man”
(Marcuse); while the body is a form in which man appears as a given in the world which is
a given. The spiritual source of play is not revolution, which implies an aspiration to the
creation of a new world, as it was for Schiller, Goethe, Fait, Klopstock – it is the existing
world and the strivings to escape from it. Play does not affirm the libertarian‐creative
principle, but the principle of escapism, and ultimately, the principle of conformism. There
is no vision of the future, and thus of a movement towards new worlds and, in that context,
the movement of man towards man. In play, man does not develop all his human potentials
which enable him to find a place in the existing world. Playing forms are but a “subjective
reflexion of the objective reality”, and not a relation of man towards the existing world and
its overcoming. Laban's imagination pins man down to the existing world. Hence in Laban
there are no Klopstock's “wings on feet” which express soaring of the spirit towards new
worlds. Laban's play mutilates the authentic dancing movement, which is essentially
libertarian and visionary. Playing imagination creates “arabesques” (Wigman) in an empty
space, and not the vision of a future world by way of a visionary movement in an open
(natural and social) space. The spirits of the past are evoked (Coubertin, Huizinga) or
mystical forces (Laban) which are but a mask hiding the ruling order, in a lifeless space
void of the sunlight and warmth, blue skies, moon and stars, fresh air and smells of flowers,
murmur of spring, flight of birds and swaying of wheat...
In the “Introduction” to her work “Physical Culture as Education and Art”
Magazinović speaks of a “cosmic rhythm” which obtains a metaphysical dimension:
“Overexertion, premature senility and stiffness today are unavoidable consequences of the
civilizatory wrenching of man as a biological‐social‐psychical being out of the universal
cosmical principle of rhythm – the inevitable and constant alternating succession of
contraction and relaxation, spasm and stretching, tautness and loosening, that is, labour
 72

and respite – which all cosmic proceedings and lives are subject to. Tide‐ebb, wind‐calm,
crystalinity‐amorphism, inhaling‐exhaling, diastole‐systole of heart beat, love‐birth‐death –
all this is more or less a sheer incarnation of the cosmic rhythm, the principle totally
opposed to the mechanicistic principle of today's civilization.” (31) What is a “civilizatory
wrenching”? Is this an abstract power or it refers to concrete historical processes and the
governing (capitalist) order in which man lives? Magazinović uses the term “mechanicistic
approach” in order to conceal the rhythm of capitalist reproduction which appears in the
form of a mechanical rhythm. In cosmos, there is a constant fight, which was pointed out
even by Heraclitus (polemos pater panton estin), as well as Nietzsche: cosmos is ruled by
the principle of a constant accumulation of force and it is corresponded by the governing
principle of monopolist capitalism “Big fish devours small fish!” Fight to increase profit is a
fight which is carried out without respite. Both in his working and his leisure time man is
the tool of the capital for its reproduction. Even man's “respite” is an active time for the
capital. In Magazinović, the prevailing logic is linear: phenomena inevitably succeed one
another. Play becomes respite from the existing world in the existing world, in a way which
does not question that very same world. The dialectic of nature, along with the dialectic of
history, is being abolished. The existing world is not the result of a historical development
based on a libertarian struggle, it is a given. There is no conflict with the existing world
whereby a novum would be generated. Cosmos is ruled by determinism, while man is a
libertarian being and thus is a specific cosmic being. What dominates in the human cosmos
is a historical time “measured” by man's realized freedom. In that context, in Magazinović,
there is no creative rhythm which is of a dialectic character and is based on the rhythm of
historical movement. “Cosmic rhythm” becomes the abolishment of the historical rhythm
and thus the abolishment of man as a social, historical and libertarian‐creative being. As far
as the original natural rhythm is concerned, the answer that indicates the essence of play
can be found in the relation of man towards man, and not in the relation of man towards his
body. The original rhythmical impulse does not derive from the inanimate world, nor from
the organic (the rhythm of heart, etc), but from the life‐creating (procreative) relation
between the genders. The so called “love play” in animals is the archetype of the relations
between the genders. The instinctively constituted rhythm of penetration during sexual
intercourse, which is typical of all living beings, represents the foundation of the so called
“natural rhythm” in man. Breast‐feeding of children is of the same character. However, to
impose on play the rhythm of life, based on the rhythm of capitalist reproduction with an
irrational and non‐rhythmical character, means that play does not have to have, and even
should not have, a rhythmical character. This is suggested by the view of Louis Horst, “a
long‐time musical contributor to American choreographers”: “The implementation of
irregular rhythms enables the dancer to express more genuinely the conditions of the
contemporary life”. (32)
Explaining Laban's dancing principles, Magazinović says: “Laban based his
dancing principles on the theory of fencing (scales of movement A and B) and combat
 73

practice, as well as on the practice of historical dances: on the basic five stances and their
relation in a three‐dimensional space. Space is for Laban the primary aspect of dancing,
which in his opinion is the “flow of spatial relations of bodily movements in their
harmonious interchanging”. While I. Duncan approached dancing from the point of view of
its expressiveness through movements, and J. Dalcroze from the aspect of the rhythmical
connection between dancing and music, Laban, approaching dancing as an artist and
architect, in the spatial relation of dancing movements perceived the essence of the dancing
art.” (33) By way of dancing man is excluded from the existing world and encloses himself
in an artificial world – which suggests a similarity between sport and Laban's dancing.
Dancing space is an artificial (technical) space. In it, man is outside historical, cultural and
thus libertarian time. Space has a suprematic dimension, like Malevich's “black square”,
whereas it does not direct man to face the truth (the tragic), but to an escape from the
world. Through physical drill by which his playing nature is mutilated, and thus the
possibility of his development as a libertarian‐creative being, man acquires a chance to
“freely” move in the given dancing space – which appears as a compensation for the lack of
free motion in everyday life. Dancing space becomes the “space of happiness”; a peculiar
ghetto which man enters “voluntarily” in order to “enjoy” the “freedom of motion”. It is a
peculiar dancing box, while dancers are moving dolls whose rhythm of movements is
determined by invisible threads of the governing order: dancing is an immediate reflexion
of the governing life rhythm. As in antiquity, people are “playthings of (contemporary)
gods”, and world is their playground. Laban has in mind the motion in a (artificial) physical
space and in that context a “subjective” and “objective” space, not a natural or social space.
Hence the dominant relations are quantitative (small‐big, near‐far...). There is no
antagonism of man and space, but man becomes the “master” of an empty (non‐historical,
unsocial, artificial, ghettoized) space by “absorbing” it with motion. Play is of a
compensatory character: man appropriates and shapes space by motion through visions
that motion provokes – as a reaction to a complete alienation in the social (anti‐playing)
space in which motion is completely determined by the existential spirit of capitalism
appearing in the form of a “technical civilization” and a technicized (dehumanized and
denaturalized) motion. Maletić cites the words of Mary Wigman, “the greatest European
dancer in the first half of the XX century”, from her book “Dancing Language”, which
represent an “impressive account of experiencing space as a medium of dancing formation
and fanticizing in space about space”. Wigman: “(A dancer) stands with her eyes closed and
feels the weight of air on her limbs. A hand is raised hesitantly as if undecidedly feeling and
cutting through an invisible spatial body; legs follow: direction has disappeared. Suddenly,
the space behind her grabs her and pulls her backwards along a newly formed path:
counter‐movement. Dance between high and low, between forward and backward,
meetings with oneself, a fight in space for space: dancing; quietly, softly and abruptly,
wildly. Suddenly, a flash of cognition. Large, invisible, transparent space of formless waves;
rising of the hand transforms it and shapes it. Ornaments appear, great, large, and
 74

disappear; elaborated arabesques come by hopping through space. Amids all that – a leap;
broken shapes sizzle with anger; a quick whirl, walls recede. She drops her hands, standing
still again, staring at the empty space, at the realm of dancers.” (34) A dancer in an empty
space is the authentic picture of man's position in the world devoid of humanity. Dancing as
a directed physical activity creates a psychic state by means of which real visions in space
are created (mirages) which are feelings shaped in a dancing way. By physical exercises
man brings himself in a peculiar trance in which he loses contact with reality. Dancing
movement becomes a meditative activism, similarly to bowing, swaying and uttering
prayers. Instead of a conflict, as it is the case in sport, dominates an autistic immersion in
oneself. In play, there is no katharsis as the purification of man according to the ancient
principle, since it involves “sin” (hybris) and “justice” (Dike). There is no aspiration to the
higher, as was the case in the Hellenic gymnastics (which was based on the principle “know
thyself” /gnothi seauton/, from whence follow the principles “measure is the best” /metron
ariston/, “nothing too much” /meden agan/ etc.), where shaping of the body was a form of
worshipping (surrendering) gods and in that sense a supreme cult (erotic) performance.
Man's Self is not determined relative to the transcendental or the idea of future, but
remains in the physical and psychic spheres, as a discharge of discontent and escape from
nothingness. Dancing comes closest to the ancient ekstasis, but in play there is no spiritual
unity with the divine, nor the confrontation of man with his tragic destiny. The tragic
indeed exists, but it is tragic in itself: it is experienced, but is not comprehended.
In a peasant community, play was a manifestation of the joy of living of a man
who lived and existed in a working, erotic, folk, cultural community. Contemporary play is
the play of a lonely individual. Instead of developing in man an active, change‐oriented
relation to the world of non‐freedom and a need for people, playing directs him to an
autistic obsession with himself, his body, motion... The fanatic focusing on playing is the
expression of a fatal, hopeless loneliness. The things man needs he cannot find in other
people, but in himself: playing becomes a “meeting with oneself”. It is the final form of
man's alienation from himself as a social being. “Subjectivism” is the answer to man's
dehumanization in his everyday life: play is a psychic reaction of a lonely man who, by way
of dancing, seeks to get rid of everyday suffering. “Exaltation” is fed by misery which is
piling in man. “Fascination with play” is not the affirmation of man's living force, but the
blocking of pain imposed on him by life which constantly deprives him of humanity. It is a
peculiar trance attained by physical activism which is of a ritual character, and is reduced
to auto‐hypnosis. It is a state of “oblivion” in which man suppresses his social being and
experiences himself through a body motion which creates the feeling of “freedom” and
“happiness”: play becomes a spiritual drug which leads man to the border beyond which is
pure madness. In Laban's dance the established relations are not between people as
libertarian‐creative personalities who by way of dancing relate to an inhuman world, but
between loyal citizens who appear in the guise of “partners” and who, through dancing,
demonstrate their unconditional submission to the ruling order. Dancing group is not a
 75

homogenous community of emancipated social beings, but a quasi‐social community of

lonely people. An escape from society to the dancing space is an escape of man from
himself as a social being. By way of dancing man as a social being turns into a “dancer”,
which is but one of the roles imposed on him by capitalism, which thus turns him into its
plaything. Ultimately, play becomes a playing form of the manifestation of a non‐playing
world, and “player” becomes a “horse” on the capitalist merry‐go‐around.
Explaining Laban's views on the relations between “partners” in play, Ana Maletić
concludes: “In the microcosmos of here stated activities, an individual experiences
situations similar to those in which real life can bring him.” (35) In Laban, “real life” is not
an order governed by fight between the plutocratic “elite” and submitted working
“masses”; where women struggle for the realization of elementary human and civil rights;
where fights are breaking out between those who annihilate life and those who strive to
preserve it and create a new world... “Real life” is reduced to a capitalistically totalized
world, and the playing “subjectivity” to an illusion of human subjectivity: play as a
“subjective reflection of the objective reality” is (self) reflexion of the capitalist order in
man, which means a playing form of the manifestation of the ruling order. In Laban, the
prevailing principle is not Social Darwinist, as is the case in sport, but a mechanicistic logic:
just as branches sway under wind, so does man sway to the ruling rhythm of life, whereas
in Laban's theory the whip of capitalism resembles a conductor's baton. Play is not the
relation of man to the world and an expression of pursuit of a new world; it is the playing
form of man's integration into the existing world. Instead of obtaining a libertarian role,
play obtains a therapeutic and compensatory role. At the same time, play becomes a
universal means for turning a non‐human world into the “artistic”. It does not offer a
possibility of the actualization of man's suppressed playing being, but finds mimetic
impulses in the ruling model of motion which is expressed in “life situations”. Bodily
motion is extracted from a social context, in the same way in which “beautiful art” has
become an area in which “beauty” as against an ugly world is concentrated. “Artistic
movement” becomes a privilege of a special group “dedicated to play” and has become a
peculiar sect who by demonstrating its play promotes a certain worldview and man's
relation to that world. “Spontaneity” is of a repressive character as it stops man from freely
expressing his own experience of life, and thus from establishing a relation to it from the
aspect of his suppressed playing being. Play does not involve the creation of a new
(humane) world, but a reproduction of the existing world.
Laban sees dancing as a means for children's education and for directing the
behaviour of adults. In her interpretation of Laban, Maletić says: “Ever since the ancient
times people observed that dancing can have two opposing effects: it can excite them and
stir their emotions, and it can calm them. (...) This twofold capacity of play was already
known to the rulers of old cultures who used it to direct the mood of masses. Those
characteristics of dancing were also discovered by modern psychotherapy. (...) This twofold
effect of dancing can be well used in the work with healthy children, especially at school.
 76

(...) Due to the fact that in dancing man is at the same time a performer and an instrument,
this discipline occupies a special place among arts.” (36) And she continues: “Lessons in
educational dance since the very beginning had two directions. One leads to the activation
of pupils' psycho‐motor abilities taking into consideration the awareness of movements
and feelings that cause or follow our movements, and the other leads to his awareness of
the motivation of movement. (...) The initial motivations are most often found in everyday
activities. From life, as the starting point, we shall lead our trainees to a poeticizing of
motion. The road, indeed, leads from the common to the uncommon, from the everyday to
the unusual, from a rational to a dancing movement.” (37) First of all, to insist on dancing
as an educational means disqualifies dancing as play, which in the bourgeois philosophy is
determined as a “purposeless activity” or as “purposefulness without a purpose”,
particularly because Laban's theory insists on the instrumentalization of the body. At the
same time, dancing becomes a “spontaneous” drawing of the child into the existing world
deprived of a (dialectical) struggle between “good” and “bad”, which means that he is not
offered a chance to develop as an independent personality and confront everything that
threatens his humanity. Instead of a creative dimension, educating children through play
has a therapeutic and prophylactic dimension, ultimately – an adaptive dimension. Laban's
play is not based on man's need of another man, but on “partnership” which is based on
copying the life rhythm that sucks man into the existing world, and “regulates” human
relations at the level of the bodily. Playing group is reduced to a community of bodies that
follow the same rhythm. Maletić's view is interesting: “One of the efficient initial exercises
for acquiring the sense of a shared rhythmic pulsation is the one in which the group as a
whole rises and lowers in one place.” (38) Dancing is not only man's confirmation as a
social being, which means it is not the creation of a human community in an immediate
form, but is reduced to the technique of dancing movements which provoke certain psychic
effects. A group physical motion becomes a peculiar hypnotic séance and as such an
instrument for crushing a child's personality, depriving it of a readiness to make his/her
own decisions, to reflect on his acts, to participate in the creation of a collective ...
What is the role of play in directing the behaviour of adults? Here is what Maletić
says: “To develop the sense of belonging to a wider community is a significant task, to the
realization of which educational dancing seeks to contribute by its own means. Those
means are included in the very syllabus of the art of movement which touches also that
phenomenon. We could almost say that a lack of such education is too often observed in
everyday, interpersonal relations. In our streets and public places passers‐by push each
other, collide or stumble. Similar scenes can be seen in schoolyards and sports halls. The
causes of such behaviour are, in our opinion, twofold: lack of a developed sense of space
and lack of a sense of people who occupy that space.” (39) Instead of fighting against social
causes of confrontation between people, which means against the ruling order based on the
principle bellum omnium contra omnes, the solution is being sought for in the fight with
consequences, the very play being based on the ruling rhythm that mutilates humanity.
 77

Laban's play is a conformist response to the repression man is submitted to every day. It is
a universal means for curing the consequences of capitalism: instead of removing the
causes of discontent, man's change‐aspiring energy is directed to play that is to destroy the
critical mind and sterilize his change‐aspiring energy – integrating him into the existing
world both physically (rhythm of movement follows the rhythm of life, harmony as the
expression of man's unity with the existing world and the like), and spiritually. Man is not a
historical (visionary) being, but is reduced to the (present) given. “Finding one's own place
in society and environment” (40) is not only the basic principle of a child's socialization,
but is the basic principle on which man's whole life should be founded.































 78

SPORT AND PHILOSOPHY

Sport in the Light of the Philosophy of Play


The answer to the question what is play can be reached in the following ways: by
analyzing the concrete totality of the epoch, which means by determining play as a concrete
social (historical) phenomenon; on the basis of the dominant ideological model; and on the
basis of general human ideals which enable the creation of a vision of future and thus the
establishment of a critical distance both to the social reality and to the governing
normative vault. Basically, we have two principal approaches: play as the reproduction of
the existing world and an (apparent) escape from it, and play as a critical, change‐oriented
relation to the existing world and the creation of a new world. It should be noted that the
subject matter of the philosophy of play are not only the conceptions which explicitly deal
with play, but also the philosophical considerations which enable the formation of its
fundamental concepts.
The philosophy of play does not reach a concept of play on the basis of historical,
sociological and philosophical analyses, but on the basis of the governing evaluative model
which is of an ideological and propagandist character. It tries to determine the concept of
play by enumerating the characteristics of the existing plays and through their synthesis, or
by establishing an ideal of play which appears as the project of what should be. The concept
of play becomes a suprahistorical criterion for determining play, which means that play is
not a concrete social (historical) phenomenon, but a phenomenon sui generis. It becomes a
means for conserving the existing world, which leads to an uncritical relation to the
existing plays which are an explicit or tacit starting point for determining its essence. The
characteristics attributed to play become an ideological mask for obtaining a «humanist»
legitimacy for the relations which, by their nature, are a radical form of man's
dehumanization and denaturalization. In order to stop the fight for an authentic human
world, human ideals are utilized in the creation of a «humanist» veil for an inhuman world
– which is proclaimed «happiness». Play becomes a projection of the desired on the
advertising banner of capitalism which eliminates man's need to fight for a new world.
Determination of the concept of play is conditioned by the endeavour to build a world
«parallel» to the world of misery, accepted by people as the «oasis of happiness» (Fink).
The philosophy of play does not search for the truth; it creates a false picture of the
phenomena which, by their nature, are opposed to the proclaimed humanist ideals. Its role
is similar to that of religion: to convince people that the «world of happiness» is possible on
the grounds of and as opposed to the «world of concern», and to bring man into a specific
mental state in which he loses interest in the fundamental existential questions and
becomes the victim of his subconscious. However, play is not an illusory world, like
 79

Christian «paradise» which exists solely in people's heads; it is a constituent part of a real
world where people should find a possibility of satisfying their desires. Even those social
phenomena are proclaimed «play» which, like sport and war, are a «pure» incarnation of
the fundamental principles of the existing world: the Social Darwinist principle bellum
omnium contra omnes and the absolutized principle of quantitatively measurable
performance shaped in the Olympic maxim citius, altius, fortius. What distinguishes play
from other areas of life is that man becomes involved in it «with his free will» ‐
«spontaneously» accepting the given rules.
Two conceptions predominate in the philosophy of play. The first is monistic: play
is a phenomenon in which in the real or ideal form the structure of the existing world is
expressed. The second is dualistic: social reality is divided into the «world of concern»,
dominated by labour, and the «world of happiness», dominated by play. In both cases, play
is an instrument for defending the existing world: either as preparation for the existing life
or as an (apparent) escape from everyday life. The philosophy of play claims that play is
purposeless and that it is an end in itself, in order to instrumentalize play as an exclusive
political means of the ruling class for the protection of its strategic interests. A
«purposeless» play becomes the production of the existing world. Hence the question is not
raised of play as a concrete social phenomenon, nor of the origin and nature of norms
which make its framework. Instead of a critical mind, apriorism, on which dogmatic‐
mythological conscious is based, becomes the foundation of the relation to play. This also
applies to the relation to sport. Sport is highly valued as something expressing the highest
human aspirations and becomes a mythological phenomenon. As far as the thesis that sport
«does not have a political character» is concerned, it corresponds to the conception that
sport is a «purposeless activity» which, just like play, is an «end in itself». We are dealing
with an endeavour to conceal the fact that sport is the incarnation of the ruling values in a
condensed ideological form, and as such is the most important means for drawing people
into the spiritual orbit of capitalism. Hence the theory of the amateur («good») sport and
professional («bad») sport gives rise to false dilemmas. It is precisely the amateur sport
which, with its «moral dimension», most successfully integrates man into the existing
world since it removes the moralistic critical distance that appears in relation to the
professional sport. It destroys the critical relation to the ruling relations and values and
creates a positive character and positive conscious. It becomes «normal» for children, from
the early age, to be categorized according to their gender; to be divided in groups engaged
in mutual struggle; to regard physical injuries and killings as a normal element of life; to
adopt the ever increasing performance as the criterion for determining human value; that it
is not intelligence, but physical strength, which is to secure man a position in society...
Hence «spontaneity» in sport is its most harmful dimension: young people automatically
adopt the ruling values which make the grounds for their human self‐knowledge. That the
distinction made between the amateur and professional sports is but a deception can be
seen from the attribute «supreme», which is repeatedly ascribed to professional sport, thus
 80

clearly suggesting that professional sport represents the highest value‐related challenge for
amateur sport.
Reduction of the existing world to an abstract «world of concern» is the starting
point for reducing play to an abstract «oasis of happiness». The playing space is free from
anything that comes from the «world of concern» and becomes an idealized projection of a
«happy world», where anyone can fulfil their suppressed desires. The philosophy of play
seeks to construct the concept of play according to an ideological model of «reality» in
which play is the projection of unrealized humanism. The concept of play is reached by
determining man's position in the «world of concern» and by trying to direct his discontent
not towards the elimination of the causes of misery, but towards the «satisfaction» found in
the given spaces of «happiness». Play becomes the compensation for a deprived humanity
and an instrument for man's incorporation into the existing world: the relation to play is
the projection of the relation to the ruling order. At the same time, «happiness» is
determined by the nature of the relations and values denoted by the term «play». Thus we
move in a circulus vitiosus: first, «happiness» is the essential attribute of play only for
«play» to become the essential attribute of happiness. To define play means to create the
ever more convincing humanist masks for social relations and values which are proclaimed
«play», whereas the linguistic virtuosity expresses the unwillingness to determine the
concept of play as a concrete social (historical) phenomenon. The instrumentalization of
humanist ideals («freedom», «beauty», «happiness», «peace», etc.) in creating a false
picture of play ultimately serves to crush the visionary conscious which strives to create a
world in which these ideals will be achieved.
The question of play only apparently lies in the sphere of mind. The philosophy of
play does not address the mind; it is reduced to an illusory rhetoric which directs man's
pursuit of happiness to the activities that serve to reinforce the increasingly precarious
foundations of the ruling order. It creates linguistic whirls in which man's pursuit of a clear
critical attitude to the ruling order and of a guiding idea in the creation of a new world are
to disappear. Today, the philosophy of play comes down to doing the snow job over the
ever deeper abyss and to the mind's (self) annihilation. Instead of philosophical
argumentation, we deal with psychological manipulation: philosophy of play becomes the
«art of seduction» (Nietzsche). It is mystifying and escapist, and its nature is determined by
the destructive character of the ruling order which makes it not only anti‐libertarian but
also anti‐existential. Most importantly, the relation to play predetermines man's relation to
the existing world. To accept play as the «world of happiness», where the ruling relations
and values are reproduced in a «playing» form, means to accept the world of misery and
renounce any fight for freedom. Hence in play (sport) the dominant upbringing is through
living the existing life, to which corresponds upbringing without education, and this means
that acquiring a positive character precedes the development of positive conscious. The
philosophy of play crushes the idea of the world in which interpersonal relations, labour,
learning, family, art and other creative activities can make man happy. The nature of the
 81

philosophy of play conditions the nature of its relation to play: it does not seek to change
the existing world, but to perpetuate it by creating an «oasis of happiness» which is to
enhance the illusion that in the existing world man can attain his original humanity and be
happy. This is the main reason why the philosophy of play has not reached the ideal of
libertarian play: the philosophy of play clashes with the philosophy of freedom. In spite of
its attempts to pin man down to the existing world, the philosophy of play volens nolens
indicates that the capitalist world is an incorrigible world of misery and that it cannot
destroy man's visionary conscious and his will to create a humane world. At the same time,
it indicates that the only thing that can make man happy is not the present way of life and
the ruling values, but the realization of true human ideals, which are opposed to the
existing world.
In the philosophy of play, two anthropological views prevail. According to the
first, man is an «evil» (or «the banal»/Huizinga) being while play is a means for holding his
nature under control; according to the second, man is a «good» being while play is the
expression of his need for «happiness» and «socializing». Both conceptions depart from
play as an indisputable normative vault which must be accepted unquestioningly if play is
to proceed. Instead of emphasizing man's playing (libertarian‐creative) nature, the
emphasis is placed on the observance of the given rules. Play cannot be man's authentic
need; it is an enforced pattern of behaviour, which becomes a means for pinning man down
to the existing world and destroying the visionary mind. Even when appealing to the
«human nature», the philosophy of play does not think of man but of the ruling order:
«human nature» is determined by the nature of the ruling order. Hence play is possible
only as a repressive normative framework intended to defend society against man.
Whatever the starting point of examination, the conclusion is always the same: the ruling
order is indisputable and eternal. Just as in antiquity and Christianity, man becomes the
plaything of the ruling order.
The theory of sport finds the philosophical foundation of sport in the philosophy
of play: the philosophy of sport becomes the philosophy of play. It is an area which
appropriated the criteria for determining the true nature of play and became a prism
through which the nature of sport can be perceived. The philosophy of play «draws» sport
under its wing by way of three phenomena: first is a (unhistorical) competition
(anthropology); second is the repressive normative vault under which the competition
proceeds (fair‐play, as well as «sports aesthetics» in which «perfection» becomes a
substitute for freedom, the form of play corresponds to the form of life, etc.); third is
«progress» based on the absolutized principle of quantitatively measurable performance
(«philosophy of performance») shaped in the maxim citius, altius, fortius.
For the philosophy of play sport is not a phenomenon the nature of which is
determined by the nature of the concrete totality of the epoch in which it appeared, but by
the nature of man as an abstract «competitive being» which is the incarnation of the ruling
spirit of the existing world. It does not have a sociological, but an anthropological starting
 82

point. It is based on the conception according to which man is, by his nature, an «aggressive
being» and play is a form of civilized channeling of human aggressiveness. «Good» is not a
human characteristic; it is a characteristic of play which prevents the originally «evil»
human nature from jeopardizing the survival of society. The philosophy of play does not
regard sport as man's authentic creative (playing) activity, and thus as an interpersonal
relation, but as an institution. Sport cannot be a form of the direct creation of the
community of free people; it rather lifts a barrier between people which is not to be
crossed. «Brotherhood is for angels!» ‐ claims Pierre de Coubertin, reducing man to the
model of «citizen» who is more like a trained beast. Sport deals with the guiding ideas of
the French Revolution on which modern humanism is based – the humanism shaped in the
«rights of man» (droits de l'homme) and «rights of the citizen» (droits de citoyen).
«Freedom» becomes the right to escape from reality; «equality» becomes a formal right as
it is based on the «right of might»; «brotherhood» comes down to unquestioning
observation of norms that are to perpetuate an order based on the principle homo homini
lupus.
The dominant view in the philosophy of play is that «play» involves a repressive
normative pattern and a conflict that does not question the existing world, including a
conflict that involves infliction of physical injuries and killings. According to the criteria of
the bourgeois theory, life‐and‐death struggle falls into the category of play, while war
represents the supreme form of play. In that context, the ancient Olympic Games, where
killing one's opponent was legal and legitimate, represent «play». The same applies to
gladiator's fights, chivalrous tournaments, as well as to boxing (and other bloody sports)
which is called a «noble art». For the bourgeois theory, sport is a “peaceful” form of warfare
where war is waged not with weapons, but with bodies and combative skill. Readiness to
kill and capacity for killing represent the most important features of a «player»: man's right
to life is subordinated to the right of the ruling order to survival. The philosophy of play
emphasizes the «competitive» character of play, but by that it means the fight for pre‐
eminence and dominance, and not the fight for freedom, social justice, equality, for
establishing interpersonal relations based on mutual respect and tolerance. Play is free
from everything that enables man to realize his creative‐libertarian nature.
The question of play has become a special part of aesthetics. As far as sport is
concerned, the indisputable criterion for determining «beauty» is victory through an ever
better result (record). Play which, in itself, as a human skill, does not contribute to the
achievement of the ultimate effect, is superfluous and thus meaningless. The bodies of
sportsmen, deformed to monstrous proportions, become the highest form in which sports
aesthetics is realized. Sports «spectacles» are similar in that sense. They are primitive
circus shows, which are highly valued in the context of glorifying victory and record, which
means in the context of the Social Darwinist and progressistic principle on which the
existing world is based. The task of the «beautiful» is to obtain cultural legitimacy for sport
 83

by way of «polishing», which means by way of a decorative aesthetics the nature of which is
conditioned by the nature of the governing relations.
Between the philosophy of play and sport the relation is established without the
mediation of the «theory of physical culture», an area larger in scope than sport, which is
guided by the principles which enable a critical distance to sport. Philosophers who write
on sport usually do not distinguish between sport and physical culture and reach
conclusions which have nothing to do either with sport or with physical culture. Huizinga,
Caillois, Fink, Lasch, Horkheimer, Sartre, Bloch – do not speak of physical culture and, in
that context, of sport but, departing from their philosophical conceptions, have an
immediate relation to sport. Their views are similar to Coubertin's notion that sport is
physical culture in the true sense of that word and that between sport and physical culture
only theoretical differences can be established. Regarding sport as physical culture leads to
the sterilization of critical and change‐oriented potentials of physical culture and to
physical culture being turned into a veil that is to give sport a «cultural» aureole. Sport
encloses man within the spiritual vault of a civilization based on Social Darwinism and
progressism; physical culture offers a possibility of establishing a humanist critical distance
to the existing world and of creating a new world. There is no doubt that civil society
opened space for the development of free bodily activities, but that libertarian impulse, by
way of sport and other forms of repressive «physical culture» and «physical education»,
has become its direct opposite: «free physical activism» becomes a systematic
confrontation with the emancipatory legacy of physical culture which, with the Hellenic
spiritual legacy, philanthropic and dancing movement, as well as with the aristocratic
principles of physical culture, appeared as part of national cultures. A distinction should be
made between free physical activism as an unrestrained development of man's authentic
needs and abilities – as man's unalienable right – and sport as an institutional incarnation
of the basic principles of the ruling order in its «pure» form and thus as a given pattern of
behaviour. In the former case, we deal with physical activism oriented towards the creation
of a world «suited» to man, through the development of his creative powers; in the latter
case, we deal with the protection and development of the established order through the
creation of a loyal and usable citizen (subject). In Modern Age, man has acquired self‐
conscious as a playing being in the context of acquiring self‐conscious as the builder of
society and creator of his own world: the right to play becomes the right to freedom and
happiness. Play is considered as the highest form of man's realization as a universal
creative being of freedom and as the most immediate form of the creation of society as a
human community: life becomes play. In view of this, the relation between sport and art,
and in that context the relation between sport and artistic contests, can effectively be
examined.
The philosophy of play abolishes sport as a concrete historical phenomenon and
by way of humanist phrases transfers it into the mythological sphere. The attempts to
proclaim sport the phenomenon sui generis result in the theory which ignores the
 84

comparative method when it comes to the analysis of modern, ancient and medieval
«sport». It rather uses the linear approach according to which the conclusion is made that
«modern sport» represents the «restoration of ancient sport», and that modern Olympic
Games are the reincarnation of the «immortal spirit of antiquity». The philosophy of play
treats the «greatest sports events» and «the most important sports personalities» in a
similar way. Thus, Pierre de Coubertin, the official «father» of modern Olympism, is not a
historical, but a mythological character. The same applies to the Olympic Games: they are
not a concrete historical phenomenon, but are a mythological form in which the ruling
values appear, and as such are a «festivity of spring». It should be noted here that only a
concrete historical consideration of a phenomenon, meaning the tendency (dialectic) of its
development – what it becomes, offers a possibility to grasp its essence. Sport is not a
suprahistorical, but is a capitalist competition, which in its original form («Equal chances!»,
«Competition generates quality!») represents the ideology of liberal capitalism. In
monopolistic capitalism, ruled by the principle «Destroy the competition!», sport, as the
«cult of the existing world» (Coubertin), has become a means for crushing the
emancipatory legacy of liberalism and destroying man as a cultural (historical) and natural
being.
The academic thought took trouble to divide the relation to sport into separate
fields of interest in order to «better explain» the nature of sport. It became possible only
when sport developed into a complex and special (not separate) social phenomenon. The
«theory of sport» became possible when sport became a field where the principles of
competition (fight) and performance (record‐mania) were enthroned in a «pure» form, and
when their institutional (normative, organizational, functional) framework was shaped.
The «sociology of sport» is developing as a positivist area, free from «value‐based
prejudices» (according to the theses that «sport has nothing to do with politics»), which is
concerned with the «examination of social facts». The «history of sport» becomes a linear
(unhistorical) way of presenting the «historical development of sport». The emergence and
development of sport is not seen within a concrete historical totality, but in the context of
an abstract «development of sport» which is reduced to the description of certain
(«sports») phenomena from the past. With sport being taken out of history, the main
categories of sport, manipulated by the sports theory in order to obtain the character of
universality and eternity for the principle of performance, become «objectivized» and
mythologized. The «philosophy of sport» becomes the philosophical basis for the principles
bellum omnium contra omnes and citius, altius, fortius – on which the ruling order is
founded. In the structuralist version, sport is reduced to a «subsystem of society», and man
to a «sportsman». Interpersonal relations are given by the structure and functional logic of
the ruling order. Hence the basic presupposition for a «communal» life is the respect for the
established (given) rules, and not the respect for man. Besides the above mentioned fields,
new fields are being created (within aesthetics, anthropology, pedagogy, philosophy...)
which are engaged in further dividing the «field of interest», accompanied regularly by
 85

their own respective «method of investigation» (in order to obtain the legitimacy of the
«scientific» and «philosophical»), leading to a further deconstruction of sport as a complex
and integral phenomenon. Since the sports theory reduced man and society to the «object
of investigation», this approach is clearly only completing the labyrinth where every
attempt is lost to attain man's libertarian and creative being from which comes a critical,
change‐oriented relation to the existing world, and man's need to create an authentic
human world. The basis of the sports theory is a conflict with the critical mind and
apriorism which becomes the foundation of authoritarianism in the political and spiritual
spheres. The world is conceived phenomenologically: it is a given, while the relation to the
world is positivistic. An unhistorical relation is being established towards the past: the
«contact» with it is being made through romanticized myths. Instead of a libertarian, reigns
a dogmatic‐mythological conscious.
Sport absolutizes the progressistic logic which, based on the Social Darwinist
laws, becomes a fatal power alienated from man and destroys the very possibility of
creating a novum. At the same time, man in sport becomes instrumentalized, by way of a
fanaticized (self) destructive conscious, not only as a working force, but also as a working
tool and the object of processing (raw material). The philosophy of sport (play) completely
ignores the existential risk carried by the domination of the absolutized principle of
competition and performance. The annihilation of interpersonal relations, which means of
society as a community of emancipated people, involves the annihilation of the body and
nature. Sport is not a form in which man's playing being is manifested; it is a form in which
man becomes alienated from his playing being, and a form of his degeneration.
The playing forms in the pre‐capitalist period enabled the unity of man with his
natural being, and man's integration in the community by way of higher values which were
of a spiritual (religious, ritual, symbolic, social, national, cultural…) character. Sport
renounces the emancipatory heritage of traditional forms of physical culture and thus the
bodily motion which strives to unify man and nature and develop interpersonal relations.
The «development of human powers» through sport has become a systematic destruction
of man's creative powers; the «fight for freedom» through sport leads man astray and
contributes to the further development of destructive processes: «activating masses» by
way of sport means establishing control over people in their «free (leisure) time» and the
creation of massive idiocy… The «playing technique» has become a means for man's
mutilation and the creation of hordes of modern Frankensteins; sportsmen have become
gladiators («martial arts»), circus players («games») and stuntmen (car races and other
sports with a «high risk»); trainers – slave drivers; instructors of «physical education» ‐
body mechanics; sports physicians – modern Mengelles ; «mass sport» ‐ mass bodily
consumer activism; nature – consumer space, meaning commodity suited to the «consumer
taste» dictated by the entertaining industry, producers of sports equipment, tourism... As
far as the relation between genders is concerned, sport is one of the most important
bastions of militant sexism. In sports pedagogy, women are reduced to «lower beings», and
 86

in sports practice, the most vulgar insults on women's account have become the most
important way of «motivating» sportsmen to prove their «machismo». It has become clear
that all attempts to influence the developments in sport without challenging the ruling
orders are meaningless. It is confirmed also by the fate of the so called «second road» («Der
zweite Weg») in the development of sport in (Western) Germany – described by Bero
Rigauer in his book «Sport and Labour» («Sport und Arbeit») – who tried to «humanize»
sport by way of a hopeless voluntarism. The movement failed to «humanize» sport, but
succeeded in leading the critical mind astray. The dominant tendency in the «development»
of sport indicates the dominant tendency in the «development» of contemporary world:
instead of creating possibilities of «leaping from the realm of necessity to the realm of
freedom» (Engels), capitalism destroys the germ of novum created in the civil society and
makes man increasingly dependent on the increasingly threatened living environment.
Sport crushes not only culture, but life itself.
The attempts of bourgeois theorists to justify the atrocious massacres on sports
fields with the help of statistical data on the mortality rate in other social fields, suggest
that sport is not the space of «freedom and happiness», as they claim it to be, but is the
constituent element of the increasingly cruel everyday life. If we bear in mind that the
basic aim of the ideologues of capitalism is to preserve sport as a means for preserving the
established order, it becomes clearer why they continue to glorify sport. The increasing
level of violence and the ever bigger risk of losing life in sports «offer an opportunity» for
man to «get used» to the growing violence and death in society. The ever bloodier and
riskier sport is man's compensation for the ever bloodier and riskier life in a world where
everything is in the service of profit. Having in view the prevailing tendency in the
development of society and sport, it is clear that the bourgeois criticism of sport, as well as
its proposals for changes, are a futile activity the ultimate aim of which is not to deal with
«negative sides» of sport, but with the critical mind that strives to deal with the causes of
man's manipulation and destruction – which means the protection of the established order.
The way in which bourgeois theorists discuss Olympism serves to provide a «scientific»
and «philosophical» foundation of the Olympic myth, which becomes the basis for
establishing a «critical» distance to «negative phenomena» in sport, and not to sport as an
institution: the criteria for determining the «true sport» are the original principles of
capitalism. The established «development of sport» has finally made the bourgeois theory
of sport meaningless, as well as the criticism of sport that seeks to «humanize» it or in
some other ways preserve it as an institution. Sport has become the driving engine of
capitalist reproduction in a «pure» sense and as such the industry of death.
The governing «theory of physical culture» gives a distorted picture of sport in its
attempt to give it a «humanist» aureole. It departs from an idealized picture of a «good
sport» in its criticism of a «bad sport» (professionalism). Instead of becoming the starting
point for a criticism of sport as anticulture, “physical culture” is obtaining «cultural»
legitimacy for sport and creating a mythological picture of an «genuine sport». In that
 87

context appears the thesis that sport «has lost the playing content» it used to have as the
carrier of «cultural tradition» (Lasch). An impression is being made that sport in its original
sense is a superb humanist activity. At the same time, every possibility is abolished of the
confrontation between the emancipatory legacy of modern society, based on Rousseau's
pedagogical doctrine (homo homini homo) and humanist Hellenistic legacy (above all, the
principle of kalokagathia), and sport, based on Hobbes' philosophy (homo homini lupus)
and the positivist idea of progress which is of a mechanicistic and quantitative character
(citius, altius, fortius). The «pacifistic tendency» of sport is reduced to averting «human
aggressiveness» from the political (class, libertarian) space to the sporting space and
«civilizing» sport by way of the ruling (repressive) evaluative vault (disciplining of man).
Instead of fighting for a genuine physical culture, developed on the bases of the
development of man's playing being, the «theory of physical culture» creates an idealized
picture of the ruling principles on which sport, as a concrete historical (social)
phenomenon, is based.
The relation of the philosophy of play to sport should be seen in the context of the
current tendency in the development of the world, which means in the context of the
globalizing and totalizing process of man's dehumanization (decultivation) and
technicization (denaturalization). In that context, the question arises as to the philosophy
of play being «outdated», and thus also the theory of sport based on it. The philosophy of
play is reduced to the creation of a «humanist» mask for the destructive capitalist
barbarism, while the theory of sport has become the camera obscura in which philosophical
postulates are turned into the tools for obtaining a «philosophical» legitimacy for the
sports theory and practice. Discussion about play serves as a means for creating such a
form of mediation between man and world, which ultimately means between people, which
annihilates every possibility of overcoming the existing order. The philosophy of play
(sport) is one of the «distorting mirrors» of the ruling ideology, in which man can see only
«his» distorted image. The point is in destroying the «distorting mirrors» and in man
becoming a mirror of humanness to another man.


Eugen Fink: Play as a «Symbol of the World»


Fink considers play the basic existential phenomenon that exists independently of
man, who has but one possibility, that of «everyday acquaintance with play». (1) The world
is not the playing space of man as a libertarian being and the creator of this world, it is the
playing space of a man alienated from the world, which means that man is reduced to the
playing thing of the ruling order, which is the given and on which he does not and cannot
have any influence whatsoever. Play has the characteristics of a cosmic phenomenon and
proceeds in the form of strife between the heavens (mundus intelligibilis) and earth
 88

(mundus sensibilis) and is projected into man – who is reduced to the object of play and as
such is the battlefield. This conflict does not change man's position in the existing world: it
is given and unchangeable. When giving to the existing world a cosmic dimension, Fink
does not depart from cosmic laws, like Nietzsche, but elevates the principles underlying the
existing world to a super worldly, which means a super historical, level. Man is abolished as
a historical and social being and reduced to the «in worldly» dimension, while the world is
reduced to an abstraction. In Fink's world, there is no struggle between freedom and non‐
freedom, good and bad, old and new: play abolishes the dialectic of history and provides a
framework for changes, which means that there is no historical development of mankind
and, in that context, crucial social changes. Everything proceeds at the same (un) historical
level, which gives the impression that the existing plays have always existed. Fink excludes
from history man's fight for survival and freedom, but does not question the existing world
as a product of that fight, and consequently, he does not question plays, which he proclaims
the phenomenon sui generis. Play is not the realization of man's playing being and the
creation of new spiritual space, but is a form by which the ruling order plays with man.
Instead of man being a (specific) cosmic being, play, which incarnates the ruling relations,
becomes a cosmic phenomenon. When Fink speaks of cosmos, he does not have in mind the
cosmic space nor man's limitless creative capabilities, but the capitalist world. By
proclaiming play a cosmic phenomenon, Fink puts an end to all man's endeavours to step
out of the existing world and create a new one. To be in play means to be completely
integrated into the existing world. Play becomes a playing form of the world proceedings
and a form of its (self) reflexion.
Fink does conceive of play departing from man's playing being, that is, from his
potential creative capabilities, but reaches the concept of play by listing the features of the
existing plays, which are a condensed ideological incarnation of the ruling relations and
values. Hence play is not determined according to man's playing being, but according to
play being a normative cage with phenomenological foundation and ethical and esthetic
justification. As such, it becomes an abstract phenomenon by way of which the nature of
man and society is determined. Fink: «Every man knows of play from his own life, he
gained with it and about it experience, he knows the behaviour of his fellow men in play, he
knows the countless forms of play, he knows the public plays, circus mass plays, play for
fun, children's play and adults' play, somewhat more strenuous, less easy and less
attractive – everybody also knows the elements of play in the field of labour and politics, in
the relation between genders, the elements of play in almost all fields of culture.» (2)
Without a critical relation to the existing plays and without distinguishing between false
and genuine play, Fink proclaims all social phenomena which are denoted by the term
«play» a «symbol of the world». The existing plays become an unchanging form of the
existence of play as a «symbol of the world» ‐ in which man exists and on which he cannot
exert any influence. Play is not a concrete historical phenomenon, it is a suprahistorical
given; it does not involve man's relation to the existing world, but is a «free» way of
 89

blending into that world – play becomes playing of the existing life; it is not the ideal of a
human world that should be striven for, the projection of man's unrealized playing being
and the basis for a critical relation to the non‐playing world; it is a «symbol» of an inhuman
world, where man's playing nature is being suppressed and degenerated. It is not
surprising that Fink discards every attempt at reaching the concept of play through the
relation to labour: «Every time when play is interpreted in opposition to labour or
generally a serious realization of life, we are dealing with the most superficial conception of
play which nevertheless is predominant in our everyday life.» (3) According to Fink,
Habermas’s and Plessner's criticism of sport as the «duplication of the world of labour», is
not acceptable, since in labour Fink also finds «elements of play», which means that labour
does not deprive sport of its playing content. The relation of Fink's phenomenological
conception to play corresponds to the relation of the philosophy of play to sport: sport is
not a concrete historical phenomenon, but is a phenomenon sui generis and as such is a
«symbol of the (existing) world».
The basic purpose of Fink's philosophy of play is to obtain a playing character for
the existing world, which means to prove that in the existing world man can realize his
playing being and be happy. Hence Fink does not seek to explain the nature of the existing
plays as concrete social phenomena, but seeks to make a convincing picture of play as the
«oasis of happiness». The concept of play appears in an idealized normative sphere, but
Fink's «oasis of happiness» is not an illusory world, like Schiller's «aesthetic state»; it is
rather a playing manifestation of a non‐playing world. The «oasis of happiness» becomes
an apparent escape from reality into an illusory world where in another (spectacular) form
appear relations and values on which the «world of concern» is based. It is not a product of
man's creative practice, but is a space where man, fleeing from the world of misery and
pursuing freedom and meaning of life, unreservedly surrenders to the basic principles of
capitalist society shaped in «play». In Fink's words, play «resembles an 'oasis' of happiness
which had come to the desert of our pursuit of happiness and our Tantalian quest. Play
carries us away. When playing, we are, for a while, relieved of life's pandemonium – as if
transferred to another star where life appears to be easier, livelier, happier.» (4) Play is a
«symbol» of the existing world of misery, and not an expression of aspirations to a happier
world, especially not the symbol of a happier world. What at first sight looks like a criticism
of the ruling order is actually an apparent criticism, once you realize that it is meant to
protect the established world and that the offered «play» is but a condensed form of the
dominant spirit and, in that sense, the given. The active powers, alienated from man
through play, become an independent force which (apparently) pulls man out of the
existing world of «concern» in order to take him to the «oasis of happiness». The picture of
play as the «oasis of happiness» becomes convincing as against the existing world of
misery. It is a sphere parallel to life and man, wishing to leave the increasingly gloomy
«world of concern», only has to step into the «oasis of happiness», where everything he
 90

strives for is conserved: happiness, beauty, freedom... Play «plays with the serious», and
thus just lets off the steam of unreadiness to face the ruling order.
The bourgeois theory itself unwillingly discloses the true nature of play, by
disclosing the true nature of capitalism: it is a hopeless world of misery. It is precisely this
world that is raison d' être of play as the «oasis of happiness»: «free play» is the reflexion of
the world of non‐freedom and as such is a «reward» to an oppressed man for his stoical
endurance of misery to which he is constantly exposed – and reinforcement of the bulwark
of the world of misery. Fink does not aspire to a happy man, but seeks to subdue the
discontent of an unhappy man by offering him an illusory space of happiness. «Play carries
us away», «life appears to be easier»: play becomes a spiritual drug. Fink does not speak of
the nature of play, but of the nature of man's relation to play, which is but a projection of
man's relation to the world. The purpose of his theory is to turn «play» into an appealing
illusory world that is to draw man away from the fight for abolishing the existing world of
misery, which is but a playing form in which the ruling values and relations appear. The
attempts to institutionalize play as the world of «freedom» and «happiness» correspond to
the attempts to institutionalize the existing world of non‐freedom and unhappiness. Play
becomes a «spontaneous» form of man's blending into the existing world and thus is the
highest form of servitude to the existing order. Play as the «oasis of happiness» indicates
the true nature of the capitalist world: it is a desert of unhappiness. Fink's «oasis of
happiness» in the desert of everyday misery is but a mirage.
One of the most fatal intentions of Fink's philosophy is his dealing with faith in a
better (new) world and visionary imagination. Instead of developing on the basis of a
critical and change‐oriented conscious, imagination develops on the basis of a positivist
conscious and becomes an instrument for creating the illusion of the ruling forms of play as
the «oasis of happiness». Fink replaces the visionary conscious with daydreaming: «But for
adults, play is a magical oasis, a dreamy place of peace on a restless road and continuous
escapism.» (5) Instead of freedom, Fink offers man an escape. Jean Cocteau says on that:
«Was it not our epoch that invented the word escape. However, the only way to escape
from oneself is precisely to let ourselves be conquered.» (6) Fink does not speak of man's
concrete position in society and, in that context, of his relation to play and position in it.
Freedom in play appears as «free» escape from a world where space for man is decreasing.
To «free» man by way of play means to free man from freedom. Basically, play is not a
manifestation of freedom, but hopeless cry of a desperate man. The main characteristic of
«freedom» becomes a possibility of choosing an (apparent) escape from reality into one of
the ever richer forms of the «world of happiness» created by the entertainment industry.
Capitalist «democracy» abolished the Christian «paradise» and created an illusory world
where the basic values of the present world are being reproduced and critical and change‐
oriented conscious is being destroyed. The city, that ghetto of capitalism, has become the
main place for organizing spectacular «entertaining» manifestations, which are supposed
to draw people out of their solitary dens and offer them an opportunity for «socializing». It
 91

is interesting that Fink is not concerned about the fact that in sport one is «entitled» to
inflict physical injuries and kill; that there exist sex segregation and institutionalized
degradation of women to «lower beings»; that there is an increasing and monstrous abuse
of children, characterized by the principle of «early selection» which involves physical and
mental mutilation of children – and corresponds to the existing division of labour and the
creation of specialty‐idiots... Sport is a (spectacular) symbol of the existing world and the
most authentic manifestation of its being. It is the playing of the capitalist way of life and, in
that sense, a voluntary «playing» with forces that determine man's destiny. Hence murder
becomes a legal and legitimate element of sports play.
For Fink, children's play represents the model of play that is to be sought. Fink:
«Children's happiness, the blessedness of their play is short‐lived, during one period of our
time when we have time, as we do not know anything about time yet, we do not see in now
what has already been, what is no‐more and not‐yet, when we live in an unconsciously
deep presence, carried away by life's torrents, when we do not recognize the current
rushing to our end. Pure presence of childhood is the time of play. Is it only a child that
plays genuinely and in the right way?» (7) What age are we talking about here? Starting
from Fink's conception, we can conclude that the younger the child, the closer he is to a
genuine play. However, what about Fink's view that «as long as one plays and understands
the meaning of play, one remains bound by the rules» ‐ which is a conditio sine qua non of
play? Man must be aware of what play is and is not – if he is to voluntarily choose play. In
that context, it is necessary for man to be aware of himself as a playing being, which means
to have a libertarian self‐conscious and a developed aesthetic sense. A child is not aware of
himself as a playing being; he is not aware of the meaning of play and its rules and thus
does not choose play as a free man. Instead of freedom, we deal with «spontaneity» which
reproduces the existing life, its symbols and value models. The play of girls and boys is an
immediate expression of sex segregation established in society. At the same time, children's
play is the projection of the desired and in that context a compensational mechanism. Play
is reduced to miming the «idols» that are the incarnation of the ruling values. Sports play is
a typical example. In his imagination, a child becomes that what he is deprived of in life, but
children's imagination does not offer a possibility of creating a new world, it is reduced to
daydreaming. In children's play the governing spirit is repeatedly manifested and children
absorb it uncritically; in play, children are «spontaneously» and completely integrated into
the existing world.
Instead of considering the play of «adults» in a philosophical and sociological
context, Fink considers it in a psychological context. Fink: «It appears that life of adults
does not have too much enthusiasm; their plays are too often merely routine techniques of
having fun and result from boredom. Adults are rarely capable of playing spontaneously.»
(8) Fink refers to the plays of adults as to «routine techniques of having fun» ‐ which
suggests that play is not a phenomenon sui generis and that the nature of play is directly
conditioned by the nature of «technical civilization», which is but another expression for
 92

contemporary capitalism. In that context, Fink shows that the possibility of play is
conditioned by the «general human condition» and man's «ability» of «playing
spontaneously». Unfortunately, he does not come to the obvious conclusions. A non‐playing
man cannot play: there is no genuine play without a genuine playing motive and without
man's «ability» to «play spontaneously». A «subjective» experience of play presupposes
man's critical relation to play which appears under the illusory veil of the «oasis of
happiness», «freedom», and the like. The normative and the real are blended in order to
prevent the establishment of a critical distance to the existing plays and attain the concept
of genuine play in the context of the development of critical, change‐oriented conscious.
Fink, like Gadamer, departs from man who is deprived of everything that enables him to be
a free libertarian being. That is why he attaches such importance to children's play. Man is
pushed into «play», which is the given space of illusory «happiness», and as such is a
projected way of letting off the steam of non‐freedom that does not allow man to attain his
creative‐libertarian being and question the ruling order. Play does not create the possibility
of realizing man's (suppressed) playing being (Eros, the creative, imagination...), but
represents the «relief» of the burden of life.
Fink takes play out of the concrete historical (social) context and it becomes a
phenomenon sui generis which determines its own rules. Fink: «Furthermore, play is
characterized by the observance of rules. What restrains man's self‐willedness in play is
not nature or its resistance to human endeavours, it is not the opposition of his fellow
player as in the field of governing; play sets its own obstacles and restraints – it complies
with the rules it sets itself. Players are tied to the rules of play, whether it is a match, cards
or children's play. «Rules» can be abolished, new ones can be introduced; but as long as
play and playing are understood reasonably, one remains bound by the rules.» (9) Fink
does not make from the normative projection of play the starting point for criticizing the
existing «plays», but an ideological mask which is to obtain a «playing» legitimacy for the
social relations which are proclaimed «play». Play is not a repressive normative vault that
is to keep the «aggressive animal nature» under control, as it is in Caillois, it makes «life
easier», «forms a transient, only earthly solution», «salvation from the hard burden of
survival». (10) Fink turns man's concrete discontent with the existing world into an
abstract discontent with an abstract world. The expression «hard burden of survival»
serves to Fink as a means for concealing the inhuman and destructive character of
capitalist civilization and sterilizing a critical and change‐oriented relation to it. In addition,
the «salvation from the hard burden of survival» can be a motivation for play only for those
who carry the burden of life, and not for those who transferred their burden onto the back
of the oppressed working class. It is obvious that Fink's play is not of a libertarian, but of a
compensatory and pacifying (depolitizing) character, which means of a manipulative
(instrumental) and class nature. In Fink's philosophy, play does not appear as against the
world of injustice and non‐freedom, but as against the «world of concern»: master and
slave are placed at the same «playing» level. Play becomes a «supraclass» phenomenon and
 93

as such a means for man's integration into the ruling (class) order. It is no accident that one
of the main tasks of the philosophy of play is to convince man of the possibility of freedom
in a world of non‐freedom. Play becomes a synonym of freedom, while the need for
freedom becomes the need for play. Instead of striving for a world of freedom, man is to
«willingly» opt for play which is a «pure» incarnation of the ruling relations and values on
which the world of misery and non‐freedom is based. Hence the largest part of the
discussion about play comes down to obtaining the playing legitimacy for the relations
which, essentially, have nothing in common with freedom, and to creating the illusion of
play as «happiness» and «freedom», relying on the ever deeper hopelessness of man and
his «need» to escape from it. «Uncertainty» as the basis of free play and freedom in play is
but an illusion, as it is based on a certainty that cannot be questioned: man is the playing
thing of the ruling order. It is most obvious in sport. Man can (apparently) win or lose, but
he remains pinned down to the existing world of non‐freedom: the order always wins –
man is always the loser. In play as «illusion» is expressed not only the real world but also
the real man to whom play is the compensation for his unrealized humanity. This is
something Fink could have realized in analysing the rules of play, especially the rules of
sport which is dominated by the Social Darwinist principle bellum omnim contra omnes and
the absolutized principle of quantitatively measurable performance expressed in the
maxim citius, altius, fortius. Fink is right in the most important thing: the ruling playing
forms are the authentic symbols of the existing world. They do not offer a possibility of a
libertarian or of a genuine (free) human play. It is no accident that the stadium has become
the most important cult venue of contemporary world, and that sport has become the
concrete essence of a concrete world.
In spite of arguing that man is to relate to sport without the mediation of science
and technique, Fink unreservedly accepts even those plays that represent the triumph of
«technical civilization» over man and deal with his playing being. Fink criticizes
«technicization» which, as a result of the «industrial expansion», will more and more
penetrate the domain of individual disposition and will produce the «industrially made
patterns of life»; (11) he strongly argues against the world «dominated by clock,
chronometers, time‐machines which are technically precise» and where «the human race
has less and less time for real festivities», which means for play. (12) It is precisely sport,
based on the absolutized principle citius, altius, fortius, which is the incarnation of
«technical civilization». This is, indeed, the starting point of Habermas and Plessner in their
criticism of sport as «duplication of the world of labour». It is most expressed in the field in
which phenomenology has a prominent role: in language. Sports language most directly
expresses the essence of sport: it expresses not only man's dehumanization, but also his
technicization (robotization). In a broader sense, sports language covers also the theory of
sport, with indisputable domination of a technocratic mind. Sport, as the incarnation of the
positive philosophy and the cult of the existing world, perfectly fits into Fink's cosmos.
Since «Fink's entire philosophy relies on the identity of world and play», (13) sport, as the
 94

incarnation of the ruling relations and values in a pure form, represents the most authentic
play, more precisely, the most authentic playing form in which the existing world appears.
If we bear in mind the basic intention of Fink's philosophy, it is not surprising that Fink
does not distinguish between «circences peformances», as he calls mass sports
manifestations, and «theatrical performances». (14) In this way Fink gives “cultural”
legitimacy to sport. According to Fink's view of sport, the stadium which, considering its
looks and purpose, is one of the most authentic spaces of «technical civilization»,
corresponds to the theatre. Unlike phenomenology, which is concerned with
(philosophical) description of the phenomena of pure conscious, in sport a dehumanised
science and technique become the basis for the relation to reality. Sport belongs to the
sphere of a technocratic way of thinking, mythological conscious, instrumentalized
phanaticism and mysticism produced in a technical way. Man's relation to the existing
world based on reason is abolished as well as the possibility of creating the reasonable
projection of a new world. There is an activism guided by the idea of «progress» that is of a
destructive and fatalistic character. In sport, the given is not thought: subjective «relation»
to the world is reduced to its being experienced through mutilated senses that enable us to
register only those impressions which can arouse «negative» responses in man to the
ruling order. Coubertin’s maxim “the old Greeks were little given to contemplation, even
less bookish» is dominant, and it becomes a cover‐up for the oppressive and conquering
activism of the ruling class and for the submissive behaviour of the oppressed. Sport is the
«overcoming» of Comte's positivism: instead of a positive conscious, there is an explosive
physical (muscular) strength and ruthless combative character (mens fervida in corpore
lacertoso/Coubertin) on which the corresponding positive conscious is perched. Between
reality and man there is no conscious mediation; instead, man behaves «spontaneously»
and lives a life based on the principles bellum omnium contra omnes and citius, altius,
fortius. Instead of aspiring to values (ideas) that create a possibility of overcoming the
existing world, man blends into the existing world by way of an unreasonable agonal
physical activism. The stadium, as the space completely dominated by positivist one‐
mindedness, is the most authentic playing space of the existing world: it represents the
modern pagan temple where man's libertarian dignity is being destroyed and man is being
inseminated by the ruling Social Darwinist and progressistic spirit.
Fink's theory does not give a possibility of attaining the notion of genuine play
and confronting the dominant plays either from the aspect of transcendental values or from
those created in modern society, the values which enable man to step out from the existing
world and realize his playing (libertarian‐creative) being. In modern society, man made
such possibilities of creating a new world that make his life essentially different from that
of his ancestors. The same goes for play: from being a privilege of the ruling classes, play
has become man's right and potentially the most authentic form of human (self) assertion.
Fink's approach to play, labour, love, prevents us from realizing their emancipatory
possibilities that make the basis for establishing a critical and change‐oriented relation to
 95

the existing world. Play, according to Fink, «is separate from all futuristic proceedings of
life. It cannot fit into the complex architecture of purpose, it does not proceed for the
‘ultimate end’, it is not, as our activity usually is, disturbed and confused by a deep
uncertainty in our account of happiness.» (15) He continues: «Play is not for a future
blessing, it is already «happiness» in its own right, it is extracted from the otherwise
general «futurism», it is a happy presence, an unintended fulfilment. It does not mean,
however, that it has, within itself, moments of tension as, for example, in all competitive
games, but play does not transcend itself, it remains within itself with all its thrill, with a
whole scale of its excitements, with the scheme of play's workings.» (16) In the end Fink
concludes: «Play does not have any «purpose», it does not serve to anything. (...) A true
player plays only for the purpose of playing.» (17) The purpose of Fink's «purposeless»
play, which is not oriented towards the «future», is to strengthen the ramparts of the
existing world and tear down the idea of a future world where man will realize his playing
being. Fink, under a different rhetoric banner, has the same standpoint as the ideologues of
sport: Coubertin, Diem, Krockow, Lasch, Lenk, Guttmann, Dunning ... The existing plays are
an instrument for stopping the objective possibilities of freedom from becoming real
possibilities of man's liberation – by destroying the critical conscious and changing practice
of the oppressed.
Phenomenology's call for displacing the focus from the objective scientific
knowledge to the subjective of the conscious (Husserl's «radical intuitionism»,
«transcendental pure conscious» and the like) cannot be separated from the psychological
sphere. Hence the method of phenomenological description of pure conscious uses verbal
joggling that is close to the Christian and Nietzsche's «art of seduction». If we add to this
Heidegger's view that «language is the home of being», it is clear that phenomenology
opens a possibility of building a «house neither on heaven nor on earth»: «pure conscious»
becomes an abstract, which means an empty, conscious. Instead of striving to reach the
truth, expressions are being coined full with arbitrary concepts. We deal with a
conservation of the world by way of the absolutized given which appears in the form of
phenomena that become the content of transcendental «pure» conscious. Basically, the
ruling relations and values are projected into certain ideas that acquire a cosmic
dimension. «Labour», «play», «love» ‐ acquire the status of superhuman (suprahistorical)
entities and become a new firmament which deifies the ruling order. Play, as the «oasis of
happiness», takes the role of the Christian «paradise» and becomes a way of dealing with
the idea of future and man's belief that he can create a humane world. Just as the empty
theological verbalism is a form of sterilizing man's spiritual being, so phenomenology is a
philosophical form of destroying the critical and change‐oriented mind. The alleged
«profusion of language», which is the mirror in which being is to see its reflexion, is but an
ideological curtain that hides not only the existing world of injustice, but also the road
leading to new worlds. Man's critical, change‐oriented activism is being abolished, and
thinking becomes an instrument by which the abstract being, through empty linguistic
 96

expressions, attains itself: the description of being by means of language becomes a form of
its self‐reflexion. A discourse of play becomes part of a big play of conquering the human
spirit and preventing man from directing his discontent to eradicating the causes of non‐
freedom. Fink's play as the «symbol of the world» expresses an endeavour to create a new
superhuman structure of the world, a new Olympus with new gods: phenomenology
becomes theology. The fatal character of Fink's philosophy becomes obvious when we have
in mind that it gives a playing legitimacy to a world ruled by destruction. Becoming and
perishing of the world does not proceed any more at an indisputable existential level. The
world faces its final disappearance. Play is nearing the end.


Jean‐Paul Sartre: Play as the Road to Being


Sartre: «Play, like Kierkegaard's irony, releases subjectivity. What indeed is play if
not an activity whose real purpose is man, for which man sets the rules and which can have
consequences only according to the existing rules? Once a man realizes he is free and once
he wants to use this freedom, whatever his accompanying anxiety might be, his activity is
play: he is indeed its first principle; through it, he dodges his naturalized nature; he himself
sets the value and rules for his acts and agrees to play only according to the rules he
himself set and determined. Hence, in one sense, there is ‘little reality’ in the world. That is
why it looks as if the man who plays, who tends to show himself as being free in his action,
can by no means be interested in owning a being in the world. The end he strives for,
through sports or miming or plays in the real sense of that word, is to attain himself as one
certain being, precisely the being that is in question in his being.» (18)
For Sartre, play is not the expression of the concrete totality of an epoch, but is the
expression of the free choice of an individual, who «freely» makes the rules. The question of
freedom is reduced to man's immediate relation to himself and to the world – without the
mediation of all those things that make him a social being and condition not only his
concrete (non) freedom in the world, but also his conception of freedom and thus his
conception of himself as the being of freedom. Man acquires «freedom» by ceasing to be a
concrete historical and social being. Freedom in conscious (conscious freedom) as a
concrete possibility of real freedom (liberation) of man involves conscious of the nature of
non‐freedom, which means conscious of (genuine) freedom. The question of freedom is
always a concrete historical question. Libertarian self‐conscious of the ancient man is
essentially different from modern man's libertarian self‐conscious. The nature of capitalism
(tendency of its development) conditions the nature of the question of freedom. Today, to
pose the question of freedom means to pose the question of the survival of mankind, the
latter question being based on the objective possibilities of the creation of a new world and
 97

man's capabilities to create this new world based on these possibilities. Sartre also does
not realize that the question of freedom has become the existential question par excellence.
Sartre points out that play «releases subjectivity», but he does not ask himself of
the nature of «subjectivity»: is it an apparent or authentic human subjectivity. In a world of
non‐freedom, where man is exposed to oppression from an early age, which systematically
mutilates his playing being, he cannot realize his human personality in a human way. Sport,
as the most authentic capitalist play, is a typical example. It does not offer a possibility of
«releasing subjectivity»; it is part of reality and as such a repressive «objectivity». In sport,
man not only does not «attain himself as one certain being», he becomes completely
alienated from himself as a natural, social and cultural being. In it, “subjectivity” is
«released» by depriving man of subjectivity and reducing him to the reproduction of the
ruling relations and values. In Sartre, man's playing being is an abstraction and as such is
something that is independent of the existing world where man came and where he lives.
However, the playing being is a product of concrete social conditions. Man is born in a
diseased world and has a mutilated and degenerated playing being, and this is precisely
what prevents him from freely opting for and creating play. How spontaneously can man,
who lives, from an early age, in the conditions where only victory by achieving an ever
better result offers a possibility of gaining respect, relate to other people when play is
created in opposition to the principle of elimination? Why is the «subjectivity» of men
dominated by aversion to women and directs them to plays dominated by fight and not by
cooperation and tolerance? With his «spontaneous» choice of play, man actually chooses
the existing plays which are a «free» expression of the ruling values and relations and
which, under the cover of «freedom», draw man into the world from which he is trying to
escape. In Sartre, there is neither genuine, nor libertarian play, since there is no conflict
between man's original playing being that strives for freedom and the existing playing
forms. He proclaims the existing plays, in which he includes sport, a playing challenge
sought by man's original playing being, «overlooking» the fact that the prevailing plays are
a manifest form of the ruling relations and values and as such an imposed pattern of
behaviour – which has become the most efficient way of man's integration into the order of
non‐freedom. In his discussion of play, he does not criticize the existing plays, which derive
from the existing world and are opposed to freedom, but legitimizes them as «freedom».
Sartre claims that once man realizes his freedom and wants to use it, «his activity
is play»: opting for play means opting for freedom and thus is the matter of personal
decision (Kierkegaard's «either‐or»). First of all, the very opting for play presupposes non‐
freedom: in a world of freedom, man does not opt for freedom, but spontaneously
manifests it and experiences it. Sport is not the expression of a rational intentionality
(freedom), as is play in Sartre; it is the expression of an irrational capitalist intentionality.
This is the context in which we should differentiate between the result as a human
achievement and record which is the market value of a result and is the measure of man's
alienation from himself as well as the measure of his (self) destruction. In sport, there is no
 98

intentionality that strives for what is not yet – without which, according to Sartre, there is
no freedom. He pins man down to the existing world and blends him into the being in itself
(l'être en soi), which abolishes the possibility of man's relation to the existing world and
thus the attainment of the being for itself (l'être pour soi). The true intentionality is the
pursuit of freedom. This is dominant in Schiller's «playing impulse»: it is an impulse for
freedom. Libertarian intentionality involves freedom from the existing world and the
creation of a new world, which means a libertarian play that suggests that man is «more»
than that to which he is reduced in the existing world – and this is possible only in the
context of a political practice aimed at the creation of a new world. Without that, play
disappears in the nothingness of everyday life and becomes opposed to the basic human
intention: to be free. It is all about plays based on the motion of man towards another man,
on the development of creative powers, man's aesthetic being, with which the playing skill
(not playing technique) is developed, as well as visionary imagination, etc.
While in Sartre liberation is man's individual act, in libertarian play liberation is a
social (class) act, which means that it is about the elimination of relations which force man
to behave like a slave, or deprive him of libertarian self‐conscious. Liberation of man as an
individual and as a social (class) being go hand in hand. At the same time, Sartre does not
distinguish between free opting for play, which is a conscious intentional act, and free play.
Free play involves the affirmation of human freedom in a concrete life, and not an escape
from it into a (apparent) personal freedom. There is no «free play» in the world of non‐
freedom: it is but a playing form of letting off the steam of non‐freedom and thus is an
illusion of play. Sartre claims: «The end he strives for, through sports or miming or plays in
the real sense of that word, is to attain himself as one certain being, the being that is in
question in his being.» (19) Man strives «through sports» to «attain himself as one certain
being, the being that is in question in his being», but through sport, as the capitalistically
degenerated play, he becomes alienated from himself and «freely» blends into the ruling
order – from which he is trying to escape. Being‐in‐itself becomes being‐for‐itself by way of
the ruling order, which obtains its expression in sport. «Self» is conditioned by the ruling
order, which means that it is the self of the order, and only apparently the self of man. Man
in sport is already appropriated by the ruling order. The way in which man «is to attain
himself as one certain being» is reduced to the conflict with one's own human individuality,
and thus with freedom. Sport is not a road leading man to being; it leads him to the
nothingness of everyday existence. Coubertin is clear: Olympism is the «cult of the existing
world», which means that sport is a means of its deification. Sport is a form of capitalist
totalizing of the world and thus deals not only with the emancipatory heritage of civil
society, but also with the traditional forms of physical culture. Thus, martial arts, which are
part of feudal physical culture in the Far East (karate, judo, etc.), are deprived of their
cultural (religious) essence and are reduced to a dehumanized technique of fight. Sport is
not based on humanism, but on a «technical civilization». It does not develop man's
creative powers and does not cultivate human relations; it is rather that people, in the form
 99

of «sportsmen», become instrumentalized for the purpose of achieving inhuman ends in an

inhuman (capitalist) way, which leads to man being degenerated as a biological and human
being.
If Sartre's relation to play is viewed as determination of formal conditions of play,
it is of a reductionist character. If man is to be able to play he must have: conscious of
himself as a playing being and of play as a free activity; a developed aesthetic being; he
must have playing skill and an appropriate playing body; he must be able to organize
himself in a playing community of emancipated individuals and create rules observed by
all... Since Sartre distinguishes between being‐in‐itself and being‐for‐itself, according to his
conception, spontaneous opting for play involves freedom which does not come
spontaneously from man's playing being, but presupposes conscious of oneself as a free
being and free opting (decision) for play.
Sartre contributes to the creation of the illusion that sport is a phenomenon sui
generis and as such is a value‐neutral phenomenon; that opting for sport is a free choice;
and that sport offers a possibility of realizing freedom. In sport, it is not man who
determines the playing rules; it is rather that sport represents an institutionalized
normative (value) model which incarnates the principles on which capitalism is based –
and which must be unconditionally accepted if sporting play is to proceed. Sport is the
authentic capitalist play, which means the playing form of a life based on Social Darwinism
and the absolutized principle of quantitatively measurable performance. «Free opting for
sport» is not free, nor is it opting for freedom. What man actually strives for, what he sees
in sport and expects from it is one thing, and it is quite another thing what sport is as a
concrete social phenomenon and, in that context, how real the possibility it offers for
satisfying genuine human needs is and what social consequences it has. Man's «subjective
relation» to sport is based on the illusion that sport is «freedom» ‐ the illusion imposed by
the ruling ideology. Man «voluntarily» goes to the stadium and sees it as the place of
«freedom». Unlike concentration camps, where man is aware of his being a slave and
pursues freedom, at the stadium, man thinks that he is «executing freedom», while he is
actually letting off the steam of non‐freedom in a space which is the contemporary
concentration camp. One of the basic tasks of sport is to prevent people from becoming
aware of their slavery status and of the possibility of a free world – if they fight for it. Sport
is the appropriation of (potentially) free time by the ruling order and degeneration of
man's (potentially) libertarian spirit. The stadium symbolizes man's complete and final
enclosure in the spiritual horizon of capitalism and thus is a modern pagan temple where,
in the form of «sports competitions», man offers as a sacrifice his libertarian dignity and
faith in a just world. By way of sport, potentially free physical activism turns into man's
submission to the ruling order and the production of the ruling relations according to the
principles bellum omnium contra omnes and citius, altius, fortius. Sartre does not speak of
running, jumping, skiing, as man's freely chosen activities, but of «sports» in which the
original physical activism is degenerated through institutional physical activism, which is
 100

the incarnation of the ruling relations and values. Sport is running, jumping, swimming,
skiing degenerated in the capitalist way, just as the sporting body is the human body
degenerated in the capitalist way. Sports pedagogy is not dominated by humanization, but
by disciplining and mutilation of the body (character). Instead of enjoying the physical as a
spiritual (creative) movement, sport deals with the body. Sport does not develop man's
aesthetic being, but creates sado‐masochistic character. The so called «thumping
condition» is a masochistic ritual which, ultimately, comes down to man's (self)
destruction: sport is not based on the principle of the «optimal», but on the principle of the
«greater effort». In sport, the most important thing is to «master» the nausea that comes
from over fatigue and pain – which is a normal reaction of the body struggling to keep its
vital functions. Victory over one's opponent involves «victory» over one's own body.
Sports space is a manifest form of the capitalist totalizing of the world. It has no
historical, cultural, aesthetic or ecological dimension, but is reduced to a «competitive»
space and as such is an object that is to be mastered, used and destroyed. Sports spaces
have become the fields of death where everything is in the service of the absolutized
principle of performance (profit). In antiquity, people struggled for victory, but they did not
struggle against nature. The same applies to the Renaissance, the aristocratic physical
culture, as well as to the Enlightenment and philanthropic doctrines. Unlike antiquity,
where man as physis is part of the cosmic whole, in modern times man, by way of
instrumentalized science and technique, appears as the «master and owner of nature»
(maître et possesseur de la nature/ Descartes). The increasingly faster motion through
space, based on technological advances as mastered and (ab) used powers of nature, is
becoming the capitalist way of achieving «victory over nature», which above all means
victory over the body as man's immediate nature. The “sportivization” of the natural
environment is one of the most radical forms of the capitalist degeneration of nature. Man's
relation to nature is mediated by the principle of competition and the absolutized principle
of performance, which have turned into the principles of domination and destruction. In his
relation to nature, the sportsman seeks to cover in the shortest possible time the largest
possible space which is already «appropriated» by being reduced to the «sports track»,
which means that natural space is degraded to a technical (capitalistically objectivized)
space. There are no symbols which express the quality that enables a human
«appropriation» of space. Running, jumping and swimming are reduced to a technical
relation to nature as a «competitive» space. Moving through nature becomes a technical
moving, while body becomes the machine. Measuring instruments «replace» man's
aesthetic being. In ski jumping, the jump is not a libertarian and aesthetic challenge, which
means the expression of man's true powers, but is reduced to the technique of jumping and
flying the purpose of which is the longest possible jump and record. On ski slopes we see
the movements of a technicized body by way of technicized tools and technicized skill in a
technicized space. Bodily movement becomes a targeted and rational activity in which man
does not recognize himself as a natural and human being, but as a (self‐destructive)
 101

mechanism. As far as «mountaineering feats» are concerned, climbing a mountain is

becoming its «conquering», while reaching the summit is the «victory over the mountain».
To «stick the victorious flag» represents the ritual branding of nature which symbolizes its
appropriation and submission. The logic of submission through «victory» becomes the
totalizing capitalist principle of the relation towards man and nature and it is fully
expressed in sport. In «consumer society», capitalism robs man of natural space and turns
it into a consumer space, reducing man's «free» physical activism to a consumer activism.
Sports time, dominated by strivings for the highest performance (record) in the
shortest possible time, expresses the rule of capitalist timing over man. The ever faster
movement involves the ever more intense deprivation of humanity and man's being turned
into a capitalistically instrumentalized machine: life time of capitalism becomes death time
of man. Sports activity is not an authentic physical (human) need; it is a destructive
repression over the body according to the ruling value and existential pattern of movement
which is conditioned by the rhythm of life imposing the ever faster cycles of capitalist
reproduction. Speed is not important as the expression of the development of human
powers, but as a symbolic indication of the developing power of the ruling order. Records,
measured in seconds, the tenths and hundredths of seconds, have an abstract value for
man. At the same time, a record is not only the measure of man's alienation from himself; it
is the measure of man's alienation from nature and the measure of the destruction of his
own natural being. As far as «playing» sports are concerned, the meaning of one of the most
important principles, «attack is the best defence», is to reduce the moving space of the
opponent by a dynamic motion, so that he makes a mistake, that is, to stop him from
successfully realizing the attack. Space is «diminished» by the speed of movement and
dynamic actions by which it is «covered». A war strategy is in place here: the meaning of
«diminishing» space is to make the «opponents» squat in a small «maneuvering space»,
which means to reduce their freedom of action. It can be seen in the example of basketball:
from the given playing space of the opponent teams, we have come to «total pressing»,
ruled by the principle «attack is the best defence». The dynamic of motion leads to the
«diminishing» of the «playing» space, not only as the diminishing of the space of freedom
and imagination, but also as the diminishing of the existential space, which means the
mutilation of the natural being and playing capacities. Instead of increasing the possibilities
of individual expression and the development of play as the development of playing skills
and interpersonal relations, we deal with our own playing possibilities and capacities,
which leads to the domination of an aggressive and mutilated body and sado‐(self)
destructive character. The libertarian‐creative playing skill is being replaced by the playing
technique reduced to the destruction of man's playing being. The final result is the
«development of play» with the ever smaller room for personal initiative, aesthetics,
personality and playing originality. As play becomes more «developed», the sports
collective is less and less a community of people and more a group of robotized gladiators
and circus performers.
 102

Sartre's view of functionality of a sports team is interesting. Sartre: « ... the

fundamental characteristic of an organized group is that all of them (functions) are
mutually conditioned and mutually guaranteed by the mediation of the common praxis in
progress. Starting from this point, each function becomes the meaning of another function
if it is itself marked by praxis and each of them contains another one in its practical activity.
It is particularly clear in coherent and narrow small groups, such as a sports team, in which
every movement of a player, taken in its functional differentiation, is decoded in the very
movement it provokes in another co‐player, as a differentiated function, through a practical
field determined by the action of the group and depending on all other movements. (Here,
in the footnote, Sartre adds: «In fact, in one football game, due to the presence of the
opponent team, everything is even more complex. The positive mutuality between co‐
players is closely related to the negative and antagonistic mutuality. However, this
complexity by no means changes our problem.») For this particular goal keeper, or this
particular center‐forward player, mediation is but a playing ground if the common praxis
has made it one common and practical reality that is to be occupied, run across, with a
variable coefficient of usability and resistance. Every actual reorganisation of a team on the
playground constitutes a certain player through the very playground as functionally situated
(in relation to the ball, to the opponent in front of him, etc.) However, the moment he
accepts this space‐time situation and overcomes it by way of his praxis (according to his
function), the common situation of the whole team is thereby mutually changed. For a
spectator, to understand a match is precisely to understand, as a constant totalization,
based on the known aim, the functional and singularized specifications of mediated
mutuality.» (20) Sartre sees the functionality of a sports group and proceedings on the
sports field as an autonomous phenomenon and in a technical way. A sport does not have
an autonomous functionality and the meaning of sport exceeds the functionality given by
Sartre. The specific character of sport, as the incarnation of the spirit of capitalism and as
the paramount political tool of the bourgeoisie for ensuring the strategic interests of
capitalism, conditions its specific functionality. This is what determines man's relation to
his own body (doping, suicidal training), and to the opponent (instrumentalized violence).
Sport, as a war waged with the players' bodies, is the manifestation of a life based on Social
Darwinism. In it, killings, infliction of physical injuries, abuse of children, etc., are legalized.
A sports group is an institutionalized violent group: it uses violence as the legal means of
combat. Hence the militaristic structure of a sports group. At the same time, functionality in
sport is conditioned by the rules of play dictated by the needs of show‐business. Sportsmen
are tools of show‐business for producing a sports spectacle (sports commodity). This
determines their appearance and behaviour. The relations between players are mediated
by the logic of show‐business, and they are inconspicuous for an «ordinary» viewer who is
blinded by the need to vent the accumulated discontent and find a compensation for his
futile life. From a means for promoting the «progressive» nature of capitalism, sport has
turned into a gladiator‐circus spectacle. Everything serves to the creation of a glamorous
 103

spectacle which becomes a spiritual drug that is to enable man to «escape» from the ever
gloomier social reality. Sport is a spectacular form in which the ruling relations are turned
into commodities on the market of show‐business, and in which the essence of capitalism
appears without its «democratic» and «humanistic» mask. Sportsmen produce the ruling
relations and ruling values, which means the existing world and a (mutilated) man suitable
to that world. A sports team is the institution of a repressive character and it is only
apparently based on voluntariness. It is a tool for achieving inhuman needs, a peculiar
(ideological) police unit of the ruling regime with a special assignment: to destroy the
critical mind of those deprived of their rights and create a mass idiocy. A sports team has a
working functionality which is typical of the production site: everyone does his part of the
job, the common task being the production of a sports spectacle. The real job of a
sportsman is to attract the audience, to provide TV commercials and TV programmes – and
thus to realize profit for the owners. Sports group is a surrogate of a social group. It is not
pervaded by brotherhood, but by ruthless rivalry. To fight for a place on the team means to
fight for survival on the labour market in sports show‐business. For a sportsman, the
success of his team is important only in so long as it provides an opportunity for making
money. The relations on the team develop on invisible threads based on private interests of
the players, on the relation between players and coach, between players and owner of the
club, etc. Thanks to the fact that man in sport is not only the labour force, but also the
labour tool and the object of processing; that victory is achieved by eliminating the
«opponent»; that the dominant principle is not that of the optimal but the principle of
«greater effort» (citius, altius, fortius) – instead of the working ethics, we deal with the
(self) destructive fanaticism which corresponds to the absolutized principle of the ever
bigger profit. The club is a legal and economic entity, an institutionalized form realizing the
functioning of the team, regulating the ownership and realizing profit. It is a sports
enterprise, and thus the working plant, whereas the main activity of the club is to turn the
playing of the team into the gain of the owner. As far as «supporters» are concerned, they
have become the tool for producing the «spectacle» and as such are moving props which
create the «atmosphere» that is to obtain for the match a «fatal» dimension, and to the
owners a successful sale of billboards and TV broadcasts.
Sport is not based on reason nor does it offer a possibility for people to assert
themselves as human beings, which is but another obstacle that stops being‐in‐itself from
becoming being‐for‐itself. The «audience» does not relate to the game rationally, nor does
it ask for rational explanations. The fanaticism of «supporters» comes from their hopeless
social position. They are people without illusions and visions. A sports spectacle is an
institutionalized deception which pushes the oppressed into an ever deeper nothingness. It
opens the Pandora's box of the subconscious only to pour out the discontent accumulated
in everyday life. Hence sport is dominated by an increasingly ruthless violence: it serves to
compensate the «spectator» for his increasingly ruthless life and acquires an
anthropological image and character. The discontent of the oppressed is directed to the
 104

«opponent»: a sportsman is thrown into the arena and becomes a scapegoat. A typical
example of this replacement of opponents occurs in boxing and other «combative»
(bloody) sports: the true opponent (owner/capitalist) places before one oppressed another
oppressed so that they can fight between themselves – and turns that into a spectacle
which enables him to earn money and ensure the stability of the ruling order. The basic
task of the media before a match is to create the impression that we are directly threatened
by the «opponent team». «They have come to take our points!» ‐ What a provocation for
those who have been deprived of everything: of work, healthy life, happiness, future...
«They have come to beat us!» ‐ What a nightmare for those who experience nothing but
defeat in their everyday life...
In spite of his misconceptions, in his «Critique of the Dialectical Mind», speaking of
Kierkegaard and Kafka, Sartre comes to the conclusion that indicates the essence of the
problem: «It was already Kierkegaard who thought that every victory is suspicious as it
diverts man from himself. Kafka takes over this Christian theme, in his Diary, in which some
truth can be found, as in the world of alienation a winner does not recognize himself in his
victory and becomes its slave.» (21) The same is true of sport, which represents one of the
most radical forms of human alienation in capitalism, whereas victory here appears in the
form of record as the «supreme» form of man's dehumanization (denaturalization). The
bigger «star» a sportsman is, the less human he is.


Roger Caillois: Play as an Escape


In the bourgeois theory, play can be only that behaviour which reflects the
structure of the existing world and does not question that world. Caillois's view that «play
has no purpose other that itself» (22) is almost equivalent in meaning with the famous
maxim «sport has nothing to do with politics». Play is taken out of history; it becomes the
phenomenon sui generis and obtains meaning independently of society and human
existence in it. Hence Caillois is not interested in how play appears and how its rules are
formed, what they express and what possibilities they offer to man: «There is no reason
whatsoever for them to be just as they are and not different», says Caillois. (23) By
reducing play to the given which cannot be questioned, Caillois has made from play a
suprahistorical concept to which all historical forms of play, expressing the concrete
totality of the epoch in which they appeared, are submitted. In that way he abolished them
as concrete historical phenomena, but he also abolished the possibility of making a
difference between an apparent play and genuine play. Caillois, like Huizinga, tries to
obtain for play the legitimacy of the cultural and ensure eternity to all he proclaims play:
play is determined by the behaviour proclaimed play. In addition, in Caillois's classification
of plays every human behaviour defined as «play» has some of the elements which
 105

constitute the concept of play. Thus war becomes «play» in spite of the fact that, apart from
conflicts and rules, it contradicts all other characteristics of play. Caillois's «purposeless»
play is not just a «pure» expression of the ruling relations and values; it is a means for
creating an illusory vault that is to prevent man from creating the idea of a just world and
fighting for its realization: it deals with utopia.
For Caillois, play is an area that is to enable man an (illusory) escape from the
«world of concern» to the «world of happiness». The development of the existing plays in
the existing world becomes the creation of a «parallel» world creating an illusory freedom.
«Happiness» becomes possible – in the existing world of unhappiness. Play becomes a
playing form of escape from the world and letting off the steam of non‐freedom – and
man's reconciliation to the existing world of non‐freedom. Basically, it is about preventing
the discontent with an uncertain and humiliating life from being directed towards the
struggle against the causes of misery, which means against the ruling order: play becomes a
way of preserving the world of misery. It is only an apparent duplication of the world: in it,
as an «oasis of happiness», the ruling relations appear in the playing form – under the
aureole of «happiness», «freedom», «spontaneity»... Play becomes the earthly substitute of
“paradise”, while the philosophy of play (sport) becomes modern theology: instead of
argumenats, we are dealing with an illusory, «humanistic» empty talk. Basically, it is not
man who plays, but the ruling spirit plays with man. In antiquity and Christianity man is
the “Gods' toy”; today, man is the toy of capital, while the world is its (global) playing
ground. Man «willingly» opts for play and hides behind the ruling values which are the
basis of his devaluation. A typical example is gambling, or “lottery” ‐ as it is called in a
«more civilized way». It is the authentic picture of a world where the production of social
goods is separated from their appropriation and where man's life is in the hands of a power
alienated from man and incarnated in money.
The existing plays, which are a condensed incarnation of the spirit of capitalism,
become the starting point for determining the essence of play, and this becomes the
starting point for determining man's (playing) nature. At the same time, by way of play man
does not express his human dignity as an independent individual, he strives to become
«someone» and thus acquire social affirmation. Instead of striving to change the existing
world of misery and create a world in his own human image, the only one in which he can
be happy, man seeks happiness in play which is but a form incarnating the ruling relations
and values of a world from which man strives to escape. Under the cover of «escape» from
the «world of concern» man's need for freedom and happiness is directed to the area which
is the incarnation of the fundamental principles of the existing world – which bring about
the everyday misery. Instead of changing the world, man is to change himself; instead of
adapting the world to himself, man is to adapt to the existing world. Sport also is a place
ruled by «democratic non‐freedom» (Marcuse) which is characteristic of technical
(capitalist) «progress». (24)
 106

For Caillois, play is not a way of developing interpersonal relations and creating a
community of emancipated and creative individuals; it is rather a means for intensifying
the institutional repression over man which is to protect society (the ruling order) from the
«evil» human nature. Caillois: «If the principles of plays really correspond to strong
instincts (competition, pursuit of happiness, disguise, dizziness), then it is quite
understandable that they can be satisfied only in ideal and limited conditions, those
proposed by the rules of play. If they were left to themselves, unrestrained and destructive
like all instincts are, those elementary impulses would only have fatal consequences. Plays
discipline instincts and impose on them institutional existence. At the moment they can
offer them an explicit and limited satisfaction, they educate them, fertilize them, and
immunize their soul from their contagiousness. At the same time, they enable them to
contribute to a noble enrichment and establishment of cultural styles.» (25) And he
continues: «Outside the arena, after the final gong, begins the true distortion of agon, which
is most widespread of all. It appears in every resistance which is not restrained any more
by the strict spirit of play. So, free competition is but one of the laws of nature. It finds in
society its original brutality the moment it finds a free pass through the web of moral,
social and legal obstacles, which, as in play, represent restrictions and conventions. It is
precisely the reason why a furious, ruthless ambition, whatever its manifestation may be,
which does not respect the rules of play, and it means fair‐play, is to be disclosed as a fatal
distortion which thus in certain cases leads to the starting position. Nothing, indeed, better
shows the civilizatory role of play than the obstacles it usually puts before the natural
greed. It is accepted that a good player is the one who can accept, with indifference and at
least apparent cold bloodedness, a bad outcome even of the most persistent endeavours or
loss of the incredibly high stakes. The decision of the referee, even unjust, is in principle
accepted. The distortion of agon begins when the referee and his decision are no longer
recognized.» (26) In order to justify the repressive institutions of capitalist society, Caillois
reduces man to the beast to which he ascribes «greed», proclaiming the «limitless
competition», which is «one of the laws of nature», the spiritus movens of social life. The
ruling laws of capitalism become the laws of nature, while the pathological psychological
prophile of the members of parasitic classes becomes the «nature» of the animal. Caillois
does not differentiate between man's aggression which springs from his active, impulse‐
based relation to the environment that enables him to survive – and man's apparent
«need» for violence over other men and for killings. At the same time, man is repeatedly
reduced to a bloodthirsty beast, in spite of the fact that man's animal ancestor is not the
wolf, but chimpanzee. Blinded by the endeavour to deal with libertarian aspirations of the
oppressed at all costs and preserve the class order, Caillois «overlooks» what every village
boy knows: wolf does not have a need to kill sheep, but to satisfy its hunger. If a wolf were
provided with sufficient quantity of fresh meat at the edge of the forest, it would never
come to the village to kill sheep. A beast kills its victim to feed itself; man does not kill
another man to satisfy his hunger but to realize certain interests: killing is an instrumental
 107

and not an immediate existential (instinctive) activity. War does not stem from man's need
to kill; it is a means for realizing political and economic ends of those who do not take an
active part in it, but pull strings from the shadow. Thyssen, Krupp, Hitler, Ribbentrop,
Himmler – they did not kill anyone. The same applies to anthropologists who argue that
man is by his nature a «killer»: it is always «someone else», above all «working masses»,
who the ruling exploiting classes turn into «cannon fodder» (Bloch) in order to fulfil their
interests. In boxing, man does not have a need to hurt and kill another man: «fame» (escape
from anonymity) and money are the driving forces that induce man to storm at his
opponent. Likewise, the animal does not have an instrumental and utilitarian relation to its
body. It does not reduce its body to the tool for achieving a «record» ‐ at the cost of its own
destruction. In addition, the animal is not «greedy» as is the case with man degenerated in
the capitalist way. It does not strive to seize and accumulate wealth that would be used for
accumulating even more wealth (which in class society gives you the ruling power), as is
the case with the bourgeois, on which Coubertin's «utilitarian pedagogy» is based. Caillois
«forgets» that the animal world has been in existence much longer than mankind in spite of
the animalistic «greed», in spite of the effects of the law of «limitless competition» and
without any repressive institutions. Furthermore, animals also «play», and they are not
restricted by the given norms, but by their instinctive nature which stops them from
hurting one another, the fact pointed also by Huizinga. Animals do not have «destructive
instincts»; they tend to satisfy their primary needs in a way that does not threaten the
survival of the living world. Speaking of man's «animal» nature, Caillois, like Huizinga, does
not say that the primary animal drive is the drive for freedom. A need for freedom is the
most important drive which man «inherited» from his animal ancestors. Caillois's theory, in
contrast to its basic political intention, indicates that man is by his nature a libertarian
being and that he opts for play because he has a need to get rid of everyday bonds: a need
for play is a need for freedom from the capitalist world. Caillois does not associate play
with the manifestation of man's erotic, especially not creative, nature, which involves
closeness between people. Man «inherited» from his animal ancestors (biological) life‐
creation ability (procreation) – on which an animal's need of another animal and its motion
towards another animal is founded and which is the basis of their «playing» impulse. It is
manifested in the «need for pretending», for calling etc., which is all a «love call», or love
(fore) play preceding mating, and this suggests that the animal is far more noble then a
petty bourgeois, whose erotic nature was degenerated by capitalism and who reduces his
«partner» to the object of sexual abuse and incubator. Man's vital need of another man,
which is of a creative character and by which the animal life‐creation ability (procreation)
is overcome, is the basis of sociability, which means of man's motion towards another man.
It is the basis of human «goodness» that involves freedom, life‐creation and sociability.
If Caillois's theory were true, the main task of trainers would be to suppress the
aggression in their players. Instead, the main problem of trainers, especially in periods of
competition, is how to keep their players motivated for competition (combat). In order to
 108

make players assault the opponents, trainers use the most perfidious forms of
manipulation that question the player's dignity as a «man». At the same time, the player
who is not capable of «charging at his opponent», will not only be called a «coward»,
«woman» or «gay», he will, in the eyes of his trainer, become a «traitor», as he is not willing
to fulfil the requirement set by sport, which is a victory at all costs. It should be noted here
that in sport man does not experience other players as people, but as «opponents»,
«struggling for a place under the sun». Just as killing an «enemy» in a war is a legal and
legitimate means for achieving victory, so is the killing and hurting one's «opponent» in
sport a legal and legitimate means for achieving the ultimate end. Instead of a love of
freedom and man, in sport, just as in war, we are dealing with a ruthless «victorious spirit»
of the sportsman who has become a robotized (capitalistically mutated) beast – whose
aggressiveness is not his inherent quality, but is an instrument for realizing inhuman ends.
The instrumentalization of aggression by the sportsman presupposes the
instrumentalization of man by the ruling order. The same applies to man's relation to his
own body: man's (self) destruction in sport corresponds to the destruction of man (living
world) by capital. Sport is dominated by the spirit of capitalist destruction based on the
absolutized principle of performance – which is unknown in the animal world, or in
«primitive» peoples who live in unity with nature. The absurdity of anthropology (whose
«best minds» regularly come from Christian churches), which reduces man to the beast, can
be seen when its arguments about human nature are confronted with the Christian
doctrine of the nature of man. Where does man's «animal nature» come from when it is
«created by God» and «in God's image»? How come that bourgeois anthropologists, as the
leading figures of Christian churches, do not recommend prayers to people in order to
suppress their «aggressiveness», but offer them instead bloody gladiator's spectacles the
cruelty of which exceeds everything that can be found in the animal world? To make the
hypocrisy even bigger, they proclaim bloody sports spectacles (as well as killing animals
for fun, chivalrous tournaments and war) «play», which means an area where man is
supposed to experience «happiness»! Horkheimer also justifies boxing by man's need to
vent his aggression. Why does that have to be achieved through physical injuries inflicted
on the «opponent» and killings? Why cannot man express his «aggression» by hitting a
sack, through physical exercises, work and the activities that can help him develop his
creative powers? There is also the question of why boxing fights are performed publicly
and turned into a spectacle, which means that murderous violence is being glorified? Why
is boxing proclaimed, by bourgeois theorists of sport, «noble skill», and war has become the
«best test of a man's maturity» ‐ if murderous aggression is condemned?
Sport does not suppress but contributes to the development of aggressive
behaviour and its glorification, which only confirms the truth that sport is the incarnation
of the ruling relations and creation of a man suited to the ruling order. Violence is not
inherent to human nature; it has an instrumental character and serves for achieving
inhuman needs. To hit one's opponent is not a human need; it is a means for achieving
 109

victory, which means to ensure existence and affirmation by way of the ruling value model.
Victory is achieved through ever more «efficient» blows at the opponent, which means
through ever more efficient bodily injuries. Hence the main intention of boxers is to «knock
out» the opponent, meaning to cause brain damage which blocks consciousness and bodily
reactions and frequently has fatal consequences. If a boxer evades blows, and tries not to
strike his opponent, the referee stops the fight and asks them to strike blows. If the boxer
who has been reprimanded continues to avoid blows, he will be disqualified. Boxing is an
example which illustrates that sport is the incarnation of the spirit of ruling relations in a
«pure» sense, and that fight for victory by eliminating the opponent is the governing life
principle of capitalism which is of a totalitarian character.
If man is by his nature an «aggressive being», why does he look for
«entertainment» in play with its repressive normative vault that deals with man's original
(aggressive) nature? If we consistently follow Caillois's anthropological conception and his
view that play is a way of keeping man's animal nature under institutional control, opting
for play cannot be «voluntary», let alone «spontaneous», but is rather repressive. However,
even according to Caillois's theory, man is not discontented because he cannot realize his
destructive instincts and greed, but because of the imposed obligations, wherefrom follows
constant anxiety, uncertainty, fear, need to «forget» about his everyday life and escape
from obligations. Strivings for play become man's psychological reaction to everyday life
pervaded with «concern». Hence Caillois does not offer man play as a space where he will
be able to give vent to his «aggressive» nature, but creates an illusion that play is a space
where man can realize his suppressed humanity and thus experience «happiness».
Speaking of play, Caillois concludes: «It exists only where players want to play and where
they do play, even if it is the most tiring and highly exhausting play, wishing to have fun and
forget about their worries and get away from everyday life.» (27) Play is not a means for
eliminating the causes of discontent; it is a spiritual drug which is to block pain created in
man by everyday life – which does not enable him to realize his human potentials. It is an
illusory escape since in the «world of play» the ruling relations and principles of the
established world of «unhappiness» appear in a playing form. An unfree man is offered
«happiness» in the form of a new cage which is regarded as the place of «happiness».
Adorno's analysis of running throws light on the nature of play and of man's need
to get away from capitalist nothingness from another angle: «Running through streets
looks like horror. It is an already imitated collapse of the victim in its attempt to avoid
disaster... (...) The habit of the body to walk as if it is something normal comes from good
old times. It was the bourgeois way of not moving away from one spot: physical
demythologization, free from the constraints of hierarchical walking, from traveling
without roof over one's head, escape without the soul. Man's dignity lay in the right to walk,
to a rhythm which was not imposed on the body by commands or intimidation. Walking,
roaming, were ways of spending your private time, a heritage of feudal strolls in the
nineteenth century. With the liberal century, walking died, even there where there were no
 110

cars. The youth movement which felt those tendencies with a doubtless mechanism,
declared war to parental Sunday excursions and replaced them with voluntary enforced
marches and called them the medieval journey, while the model of Ford was already
awaiting it. Maybe in the cult of technical speed, just as in sport, the impulse is hiding to
master the horror of running, by diverting it from one's own body and at the same time by
overcoming it independently and masterly: the triumph of the mile counter ritually abates
the fear of the chased. But, if you shout to a man: «run», be it a child who should fetch to his
mother the purse she had left on the first floor, or a prisoner who is ordered to run by the
escorts as an excuse to kill him, then the archaic violence, which otherwise quietly steers
every step, becomes loud. » (28) The «horror of running» springs from the fear that one
will lag behind, in a muddy pond beside the road. In capitalism, the worst of curses is to be
a «loser». Everyone strives to capture the rhythm of life, conditioned by the ever growing
speed of capital reproduction. No one knows anyone else. No one speaks to anyone else.
You can either run or disappear. Just as a well‐trained dog follows its master, so a mentally
retarded (petty) bourgeois strives in his jogging‐trance to follow the increasing rhythm of
pulsing of capitalist reproduction which mercilessly rejects all those who cannot follow its
dynamic. Running becomes one of the («spontaneous») manifestations of the struggle for
survival, a way of gaining confidence which becomes indispensable in the increasingly
ruthless «life game». At the same time, «sports» running is the rationalization of one's fear
of disappearing through the mechanism of quantification which is the landmark in the
desert of hopelessness, and which creates the impression that escape is actually just a
movement forward and thus an «achievement» that gives meaning to life.
«Mass sport» has become a form of mass escape from social reality, a way of
taking advantage of the new (consumer) possibilities (in petty bourgeois, it is the
confirmation of his «status») which enable man an escape to nature. By «freely engaging in
sport» man buys the illusion of «freedom», which is to enable him to endure life in which he
is deprived of the possibility of being human. It is all about finding the «island of salvation»,
escaping beyond the real life. «Mass sport» far more successfully sterilizes man's critical
and change‐oriented conscious than passive enjoyment in sports spectacles. When
watching sport, man is just a passive participant in a show (reduced to a roaring mass),
while in «mass sport» he becomes the bearer of sports activity. It is about a concrete
challenge (fight with nature, mastering space, fatigue, one's own body, etc), and meeting
the challenge is experienced by man as the confirmation of his own values. With fewer and
fewer possibilities of realizing his true human powers in his everyday life, man is becoming
more and more tempted by this challenge. In addition, the illusion of freedom is
experienced in the open more strongly than on the stadiums, where man is surrounded by
a fence, «security guards» on horsebacks, police dogs... Equally important is the fact that
gaining freedom by «conquering nature» is one of the most important motifs used by the
ideologues of capitalism in building myths of their «heroes», as if human freedom was
threatened by nature and not by capitalism which destroys man and nature. The symbol of
 111

the «free man» becomes a bold lone runner, who «bravely» pushes his way through
wilderness. The freedom gained is measured in kilometres of the covered space, obstacles
that have been overcome, and at the same time man is reduced in society to the labour‐
consumer tool of capital. Potential libertarian‐creative energy is directed to a pseudo‐
activity which cannot cause a change in social relations and man's position in society.
Obviously, it is one more form of compensatory activism that enables man an (illusory)
escape from responsibility for the survival of mankind, as well as for the risks carried by
the fight against the suicidal capitalist tyranny.
































 112

SPORT AND ART

Sports and Artistic Competition


Art is the most authentic manifestation of the cultural heritage of mankind and
the basis of humanistic civilization. Sport is the manifestation of a „technical civilization“
and as such deals with humanistic civilization, which means that it is a means for creating a
civilization without culture. Unlike philosophy, science and art, sport does not offer the
possibility of establishing a (critical) relation to the existing world or the possibility of
overcoming this world. In art, a conflict leads to quality, something new – unlike sport,
which is governed by the absolutized principle of quantitatively measurable performance.
Sport deals with historical time: the „history of sport“ is reduced to a linear augmentation
of numbers (records) to which the names of impersonal „champions“ are attached. In
playing sports, the quantity of different „situations“ conceals a lack of possibility for
stepping out of the existing world and creating a novum. A work of art has a universal value
and is intended for all people regardless of their race, nation and gender: art creates
symbols which express universal human values. In order to understand and experience
their meaning man has to have the power of reasoning and a developed esthetic sense,
which means a developed cultural being. Sport also aspires to become a universal and
global phenomenon. The essence of the „Olympic universalism“ is based on the universal
character of the fundamental principles of capitalism: bellum omnium contra omnes and the
absolutized principle of performance shaped in the Olympic maxim citius, altius, fortius.
Sport is the crown of a „mondialistic“ ideology which deals with national cultures, destroys
man's artistic being and turns him into a „civilized beast“. In sport, the prevailing spirit is
not that of creativity, but of victory. Medals are not won for creating something new, more
beautiful and human – but for the victory achieved by an ever better result (record). The
true effect of art is the development of man's aesthetic being, which means man's specific
and unique creativeness, while in sport man is reduced to the model of a dehumanized and
denaturalized „sportsman“. Artistic competition is based on the spiritual motion of one
man towards another, and not on one man's physical confrontation with another man,
which involves the infliction of bodily injuries and killings, as is the case in sport. In art,
there are no winners and losers, but only the development of man's creative powers and
widening of the horizons of freedom: art enables man to become that what he is not but can
be. In sport, man „becomes something else“ by way of physical and mental activity which
alienates him from himself and destroys his cultural and biological being. A sportsman
„makes“ sports „achievements“ by means of a technicized body and combative character
and with a dehumanized and denaturalized skill. What is being created is victory and
record, which means that a sportsman produces the ruling relations and values. Sport deals
 113

with competition which does not involve the domination of one man over another and his
elimination from the life contest, as well as with the competition which enables man to step
out of the existing world. Furthermore, in art, there is no sex segregation, while in sport
women, being physically and in their character „weaker“ than men, are reduced to „lower
beings“; art is dominated by man's aesthetic nature and limitless creative powers, while in
sport results are conditioned by man's restricted physical capacities; a work of art is
intended for people with a developed aesthetic sense, while a sports spectacle is intended
for „masses“ deprived of their rights, as the cheapest spiritual food which should destroy
their libertarian and cultural being and turn them into idiots...
Art creates a humanized sociability based on the motion of man towards another
man. A sports team is not a cultural community, but an anti‐cultural, anti‐reasonable, anti‐
erotic, anti‐aesthetic, pseudo‐social group, with a militaristic structure: sport is a war
waged by bodies and a dehumanized playing technique. As such, it is an institutionalized
violence where killings, physical injuries, bodily and mental mutilation of children are
legalized… Sports play does not produce humane people, but fanatics ready to destroy both
their own body and that of their „opponents“ in order to achieve victory (record). A
sportsman's face, as the anthropological manifestation of the ruling spirit, is not expected
to have a noble expression, it should rather express the „victorious spirit“, which means his
fanatical commitment to victory, while his body is to be the symbol of the expansionist
power and stability of the ruling order. Coubertin's maxim mens fervida in corpore lacertoso
indicates the esthetic pattern prevalent in sport. Not a harmonious body, as was the case in
antiquity, but a muscular body in combative exertion – this is the highest esthetic challenge.
In contemporary capitalism („consumer society“), sportsmen relate to each other in roles
they are given in the show‐business, which means as (sporting) commodity. The rules
which apply to them are those which apply to any other commodity on the market,
although they are not an „ordinary“ commodity, but the commodity with a special purpose:
they are here to fulfil the strategic interests of capitalism.
In sport, imagination does not strive to create something new nor does it seek to
escape from the existing world; it rather deifies the ruling relations by means of
appropriate symbols. Sports aesthetics is of a mystifying and cult character. A typical
example is the film by Leni Riefenstahl about the Nazi Olympic Games „Olympia“ („Festivity
of People‐Festivity of Beauty“/„Fest der Völker‐Fest der Schönheit“). Riefenstahl's camera
„carves“ modern sportsmen according to the ancient aesthetic model from the
„cosmological period“ (Windelband), which has a religious character and expresses the
domination of a (geometrically constructed) cosmic order over man. Bodily
monumentality, harmony, eyes directed to the skies, religious devotion, self‐confidence,
exultation – this is the physical appearance of the contemporary Olympic contestant. The
sports body acquires a cult character: sportsmen become live statues – manifestations of
ancient „heroes“ (semi‐gods) and as such are the symbolic reincarnation of the „immortal
spirit of antiquity“. Her aesthetic is the mythological picture of a triumphalism which,
 114

through the idealized ancient model of man (Hellenes) acquires a timeless dimension.
Using the ancient aesthetic model, Riefenstahl falsified a concrete historical image of the
contemporary sportsman and thus the capitalist order. The close‐up shows symbols which
give a quasi‐mythological dimension to the ruling values: the spirit of capitalism has the
ancient religious veil.
Riefenstahl's film tries to prove that the Nazi regime is the immediate successor
of the Hellenic civilization. Her film came at the time of the final stages of German
archaeological excavations in ancient Olympia, which started at the time of Bismarck and
were completed by the Nazis; it shows the carrying of the „Olympic torch“ from „holy“
Olympia to the Nazi Berlin (designed and realized by the organizer of the Nazi Olympic
Games Carl Diem, Coubertin's „ingenious friend”), which clearly expresses the Nazi's wish
to present themselves as heirs of the Hellenic cultural heritage. „Olympia“ is a propagandist
spot in the artistic disguise. Its aesthetics is reduced to a technical means for turning people
into the symbol of fascist expansion, with the Nazi model of „superman“ being
„superseded“ by a mythologized ancient model of winner. It is an abuse of the artistic form
meant to produce particular psychological effects and achieve particular political goals. In
Coubertin, also, we do not find an authentic sports aesthetics; he rather tries to estheticize
sport by (ab) using the works of art (Beethoven, above all). The main reason for that lies in
the nature of sport: in it, man does not follow his artistic nature ‐ which is based on man's
need for another man and, in that context, on man's motion towards another man ‐ but his
combative character and an appropriate body.
In spite of glorifying the ancient world, the philosophy of sport does not find in it
any aesthetic challenges. One of the main reasons for that is the „static“ nature of antiquity
which is opposed to the Social Darwinist and progressistic character of modern times that
conditions the nature of sport. Sports aesthetics does not have a formal character, which
means that it does not stick to the a priori rules; it is rather a „cultural“ expression of the
ruling spirit with a dynamic character. At the same time, in addition to obtaining a „cultural
legitimacy“ for sport, sports aesthetics also creates a „magic“ which inseminates man with
the spirit of the ruling relations. Sport is more than an „ornament“ (agalma): it deifies the
existing world and pins man down to it. For Schiller, „education by way of art is education
for art“; education by way of sport is education for the existing life which destroys man's
aesthetic being.


The Aesthetics of the Sports Spectacle


A sports spectacle is the climax of the sports aesthetics. To direct a spectacle is the
highest form of manipulation with highly developed technical equipment and scientific
methods. A sports spectacle tends to raise the marginal to the level of fatal, in order to
 115

marginalize the crucial social issues and leave their „solution” to plutocracy. Sport is always
pictured in an idealized form, as it is the incarnation of the basic principles of the ruling
order. At the same time, the spectacle promotes sports commodities, which means that it is
a market manifestation of the basic principles of capitalism. The purpose of contemporary
sports spectacles is not to produce a religious relation of viewers to the ruling values of the
existing world, something Coubertin insisted on, but to offer them a possibility of an
(illusory) escape from everyday life. Sportsmen do not fight for genuine human values and
do not encourage people to oppose injustice; they are the incarnations of the ruling values
and as such are mythological characters with legendary features and biographies, similarly
to „heroes” from national mythologies, and are the hallmark of the epoch. At the same time,
they are the billboards of multinational concerns and symbols of their expansionist
(„victorious”) power, which means that they are a specific commodity designed to ensure
the strategic ends of the ruling order. The aesthetics of the spectacle has the same purpose,
making sportsmen the incarnation of the ruling values and as such the symbols of capitalist
paganism: to glorify the winner means to glorify the ruling order.
Sport is no longer the indicator of the developing capacities of the ruling order
and thus the carrier of „progress“: its main role is to deal with the (critical) mind and
perform a depolitization of the oppressed. The purpose of the sports spectacle is not to
create a physically and mentally active man, but a profitable „spectator“ who will, in his
leisure time, be pinned down to the TV set or will spend his „free time“ at stadiums and
sports centres. The focus has been transferred from the ideological to the psychological
level: sports spectacles serve to blind and „pacify“ people. The „grandeur“ of a sports
spectacle corresponds to the miserable life of an ever bigger number of people. Everything
is being done to blind the man deprived of his rights with glamour, offer him an
opportunity to „experience“ and take part in something „big“ and run away from everyday
gloominess. The „magnificent“ dimension of „winners“ is the other side of the humiliating
social position of „losers“ (working class). The ruling establishment of capitalism has
discarded the idea of a „happy world“, which for almost two centuries was the main
ideological lure for working „masses“ deprived of their rights. Instead of the promised
„better life“, those deprived of their rights are „offered“ increasingly bloody sports
spectacles as the compensation for their increasingly bloody life – which is to „reconcile“
(Compte) them to the existing world and prevent them from becoming aware of its current
(destructive) development. The stadium, as the most authentic space of modern man's
spiritual slavery, becomes a „space of freedom“ and the „oasis of happiness“, where modern
cesars sit in “blue loges” not to watch the fights of modern gladiators, but to make sure that
the „masses“ of those deprived of their rights are (still) under control.
In sport, the „beautiful“ is determined by the nature of the ruling order and not
by universal human values. The victory achieved by an ever better result (record) is the
basic criterion for determining the „beautiful“ ‐ and this is being imposed as the ruling
„aesthetic“ model („sports body“, „sports image“). The „beautiful“ has a positivist
 116

determination and is attributed to anything that symbolizes and glorifies the existing world
and the ruling values: it is an attribute of the „victorious spirit“. Hence the highest „beauty“
is the body in combative exertion. A „sports body“ does not emanate spirituality, nobleness
or naturalness, but a dehumanized and denaturalized (destructive) strength. Sportsmen
are at the front line of the increasingly ruthless economic war and are reduced to a circus‐
gladiator billboard. Instead of a winner whose eyes have a look of the „magnificent beast“
(Hitler) with a „passionate cry“ (Coubertin), we have a sportsman who is in the functional
unity with the „victorious strategy“ of capitalist concerns. The aesthetics of the sports space
indicates the truth that the basic purpose of sport is not to create a „healthy body“ and thus
a „healthy spirit“, but to produce a man suited to the nature of the ruling order. Stadiums,
sports centres, body‐building and fitness‐centres are modern Procrustean forest mutilating
man's natural being and destroying Eros, imagination, the feeling of being part of the
human community... Sports aesthetics is a spectacular manifestation of slavery and
destruction of humanity.
Capitalism has abolished “paradise” in heaven and has created numerous illusory
worlds which enable people to escape from life – which is becoming a capitalist “hell”.
Instead of a universal illusion offered by Christianity, man can choose between virtual
worlds which have become a commodity on the ever bigger market of illusions. „Freedom“
is reduced to an escape from the existing world. Capitalistically degenerated art transfers
into the world of symbols whatever appears as a concrete human need: the struggle for a
„nice world“ replaces the struggle for a just world. In it, creative powers become a power
alienated from man which draws libertarian spirit from life and degenerates it by way of
symbolism in which it acquires a caricatured and Don‐Quixotean form. „Masterpieces“ of
art become a highly concentrated power alienated from man, and a suprahistorical
criterion for determining the „human“, which means an instrument for man's spiritual
submission. A „profusion of artistic expressions“, which are of a commercial character and
technical form, is the other side of the spiritual misery in society. Beaux‐arts are the
ideological mask of a hopelessly ugly world ruled by the principle „Money does not stink!“,
which is based on the destruction of life. „Artistic galleries“ are ghettoes for art. Outside
galleries we have increasingly primitive and aggressive symbols of the ruling order. The
whole life space has become a billboard of capitalism. Man is deprived of the right to
illusion: it does not have only anti‐libertarian, but above all an anti‐existential character.


„Individual Actions“


The theory of sport glorifies „individual actions“ by taking them out of the whole
of event and giving them a meaning which is supposed to give sport a „humanist“ aureole.
The glorification of „individual actions“ is not the glorification of man, but of the ruling
 117

values incarnated in sport. Otherwise, the actions would be understood as man's hopeless
endeavour to assert his humanity in inhuman conditions, and this would be the critical
starting point in man's relation to sport as an institution. „Individuality“ is restricted by
rules of the game determined by the nature of sport as show‐business. „Individual play“
and „bravuras“ are elements of a directed performance in which „free play“ is but an
illusion. Habermas also emphasizes that: „To the extent in which a coach allows his players
to perform individual actions, sport has nothing to do with play. What is claimed to be play
is actually a professional show on one side with consumers on the other.“ (1) By insisting
on the reductionist approach with which the essence of capitalism is ignored, Habermas is
not capable of realizing that coaches are only participants in the formation of a playing
style the change of which is conditioned by the „spirit of time“ and requirements of the
owner of the sports show‐business. Coaches are modern slave‐drivers being driven
themselves by the whip of capital under which they must bend the knee ‐ if they are to stay
„in play“. They are the extended hand of club‐owners who constantly change the rules of
play in order to preserve the attractive character of sports spectacles and fill the sports
halls (stadiums), which means to provide TV broadcasts and commercials. The estimated
„public taste“, which is conditioned by the ever more impersonal and cruel life, represents
the guiding principle of the owners of sports show‐business in the creation of new rules
which immediately condition the playing style and technique. The coach's physical
appearance, his clownish behaviour, his relation to players – everything is in the service of
show‐business. It is all about a modern circus, whose répértoire is directed by its owners
and in which the coach, as well as players, have their respective roles. The „improvisation“,
which Habermas identifies with (free) play, is but a part of the „well done job“ of a
professional player (entertainer). Adorno and Horkheimer rightly observe that in sport,
just as in all other areas of „mass culture“, there is a tense, purposefull undertaking, and a
not so well informed spectator still cannot perceive differences in combinations, the
meaning of changes which proceed from arbitrarily set rules. The organisation of the whole
life is deprived of content. (2) The „racial quota“ in professional sport in the USA indicates
that the rules of sports show‐business are conditioned by the logic of profit. Assuming that
the largest part of the audience is composed of „white“ people and that they want to see
„white“ players so that they should not feel degraded (since sportsmen are a mythological
incarnation of the „combative spirit“ on which man's survival in capitalism is based), the
owners of the sports circus must offer a certain number of „white“ players, in spite of their
being below the level of skill of Afro‐American players ‐ who are their competitors on the
sports labour market. This is an obvious example of discarding the principle of „free
competition“, which has a direct influence on the quality of play. At the same time, the place
of the (main) coach and the ownership of sports show‐business have remained, with rare
exceptions, the exclusive privilege of „white“ people, which clearly indicates the (racist)
character of American „democracy“.
 118

The true nature of „individuality“ in sport is clearly shown if we consider several

matches in the same sport in continuity. Then it can be seen that, in fact, we deal with
typified „moves“ and „actions“ and that „individuality“ is reduced to variations within a
patterned behaviour given by the nature of the concrete sport. A man who does not have a
developed aesthetic being can only technically „work out“ the play, „cheat“ the opponent
and make him a laughing stock, but he cannot realize his playing being. What motivates a
professional player is not the „joy of playing“, but a fear of not meeting the expectations of
the coach and of losing the place in the team. Existential uncertainty is the force that
destroys playing spontaneity. In addition, the „joy of playing“ involves an unquestionable
acceptance of the ruling value model which discredits man. Sport is less and less a space
showing an opportunity for „personal initiative“, and more and more a space ruled by
scientific mind manipulated by political and financial centres of power. The „development
of sport“ is immediately conditioned by a further development of science and increasingly
deep integration of the „sports engine“ into the capitalist machinery. Instead of being the
creator of sports results, man becomes a tool for achieving records; instead of a „will to
win“, the main „anthropological“ driving mechanism of capitalism, sport is dominated by a
technocratic mind which turns the „breaking of records“ into a „scientific project“.
According to Horkheimer and Adorno, the quality of the sports play belongs to the shrines
of a soulless artistry dominated by a planning mind which demands that everything should
prove its meaning and effect. (3) The true winners in sport are capitalist concerns and
teams of scientists and doctors who treat sportsmen as experimental rats: a means for
experimenting with medicaments and realizing profit.
The so‐called „playing sports“, created in the Modern Age, are actually surrogates
incarnating in a „pure“ form the basic principles of capitalism: the principle of competition
and absolutized principle of the quantitatively measurable performance. This is the basis
and framework within which the elements of „sports play“ (such as dribbling, passing the
ball...) acquire their meaning. The dynamics of their changes (above all, the rules of play,
gladiator's spirit and mechanized body) is not conditioned by the natural, cultural or
individual needs of the actors, but by the capitalist whip which makes from them an
attractive show‐business. Instead of developing playing capacities and various playing
moves, sport is dominated by a technicized destructive power which abolishes the very
possibility of playing. In tennis, the service is expected to be so strong that the opponent is
incapable of returning the ball; in volleyball, smashes should hit the ball into the floor in
such a way that any kind of play becomes impossible; in basketball, the greatest challenge
is the dunk‐shot; in boxing, the strike should knock the opponent down to the floor; the
development of football has long ceased to involve the development of playing skills and
individuality, but the development of stamina, speed, a „system“ of playing with less and
less space for imagination and spontaneity... In individual sports, man has become a tool for
achieving „top results“; in collective sports, man has become a wheel in the team that seeks
to be a „perfect mechanism“. The players are not required to play, but „to do a good job“,
 119

which means to successfully accomplish the given task. In ranking the qualities which
determine the „value“ of players, coaches put in the first place their readiness to serve to
the „team play“ („conception“), which means to unquestionably execute the „coaches’
ideas“. An „obedient“ player who „works hard and thinks little“, is the prototype of a „good
guy“. A man who seeks to realize his playing (creative) individuality, which means to have
his „own ideas“, is undesirable as he „destroys the play of the team“. At the same time, a
sportsman must actively participate in the increasingly merciless destruction of his own
organism. Instead of having the conscious of a free individual, fanatical conscious is literally
being inserted into a sportsman's head, driving him into self‐destruction for the purpose of
achieving the required result. In addition, the „top sportsman“ must be capable of and
ready to inflict to his „opponent“ (serious) physical injuries and to kill him, treating the
opponent in the same way in which he treats his own body: it has an instrumental and
destructive character. The „attractiveness“ of a sports spectacle is not measured
(primarily) by the quality of the playing skill, but by the extent to which the drama of life is
reproduced measured by the amount of the spilt blood and the number of massacred
sportsmen.
Sportsmen's clownish looks and behaviour are part of the sports show‐business,
in which the leading role is given to the „black“ players. In basketball, the most prominent
in that sense were „Haarlem Globetrotters“, a basketball circus made up of young „black“
players from the poorest New York ghetto, which has become a role model in the
contemporary American professional basketball. The image of the „coloured“ people
created in sport is meant to justify their humiliating social position. In boxing, with
(almost) complete domination of the „coloured“ sportsmen, boxers are not shown as noble
fighters, which would be in line with the claim of the bourgeois theorists of sport (above all,
Coubertin), that boxing is a „noble art“, but as beasts. Public media show us the picture of a
sportsman who looks like a circus performer and, like stars in Hollywood soap‐operas, is
expected to entertain (depolitize and stupefy) the „masses“. The names of clubs and
players' nicknames have a circus and caricatured note, quite suitable to the ruling values.
The extent to which sportsmen are degraded as people in the sports show‐business can be
seen from the performance of „Chicago Bulls“: they run onto the field imitating the roaring
of bulls, the best players appear on posters as bulls with horns, while sports commentators
begin TV broadcasts of their games with the following words: „The bulls have run onto the
field...“. Special significance is given to the sports equipment. It has become a marketing
robe, and the number of one's „idol“ is a magic sign offering viewers the possibility to
identify with their „idol“ and thus acquire some of his „power“. Of course, all that is meant
to increase the profit and create compensatory mechanisms for those deprived of their
rights: „idols“ are an instrument for creating the illusion that in capitalism everybody can
earn money and fame. By becoming a show‐business, sports is increasingly dominated by a
circus and entertaining movement, which means a skill that does not develop man's
creative powers and enable people to develop their interpersonal relations: its aim is to
 120

„entertain“ the audience. It is a controlled „spontaneity“, while the man‐circus rider is but
one of the tools of the owners of show‐business, used for making an „attractive show“. Play
is not a free and spontaneous realization of man's playing abilities, but a well‐rehearsed
technique of behaviour reduced to „working out“ the (entertaining) role of the player. The
development of the playing technique in sport is straightforward and corresponds to the
combative, progressistic, and ultimately, profiteering logic. A „better“ move is always the
one which contributes more to the purpose of play, that is, to the realization of the given
end. In sport, man literally becomes a mechanical doll, thus reaching the highest level of
dehumanization and denaturalization in capitalist society. Sportsmen have turned from
„heroes“ into clowns of capitalism. The truth about sport and sportsmen can be found in
books written by retired sportsmen in order to show that sportsmen are human beings and
not beasts, clowns or robots. What gives a special dimension to the sports show‐business is
that sports games, like horse and dog races, have provided a new way of betting. Sportsmen
are reduced to impersonal objects of a gambling euphoria, which is one of the most
perfidious forms of incorporating the oppressed into the spiritual orbit of capitalism ‐
dominated by the separation of goods from their appropriation and the illusion that
„happiness“ is the power determining human life.
Sports skill, which in sports theory and practice is called „sports technique“, does
not come from the cultural, but from the technical sphere that appears in the circus robe.
Sportsmen are not guided by artistic inspiration, but by a rational pattern of play
conditioned by the rules of show‐business and based on the logic of war and capitalist
productivity. In athletics and other „record‐making“ sports, this is a war without the
opponent: man „pursues a record“, which symbolizes the capitalist „progress“, and thus
becomes his own opponent. Instead of the playing technique being subordinated to man as
the universal creative being and instead of offering him a possibility for a specific
individual expression, man is, even during the process of acquiring a playing technique,
subordinated to the model of play, which means to a particular „playing technique“. In
sport, mastering of a technique involves technicization of the body and the relation to it. To
master a sports technique involves destruction of a man's playing individuality and his
being reduced to a robotized model of „sportsman“. In „playing sports“, mastering a
technique involves a circus‐gladiator relation to the body. Man seeks to show his playing
individuality, but he does that in such a way which leads to technicized and patterned
motions, thus distorting his playing being. In sport, a bodily motion does not express man's
natural or „divine being“; it is a manifestation of the anti‐cultural and anti‐existential spirit
of capitalism. It is not grounded in art, but in the ruling Social Darwinist way of life and the
„technical civilization“ based on the absolutized principle of the quantitatively measurable
performance. The basis of the sports motion is the industrial mimesis, the logic of industrial
modelling, the principle of efficiency and rationality... The technicization of sport has
become one of the ways of manipulation and submission of man: playing technique is the
form in which the ruling order, by means of natural laws, establishes domination over man.
 121

To master a sports technique means suppression and mutilation of man's original playing,
spiritual, rational and physical capacities and his submission to a dehumanized and
denaturalized „progress“, which becomes a force majeure the fatal pace of which man can
slow down but cannot stop: sport symbolizes the victory of the „technical civilization“ over
man. Instead of a (creative) unity of the spirit and body, there is a (repressive) unity of the
given ends and a (degenerated) body and psyche. The mastering of a sports technique
becomes the development of a dehumanized technique of motion directed towards the
development of strength, speed, stamina and the creation of a loyal and usable subject. In
sport, the model of motion corresponds to the nature of a concrete sport, which conditions
not only the technique of play and rules, but also man's physical and personal development.
Instead of a man who has developed his universal creative powers, we get a „sportsman“
who is reduced to a specific body, motion and skill required by a particular sport. Sports
technique is subordinated to a rationally established model of motion dominated by
precision, mechanical repetition of movements, coordination, methodicalness,
concentration, stamina, self‐control, submission to „progress“ the pace of which is
measured by quantitative indicators... These are all „positive qualities“ which are to enable
man's complete incorporation into „technical civilization“. The more dominant the
principle of performance is, the less playing technique is a playing skill, which means the
expression and assertion of human (individual) capacities, and it is increasingly a
degeneration and destruction of the human, especially with the early selection.
Unlike the ancient techne, which did not distinguish between nature and man and
involved the virtue expressed in an artistic form, sports technique is a capitalist form of
gaining control over nature and thus deals with man's natural being. As the authentic
expression of „technical civilization“, sport mutilates man („disciplining“, the principle of
„greater effort“, quantification, the absolutized principle of performance, mechanical
„learning of movements“ through repetition which becomes the main way of acquiring the
appropriate body and killing one's individuality...) and disables humanization of nature
through culture, which is the highest challenge of humanistic pedagogy. Instead of a free
bodily movement, which is a humanized natural movement, sport is dominated by a
repressive model of movement the nature of which is conditioned by the Social Darwinist
and progressistic nature of the ruling order. Sports technique involves a specific space,
which is the capitalistically degenerated natural space corresponded by a degenerated
body and a degenerated „playing skill“. The dynamics of movement in sport is conditioned
by the „life rhythm“ dictated by the dynamics of the capitalist reproduction and it deals
with the natural rhythm of movement. The „perfect rhythm of movement“, the highest
functional and aesthetic challenge, which used to be found in the animal world, now is
found in technical processes and the progressistic spirit of capitalism. In this context,
extremely important in methodological terms is the distinction made between progress
and progressism, which means between the development of science and technique which
are to enable the development of a free, spiritually rich personality and interpersonal
 122

relations, and the development of science and technique which turns into the destruction of
nature, interpersonal relations and man himself. Technicization of sport is not the result of
a direct influence of the industrial work on sport, as Plessner, Habermas and Rigauer claim,
but of the fact that sport has become the means of the capitalist reproduction and, in that
context, of the instrumentalization of science and technique by capitalist concerns and
centres of political power. Sports technique becomes a means for turning man's life energy
into a destructive capitalist practice.
Bodily movement is based on the model of behaviour which expresses a certain
value (ideological) model, which means that bodily movement is of a symbolic character: it
reflects man's position in the world and his relation to the ruling order. In Christianity, to
kneel and kiss a hand (master's or priest's) is a symbolic form of man's essential
degradation, while asceticism and torturing of the body are symbolic forms of man's
degradation in existential terms. The aristocratic bodily posture („aristocratic bearing“:
stiff posture, protruded shoulders, head leaned backwards...) demonstrates a nobleman's
„superiority“ and it is an estheticized bodily manifestation of the oppressive power. The
same applies to „chivalry“, which becomes an idealized form (directed against the working
man) of a murderous power. In Renaissance, among the emerging bourgeoisie we see the
development of a playing (ludic) movement which is not normatively founded, does not
insist on a (given) form and expresses an awakened humanity. It is dominated by man's
self‐discovery corresponded by passion, impetuosity, aimlessness, joy of action regardless
of consequences, joy of a free physicality, intellectual powers, imagination... Ludic becomes
ludicrous, as opposed to the later strictly normative and repressive ludus (Huizinga), and
its movement is most akin to the children's movement. In capitalism, the ruling model of
the body and bodily posture demonstrates the progressistic and expansionist nature of the
ruling order – having its climax in sport. They deal with libertarian heritage of the popular
physical culture, with Rousseau's pedagogical doctrine and emancipatory intention of the
philanthropic and dancing movements, based on man's right to a free body and free
movement. Sports play as a specific model of behaviour requires an appropriate model of
movement (motion), body, man – and thus an appropriate pedagogy (obtaining legitimacy
of the „universally human“) and appropriate aesthetics (obtaining the legitimacy of the
„cultural“). Stylization of play is not based on the aesthetic, but on the functional principle,
which conditions also the modelling of movement. In the sports movement there is no
relation of man to the existing world. There is a positive „relation“ to reality whereas the
human disappears in the „factual“. In sport, man's authentic movement is abolished ‐ the
movement through which man relates to the world and expresses his peculiarity ‐ and a
model of movement is being imposed on him which corresponds to the nature of the ruling
order. People become bearers of roles and thus are part of the (given) play. The „quality of
play“ is not determined according to the manifestation of a specific human expression, but
according to the extent to which the play of the „player“ corresponds to the model of a
particular playing role. It is not a „humanization of man“, it is his „disciplining“ achieved by
 123

way of technique, man being not only the working power and tool for achieving results
(victory, record), but also a source of energy and object of production (raw material).
Movements are defined and patterned, and the rhythm of exertion and its intensity are in
the service of achieving the given end. Skill has an adaptive and repressive, and not a
creative and change‐oriented nature. It is reduced to the imitation of imposed
dehumanized and denaturalized patterns of behaviour conditioned by a specialist one‐
sidedness. A „variety of movements“ is achieved through loss of the human. Sport is
dominated by a movement which is formally technical and essentially destructive. It takes
man out not only from culture but from the living world.
Bodily movement is the creation not only of a certain aesthetic and living, but also
of a social (class) form. This was the purpose of the ancient physical culture, and this is
what Nietzsche insists on, trying, by way of physical movement (aristocratic manners), not
only to produce the aristocratic way of life but to turn the „new aristocracy“ into an
exclusive organic (class) community. Sport has an anti‐social character. It turns man into
„opponents“ and society into a „civilized“ menagerie. Horkheimer and Adorno are right:
“brotherhood” of sports supporters protects from the true brotherhood. (4) A „sports
team“ and „audience“ are pseudo‐social groups and as such are forms of capitalistic
degeneration of man as a social being. As „play becomes more developed“, so is the sports
collective less and less a community of people, and more and more a group of robotized
gladiators. Instead of human communication, sportsmen use the „body language“, which is
reduced to a conflict between mechanicized beings as advertising billboards of capital.
As far as the argument that sport develops physical abilities, achieves „mastery“
and realizes the „impossible“ is concerned, the question can be raised: why is it not circus
skills which represent a challenge, but sports competitions dominated by a denaturalized
(technicized, destructive) Social Darwinism? A circus performance requires one to master
one's own body by acquiring specific physical powers, but it does not develop a ruthless
combative character and a self‐destructive conscious. It is not ruled by the principle of
„greater effort“, as is the case in sport, but of the optimum effort. Circus gymnastics
requires an early specialization and the creation of a specifically built body capable of
performing the given „acts“. The aim is not the victory or record, but to achieve the
„impossible“, and thus one's own personal achievement which involves a perfect control
over one's own body, high concentration... Circus gymnastics is similar to sports
gymnastics, which has little significance for Coubertin's „utilitarian pedagogy“ on which the
sports pedagogy is based. It does not calculate the results according to a given model, the
aim is rather to have a highly attractive performance which, through hard work, makes
possible what „ordinary“ man regards as impossible. Skill is not grounded in culture nor
does it make new forms of culture, which means that it does not have an artistic character,
but is reduced to the technique of performance, the body being reduced to the instrument
for „performing the act“. Circus skill is progressive only in technical terms, as it does not
have a libertarian but an entertaining character. The circus demonstrates human powers at
 124

a technical level reflecting the characteristic risk of the ruling order: acrobats „play with
death“, for example, in triple and quadruple salto mortale. It is a „victory over death“
through letting off the steam of the fear of life, where life itself is the stake and where man
faces the spectre of death every day. Circus troupes are international, but it is not visible on
the scene: acrobats are „united“ by their technical‐entertaining skill, not by the variety of
their national cultures. A circus group is based on cooperation and strict division of roles
imposed by the „act“ which is to amaze the audience. It is no accident that Coubertin does
not depart from circus players when he speaks of courage. Coubertin realized that circus is
dominated by the entertaining skill and that in it there is no conflict between people and
the development of belligerent conscious – which is the basis of his religio athletae that was
to form colonial phalanges which would conquer the world. Similarly, mountaineering,
gardening and other ecological activities, kolo and popular physical culture, playing musical
instruments, dances, swimming and water plays, skiing and plays in the snow, various
forms of children's play with the ball and other objects, modelling, kite flying, cycling and
mastering of other technical devices – all these enable man to develop his creative abilities,
but they are all excluded from Coubertin's (sports) „utilitarian pedagogy“. Only those skills
are acceptable which involve a conflict between people and are aimed at a better
quantitatively measurable performance. The essence of sports „mastery“ is the production
of the ruling relations and values.


The Principle of „Perfection“


In the philosophy of sport „perfection“ is proclaimed the highest aesthetic
challenge. This is also indicated by Coubertin in his „Sports pedagogy“ : „Sport is a voluntary
and regular cult of intensive muscular exercises motivated by a desire for progress and
which is not afraid of risk. So, five concepts: initiative, persistence, intensity, pursuit of
perfection (recherche du perfectionnement), acceptance of possible risks. These five
concepts are crucial and basic.“ (5) In antiquity, „perfectioning“ involves the harmonization
of man with the divine order which represents the unattainable ideal of (cosmic)
perfection. Since the earthly world is doomed to perish, a pursuit of perfection does not
involve the struggle to preserve the already existing world, especially not to create a new
world, but to do such acts which will bring man closer to the cosmic perfection. At the same
time, man looks back at the past as, according to the ancient view, people are less and less
perfect as they move further away from their (divine) pre‐being. In the original (ancient)
Olympic doctrine, „perfection“ does not have a productivistic and progressistic, but a
spiritual character, and is the climax of man's complete (religious) incorporation into the
established world according to the principle gnothi seauton, which means as the „Gods'
toy“.
 125

The „pursuit of perfection“ is actually the imitation of the given model of

behaviour. Man is degraded as an individual if he accepts the given model of play which
becomes the basic value‐related challenge. Spiritual, emotional and creative
impoverishment is conditio sine qua non of „perfection“ in sport and the bourgeois physical
culture. It becomes man's „supreme“ alienation from himself as the playing being. „Victory“,
„honour“, „beauty“, „happiness“, „observation of the established rules“, „pursuit of
perfection“ and „mastery“ ‐ all these terms are used to disguise the practice of dealing with
man's libertarian aspirations. What appears as „human“ is man's endeavour to „accept the
given role“ and thus give the human content to the model to which he must submit. Play
before an audience becomes a behaviour in which man (hopelessly) tries to find a
compensation for lack of humanity. Play is not the expression of freedom; it is the spasm of
a desperate man who invested in it the last human element in him in order to get the
applause from the audience. Self‐valuation is not achieved through the development of
playing skills, but through the (public) effect produced by the sports technique. The
„greatness of a sports success“ becomes the measure of human degradation.
In sport, a „pursuit of perfection“ becomes an aesthetic disguise for „progress“
based on the achievement of results (records) which have an „objective“ quantitative
measure and involve the absolutized principle of performance: „modern“ sport deals with
man's erotic, ethical and aesthetic being. „Perfection“ symbolizes the final world that can be
„perfected“ according to the criteria of the given value model as the ideal incarnation of the
basic principles of the ruling order. „Pursuit of perfection“ is not mediated by a natural
movement or aesthetics, but by technique. In the past, the animal body and movement
were the most important challenge for achieving „perfection“. Today, „perfection“ is
achieved through the fundamental principles of „technical civilization“, the emphasis being
given on technical precision, efficiency, robotized mimesis... Sport is dominated by unity
and quantity, which means a positive one‐mindedness and confrontation with the creative
personality. Instead of the principles of universal development of human powers and, in
that context, man's perfectioning as the universal creative being, the highest challenge
becomes a fanatical dedication to a particular sport. „Perfection“ of a particular sporting
activity is achieved by man's mutilation, especially in bloody sports as well as in sports
dominated by speed, strength and stamina. That the principle of „perfection“ is but an
abstract requirement and thus a way for obtaining an „artistic“ cover for sport is seen from
the fact that there are no medals for the „perfectioning“ of play and physical exercises, but
for the victory and records. Even in the events where the artistic expression could be
important, as in gymnastics, the criteria of measurement („assessment“) destroy the
specific and unique playing expression. What is particularly significant is that, in sport,
specialization is becoming increasingly narrow, which is totally opposed to the physical
culture ruled by the principle of a harmonized and universal development of man as a
unified physical and spiritual being – which prevailed in the civil education of ancient
Hellas and which is the basis of ancient paideia. It is corresponded by the principle of
 126

optimum effort which is of individual character, and is opposed to the principle of „greater
effort“ (Coubertin) dominant in sport. Unlike the ancient principle of perfection – which
had a cosmic essence and characterized the divine world which was of a holistic character,
the modern principle of „perfection“ has a fragmentizing character corresponding to the
division of labour and specialization. The „ideal of reaching human perfection“ which,
according to Diem, is the highest goal of Coubertin's Olympism, deals with the ideal of the
development of man's universal creative powers, and this means with man as the creator of
his own world and with the open horizon of the future. „Perfection“ is the end of history. In
the modern Olympic philosophy, the ideal of „perfection“, which man should
unquestioningly strive for, was already created in ancient Greece. Instead of the idea of
future and struggle for a human world, it offers a romanticized picture of the ancient world.
The „perfect world“ is not the matter of man's free choice and the result of his creative
practice, it is the given which appears in the form of an idealized picture of the Hellenic
world which achieved everything modern man should and can strive for. It becomes the
incarnation of the ideal of a harmonized world in which mankind „was able to smile“ and
where people „died happily“ (Coubertin). It was the time when demos had not yet appeared
on the political scene of the polis and before the self‐will of the ruling aristocracy had to
face the universal principle of humanity which applies to free people (Hellenes) and was to
acquire its highest form in Socrates's moral philosophy, while in modern times it was to be
turned into Kant's „categorical imperative“. Coubertin sees in the ruling bourgeois „elite“
the „master race“ capable of returning mankind to the way it had left back in the ancient
times, and this will be achieved by the final struggle with the emancipatory heritage of
mankind and the idea of future. The restoration of the „holy“ Olympic measurement of time
serves to return mankind to this „right way“. Future does not appear as a step out of the
existing world and the creation of novum, but as a continuous development of the existing
world and its „perfectioning“. In its original Olympic doctrine, Coubertin sees in sport an
area in which the „best representatives“ of the white race, as representatives of their
nations, fight for primacy – which leads to the development of their conquering‐oppressive
character and thus to the „perfectioning“ of the white race. At the same time, „perfectioning
of the world“ involves the destruction of the critical mind and pacification of workers: the
public (political) sphere is the privilege of the ruling „elite“. Sport becomes the chief
political means of the ruling class for depolitization of „masses“ and for turning man into
the objects of the ruling political will and „sheer“ working force. The fight for
„perfectioning“ of society is reduced to a pedagogical reform which will lead to the creation
of a uniform character of people and a uniform worldview. Physical exercises and sport
become a means for cloning people's character and spirit. The ultimate end of
„perfectioning“ is to eliminate the critical and change‐oriented conscious and the idea of
future and to realize the idea of „order“ and „progress“ ‐ the establishment of the total and
final rule of capital over mankind and planet as the source of energy and raw material. As
far as the ancient world is concerned, ancient society itself dethroned the aristocratic
 127

values from which the modern sports theory (especially Coubertin's Olympic philosophy)
tries to create an indisputable suprahistorical ideal of man, who appears in the form of
slave‐owning, aristocratic and bourgeois „master race“.
The demand for „perfection“ involves „harmony“. In antiquity, harmony means a
harmonious development of human powers and the body based on the principles „know
yourself“ (gnothi seauton), „measure is the best“ (metron ariston) and „beautiful and good“
(kalokagathia) – which involves arete mousike and arete gymnastike. The unity of man and
cosmic order, incarnated in the Olympic gods, is the highest challenge (eurythmos). The
demand for „harmony“ is actually an expression of the endeavour to prevent the conflict
between gods, which is fatal for people, and ensure a harmonious functioning of the divine
world. In ancient art, man is an anthropological manifestation of the ruling order. When we
analyze Myron’s Diskobolos, we notice the ideal proportions, harmonious movement and
unity of parts and the whole. Ears are almost blended with the head so as not to spoil the
harmony of the whole. The body does not express the motion of an athlete who seeks to
throw the discus as far as possible and win, but an (idealized) Hellene who seeks to
perform the act in a way which would not destroy the harmony of his body and thus the
geometrically constructed cosmos – whose (anthropological) form he is. The body, bodily
posture and expression on his face emanate an erotic charge, more noble than aggressive,
which expresses the innocence of youth and corresponds to a paedophilic erotic vision.
Diskobolos does not have a look in his eyes but it is hardly noticeable as his whole spiritual
expression is given in his face and body. His face does not show a competitive urge, but
spiritual blessedness. The body is not tense: it does not emanate a victorious will, but
spiritual meekness. His figure is the incarnation of Plato's view that a strong body cannot
make the mind noble, but a noble mind can make the body noble, as well as of Aristotle’s
idea of a „spirited body“.
In modern society, the demand for „harmony“ becomes the demand for a
harmonious functioning of the existing world, which is similar to the aristocratic „order
and measure“ (order et measure) as the criterion of measure is the extent to which man fits
into the existing world. The harmony of the manifest form by suppressing the human
becomes the basis of „beauty“ ‐ which becomes a mask for the monstrous life produced by
the ruling order. „Perfection“, „mastery“, „creativity“, „beauty“ ‐ all these are parts of a
mosaic which covers up the destructive capitalist nothingness. Instead of creating a human
world, the prevailing tendency is to immortalize the existing world. „Harmony“ becomes
the aesthetic way of creating an apparent „order“ in the chaos of everyday life. It involves
the acceptance of the established world and an endeavour to create a picture of „harmony“
in which man will find compensation („peace of mind“) for the horrors of his life.
„Harmony“ obtains a prophylactic and therapeutic dimension: it becomes a spiritual drug.
The demand for „harmony“ in sport has a positivistic character: it is reduced to the
destruction of the critical and change‐oriented relation to the existing world. It is an
aesthetic form expressing the basic political principle which strives to prevent social (class)
 128

conflicts that offer a possibility for creating a new world: harmony is the „sister of order“
(Coubertin). According to Coubertin, the basic purpose of Olympism is to bring order in
people's heads and give life a meaning – to which corresponds the „holy rhythm“ of the
Olympic Games which by no means must be interrupted. The Olympic harmony deals with
humanistic harmony, which means with harmonious interpersonal relations based on the
guiding principles of the French Revolution, with a harmonious development of physical
and spiritual powers, with a harmonious relation to nature... In sport, man is hermetically
closed: the world develops according to the laws of „progress“, while man is but a means
with which the ruling order is to enable its free development. The demand for „perfection“
and „harmony“ deals with the dialectic of history, which means with disharmony which is
the basis of dynamics of the historical process and the basic presupposition for the creation
of future. There are no leaps, there is no change‐oriented practice which crushes the
ramparts of the ruling order and opens new horizons. The libertarian physical motion
expresses man's disharmony with the existing world, it is a form of not resigning to the
„destiny“ determined by the process of capitalist reproduction. Imperfection, openness,
uncertainty in terms of possibilities and their creation, right to illusion and mistake – all
these are challenges that man cannot avoid on the road to future. As Goethe says in „Faust“:
„Man makes mistakes as long as he strives to something higher“ („Es irrt der Mensch,
solang’ er strebt”), but „a good man in his vague impulse is well aware of the right way“
(„Ein guter Mensch in seinem dunklen Drange/ Ist sich des rechten Weges wohl bewusst”).
The claim that „top sport creates new aesthetic values“ (Matveev) is based on the
identification of the achievement of higher results (records) and the achievement of higher
(human) values. „New“ has a quantitative and not a qualitative (historical, cultural,
libertarian, visionary) dimension. A better result in sport is not a more cultural and thus a
more valuable form of human practice. „Top play“ deals with man's ability to create a true
play which will help him realize his creative being: in football, kicks to the goal are
variations of the model of movement given by the nature of football as an institutionalized
repression which appears in the „playing“ robe. As far as man's legitimate need to achieve
the „unachievable“ is concerned, it is in sports theory used as a proof that in sport, in spite
of all „bad“ things, prevail „true“ human challenges. There is no doubt that man's pursuit of
self‐assertion by achieving the „unachievable“ is that „natural“ stake with which man enters
sport and which remains as a motivation throughout one's sports career. However, to
„overcome the horizon of the possible“ refers exclusively to quantitative shifts on the basis
and within the framework of the ruling order, and not to the opening of a new horizon
which will go beyond the existing world. A confirmation in terms of values („Supreme!“) is
given only to the performance that confirms the developing power of the ruling order (a
„Fantastic record!“), while the true meaning of the record‐mania is a mindless and fatalist
submission of man to the existing „rules of the game“. The development of sport does not
follow a particular aesthetic pattern: the road to „perfection“ is cobbled with victories and
records. Sport is not ruled by taste, which is subjective, but by quantitative indicators with
 129

an „objective“ value, which express the fatal pace of capitalist „progress“. Mimetic impulses
do not spring from nature or art, but from technical processes. A robotized body represents
the highest aesthetic model. The final result of „perfection“ is a dehumanized and
denaturalized „man“, the Olympic zombie, devoid of reason, libertarian dignity, Eros, the
creative, imagination, nobleness... By focusing all his ambition on becoming „someone“ by
way of sport, man inevitably becomes the slave of sport, which means that he fits into the
ruthlessly grinding machine designed for achieving „top results“. If we bear in mind the
limited capabilities of the human organism, it is clear that the absolutization of the
principle of performance leads to man's destruction.
Sports play is only apparently dominated by uncertainty, which is one of the
conditions of freedom, in which the most important moment is coincidence. Every action
has a number of alternatives. In fact, they are necessary accidents. „Uncertainty“ is
conditioned by the very nature of sport as the incarnation of the ruling relations and values
and it is reduced to the question: who will win and what will be the result? Basically, it is
about an apparent uncertainty, and thus an apparent freedom: the winner is always the
ruling order – man is always the loser. In sport, man produces chains with which he is
pinned down to the existing world. Sport deals with the visionary conscious and
aspirations to create a new world. Sports play is, like the ancient drama, the enactment of
everything that has already been acted and in that sense it is the copy of copy ad infinitum.
In spite of insisting on „progress“, philosophy of sport discards the idea of future. The
orientation towards an idealized past becomes the source of „true“ and „eternal“ values
symbolized by the flame of the Olympic torch which „can never be extinguished“ (Hitler).


Sport and Drama


Drama is a form in which sport, in a formal sense, most closely resembles art.
Speaking of the relation between sport and acting, Christopher Lasch says: “By submitting
without reservation to the rules and conventions of the game, the players (as well as
spectators) cooperate in creating an illusion of reality. In the way the game becomes a
representation of life, and play takes on the character of play‐acting as well. In our time,
games – sports in particular – are rapidly losing the quality of illusion. Uneasy in the
presence of fantasy and illusion, our age seems to have resolved on the destruction of the
harmless substitute gratifications that formerly provided charm and consolation. (….) Play
has always, by its very nature, set itself off from workday life; yet it retains an organic
connection with the life of the community, by virtue of its capacity to dramatize reality and
to offer a convincing representation of the community’s values. The ancient connections
between games, ritual, and public festivity suggest that although games take place within
arbitrary boundaries, they are nevertheless rooted in shared traditions to which they give
 130

an objective expression. Games and athletic contests offer a dramatic commentary on

reality rather than an escape from it – a heightened re‐enactment of communal traditions,
not a repudiation of them. It is only when games and sports come to be valued purely as a
form of escape that they lose the capacity to provide this escape.” (6) Since “sports
contests” offer a dramatic commentary on reality and that they are “in the organic
connection with the life of the community”, and not a confrontation with reality which
strives to overcome it, the organizers of today’s sports spectacles follow the demands put
forward by Lasch. Their main task is to turn sports contests into a “higher form of
existence” which will in the most authentic form reproduce the drama of everyday life. To
be “organically connected” with the life of today’s community does not mean to be close to
the original spirit of competition, but to the spirit of domination and destruction.
Idealization of sport, as a dramatic commentary on life, involves idealization of the ruling
relations and values – which are shaped in sport. It is interesting that Lasch does not see a
connection between professionalization (commercialization) and trivialization of sport:
„What corrupts an athletic performance, as it does any other performance, is not
professionalism or competition but a breakdown of the conventions surrounding the game.
It is at this point that ritual, drama, and sports all degenerate into spectacle. Huizinga’s
analysis of the secularization of sport helps to clarify this point. In the degree to which
athletic events lose the element of ritual and public festivity, according to Huizinga, they
deteriorate into „trivial recreation and crude sensationalism”.“ (7) By glorifying sport as
play Lasch „forgets“ that sport is dominated by the principle of competition and the
principle of performance, which means that man's relation to himself and others is
mediated by quantitative measures in which both cultural and individual human
expressions are alienated. It is dominated by the absolutized principle of performance
which in monopolistic capitalism, ruled by the principle „Destroy the competition!“,
becomes the totalizing power of profit that deals with „individual achievement“, which was
(together with principles „Equal chances!“ and „Let the better win!“) the ideological cover‐
up for the original spirit of capitalism (liberalism). The development of relations in sport is
best seen on the example of car‐racing. It is actually a fight between the most powerful car‐
manufacturing concerns, their expert teams, while man is reduced to the „driver“ who will
appear on the throne, in the wheel‐chair or on the cemetary. Not only in individual sports
(dominated by strenght, speed and stamina) but also in „playing sports“ ‐ the play has been
completed before the players run out onto the field.
Huizinga's criticism of sport from a cultural point of view throws light from
another angle. Speaking of the medieval “sport”, Huizinga concludes: “The medieval
combative sport (...) is different from Greek sport and modern athletics in that it is far less
natural. In order to increase the combative tension, sport is invested with aristocratic
proud and honour, romantic‐erotic charm and the charm of artistic beauty. It is filled with
radiance and decorations, full of rich fantasy. In addition to play and physical exercises, it is
at the same time the applied literature. The desire and dream of a joyful heart seek a
 131

dramatic performance, play enacted in life. Real life was not nice, it was cruel, horrible and
perverted; in the court and military career, there was little room for the feelings of courage
that springs from love, but the soul is full, people want to enact those feelings and create a
nicer life in a beautiful play. The element of true courage at a chivalrous tournament surely
is not less worthy than in the pentathlon. A very erotic character requires bloody
fierceness. The tournament is, in its motives, most akin to the contests in the old Indian
epic; to fight for a woman is the central idea in Mahabharata.” (8) For Huizinga, the duel is
a ritual form of expressing man's complete submission to the established order. The same
can be found in sport: in a fair‐play man's right to life is subordinated to the right of order
to survival. Life itself becomes a stake which proves the loyalty to the established order,
while fight to life or death becomes the most authentic form of natural selection. Huizinga’s
homo ludens is the picture of a “noble knight” who is the idealized incarnation of the
warring aristocracy and aristocratic values. Instead of humanism and love of freedom,
prevail ambition and love of power. However, what “honour” is proved by killing a man?
What is the nature of the erotic impulse achieved through “bloody fierceness”? What is
beautiful in a cruel fight to life and death, in cutting throats and butchering, in taking out
the intestines, in mutilated bodies drowned in mud? And all that only “to win the favour of
court ladies”? Huizinga proclaimed the pathology of medieval society the source of the
highest human ideals. Huizinga insists on the “art of life”, and not on a free artistic creation.
That is why he attaches such importance to “fashion”: clothes are not the confirmation of
human independence, but a class leveling shroud man is predestined to. It is quite logical
that Huizinga gives priority to the “art of life” as opposed to art itself, for it, above all,
involves “nicely stylized forms of life, which should raise the cruel reality to the sphere of
noble harmony”. “The high art of life” (“fashion”) becomes the form in which a decorative
aesthetics triumphs over art as a creative act. Speaking of the Middle Ages Huizinga says:
“All these nicely stylized forms of life, which should raise the cruel reality to the sphere of
noble harmony, were parts of a high art of life, and did not find a direct expression in art
proper.” (9) Huizinga goes as far as to proclaim the apparent forms of the established
relations “pure art”. By way of the “artistic” form Huizinga actually seeks to prevent the
original human creativeness from crossing the normative firmament of his aesthetics,
destroying the world of illusions and questioning the existing order. Man is not the creator
of his own world; he is part of the sets on the scene of the present world.
Drama is possible because life is alienated from man. It is an alienated form of
“playing” the essence of life alienated from man. Ultimately, the essence of life is given by
the ruling ideological firmament and it becomes the prism through which man sees himself
and society: a masked slavery, masked nothingness, mutilated human image, capitalist
“pendulum of horror” becomes a lollypop, people laugh and cry over their destiny... In the
theatre, life is being acted out, man being only an observer. The powers that keep him in
obedience in society acquire a caricatured form. Apparently, man has control over them, he
resists them. In reality, drama is such a “relation” of man to the world that pins him down
 132

to the existing world. A “good performance” is the other side of a bad life. Actors are tragic
products of a tragic world. Man does not experience the essence of his life by way of a life
activism, it is given to him by way of the “cultural sphere” which becomes a compensatory
mechanism, a form of sterilization of the critical mind and active will. It is “cultural” to
watch human sufferings on the stage, but it is “uncultural” to fight to eradicate injustice in
life. The destruction of the human pleases the petty‐bourgeois: it helps him to get rid of the
responsibility for the survival of the world and to lull himself in the existing hopelessness.
The theatre does not produce revolutionaries, but the “audience”. It is a form in which
culture becomes devoid of the libertarian. Orpheus without Prometheus becomes
Narcissus. All that proceeds in a virtual reality, which, as it becomes more realistic, offers
man a better opportunity to escape reality. The theatre, cinema, concert halls, galleries, the
church – all these are forms in which the illusory “world of culture” is institutionalized, and
it, as a “parallel world”, is created as against the everyday hopelessly uncultural world and
enables the (petty) bourgeois an (apparent) escape from the capitalist nothingness
ensuring him an “elitist” (class) social status.
The nature of sport as drama is conditioned by the role of sport in society. It is not
an activist integration of the ruling class, like the ancient Olympic Games and medieval
chivalrous tournaments, but is a “supraclass” phenomenon and as such means the
integration of the oppressed into the spiritual orbit of the ruling class and their
depolitization according to the principle panem et circences. Its purpose is to inseminate
man with the ruling spirit, to pin him down to the existing world, destroy his mind,
imagination, hope of a better world... A sports spectacle is a modern pagan festivity which
gives a fatal dimension to the ruling relations and values. It does not enable man to treat
the existing world in a reasonable way, but completely integrates him into it. Man becomes
the toy of destiny, which means of the basic processes of capitalist reproduction. Sport
abolishes the dualism of reality and ideals. In it, there is no opposition between play and
life: it represents life in its existential and essential sense. Sport is the authentic form of the
playing of life and thus is its glorification which is supposed to create a religious relation to
the ruling values. Sport does not reflect the human; it is rather that man becomes a means
for deification of the ruling relations and values. Sport is not an innocent children’s play; it
is a ritual manifestation of the submission to the ruling spirit and thus is the highest
religious ceremony with a liturgical character. It is pervaded with a sacred serenity. Hence
the importance of the “Olympic oath” (serment olympique): sport is the cult of the existing
world, while man appears in the sports ritual as the symbolic incarnation of the spirit that
rules the world. A sports spectacle is not an enactment of life; it is its reproduction: in it, the
essence of the capitalist world appears in a condensed form. Rugby, boxing and other
bloody sports are immediate expression of the “American way of life”, which is based on a
ruthless Social Darwinism and a destructive progressism – and which becomes a planetary
way of life (“globalism”). The sports drama is the authentic way of the playing of life – in
which life itself is the stake. Sport is a drama without masks, without petty bourgeois lies,
 133

without invented plots which are to glorify criminals and obtain meaning for the capitalist
nothingness. Life itself continues without a “humanistic” and “artistic” veil. It is legal in
sport to inflict serious physical injuries and kill, to mutilate children, apply medical
“treatments” which reduce sportsmen to laboratory rats, to turn the young into fascist
hordes... The theatre represents the scenery of the world of lies and crime; sport represents
its foundation. At the stadium, there is no human distance, there is no comical: gladiators
are not entitled to laughter. The increasingly bloody life requires increasingly bloody
sports spectacles, which are the compensation to the oppressed for the increasing everyday
misery. “The spectators love the smell of blood!” – this is the “golden rule” of sports show‐
business in the USA and other countries of the “free world”. Sports stadiums were not built
for well‐to‐do (petty) bourgeois, as is the case with the theatre which has an elitist status,
but for the working “masses” deprived of their rights and for their children reduced to
“hooligans”. The modern stadium appeared along with the modern industrial proletariat, at
the time when workers managed to obtain the eight‐hour working day – when the
bourgeoisie endeavoured to “colonize the leisure time” of workers and thus prevent their
political organization and integrate them into the ruling order. Stadiums are not designed
for “cultural education” of the oppressed, but for their “pacification” (depolitization) and
idiocy. “Sport is the cheapest spiritual food for the (working) masses that keeps them
under control.” – this is the most accurate sociological (political) definition of sport
reached, after the First World War and the then revolutionary movements in Europe, by
the “father” of modern Olympism Pierre de Coubertin. Sport is becoming a way of
destroying the class consciousness and shifting the fight from the political to the sports
arena. Stadiums are not the temples of culture but bonfires for burning out the discontent
of the oppressed. This is what determines their appearance: stadiums are modern
concentration camps for people deprived of their civil and human rights. Everywhere in the
capitalist world, where people are becoming increasingly poor, and fewer and fewer people
are becoming rich, we have the same picture: wire fences, special police forces, trained
dogs... A match is an occasion for giving vent for a man increasingly deprived of his rights,
and it does not reflect human “evil” but suffering and despair. Sports spectacles are a way
of turning the critical and change‐oriented potentials of the people deprived of their rights
into aggression directed towards the so called “opponents”, who belong to the same class of
the oppressed, and a way of provoking a war between them. This is the basis on which
supporting groups are formed: instead of turning their discontent towards the ruling order,
young people turn it towards other supporting groups, who are also the victims of an
inhuman order. “Supporting masses” are a form of degeneration of the working youth,
while fanaticism of supporters is a form of degenerating its critical and change‐oriented
consciousness. Symbols and slogans under which the youth gather do not speak of
freedom, brotherhood, peace, cooperation, love: they are of a fascist character. “Patriotism”
without culture is barbarism. As far as sports “idols” are concerned, they are not fighting
for freedom; they are the tool of capitalism for combating the libertarian mind and
 134

integrating the youth, reduced to the supporting “mass”, into the existing world. The
increasingly bloody conflicts between different supporters are an inevitable consequence
of the increasingly difficult position of young people in a world based on the principle
“Money does not stink!”, and on the increasingly ruthless manipulation of the young, which
springs from the fear that their discontent might turn against the ruling order and be used
for building a new (just) world. On sports stadiums, fresh mountain water, which can
overflow the increasingly rotten capitalist dam, turns into a swamp. Firecrackers and other
supporting equipment do not express joy of life: they are symbols of destruction. Torches
are not the source of light: they are a symbolic form of burning the world without a future.
The “intensity of life” of the ancient man was conditioned by his tragic position as
the “God’s toy” and his endeavours to do all that is possible during his short and
meaningless life in order to gain “fame” and thus reach the Olympic peaks and eternity. In
capitalism, the “intensity of life” is conditioned by the logic of capitalist reproduction: to
achieve a better result (profit) in the shortest possible time. This logic prevails not only on
a sports track, it conditions man’s life. In sport, there is no confrontation between life and
human tragedy. It is one of the most important ways in which capitalism “reconciles” man
to the existing world, in which he is reduced to an impersonal member of the working‐
consumer “mass”: sport removes the tragic from the capitalist cosmos by depriving man of
humanity.


Sport and Music


The philosophy of play does not come to the essence of play departing from music
and dance, but from sport and war. It is no accident. Blacking's view that music is the
„humanly organized sound“ indicates that man is not by his nature a „beast“, but a humane
being, and that man's need for another man, on which the motion of man towards another
man is based, is the most important characteristic of the human nature. Blacking says on
that: „When I watched young Venda developing their bodies, their friendships, and their
sensitivity in communal dancing, I could not help regretting the hundreds of afternoons I
had wasted on the rugby field and in boxing rings. But then I was brought up not to
cooperate, but to compete. Even music was offered more as a competitive than as a shared
experience.“ (10) He continues: „In a world in which authoritarian power is maintained by
means of superior technique, and the superior technique is supposed to indicate a
monopoly of intellect, it is necessary to show that the real sources of technique, of all
culture, are to be found in the human body and in cooperative interaction between human
bodies.“ (11) Blecking's conclusion on the significance of interpersonal relations for the
developoment of human creativity is of primary importance, and this conclusion was
reached while he was studying the music of the South‐African tribe Vende: „I am not
 135

arguing that particular musical systems are innate, but that some of the processes that
generate them may be innate in all men and so species‐specific. Similar evidence of
creativity may be found in Venda children’s songs, many of which may have been
composed by children. Their structures suggest a creative use of features of the musical
system which extends beyond techniques that might have been learned in society. I do not
see how the deeper, apparently unconscious processes of generation could have been
taught or learned in society except through a whole complicated process of relationships
between innate potentialities and the realization of these in culture through social
interaction.“ (12) „By learning more about the automatic complexity of the human body,
we may be able to prove conclusively that all men are born with potentially brilliant
intellects, or at least a very high degree of cognitive competence, and that the source of
cultural creativity is the consciousness that springs from social cooperation and loving
interaction. By discovering precisely how music is created and appreciated in different
social and cultural contexts, and perhaps establishing that musicality is a universal,
species‐specific characteristic, we can show that human beings are even more remarkable
than we presently believe them to be – and not just a few human beings, but all human
beings – and that the majority of us live far below our potential, because of the oppressive
nature of most societies.“ (13)
Music is expelled from sport and bourgeois physical education (physical culture).
It is opposed to the strivings to create in sportsmen a ruthless combative (murderous‐
destructive) character and the appropriate „iron body“. Music arouses emotions, a need for
closeness with other people and thus breaks with the fanatical focusing on victory.
International sports competitions are regularly opened with military marches, which
clearly indicates the truth that sport does not have a „pacifistic“ but a militaristic nature,
although in the „consumer society“ it obtained a trivial circus dimension. As far as
„competitive dancing“ is concerned, dancing turned into a sports event and thus became a
technical dance mutilating man's erotic being and producing a technical body and
movement. The same applies to „rhythmic gymnastics“ and „figure skating“.
In Coubertin's „utilitarian pedagogy“ music does not serve to „shape the soul“, as
in antiquity, but to create a „cultural“ scenery for the Olympic Games as a cult performance
and a „solemn“ atmosphere that is to arouse a „religious zeal“ in people, as well as to create
a „cultural“ scenery for a muscular combative primitivism. As far as shapening of character
is concerned, it is not achieved by mastering an artistic skill nor by developing a musical
sense, but exclusively through a combative physical activism and bodily drill which
involves suppression and mutilation of impulses, emotions, senses, reason... Trying to deal
with everything that can weaken the ruthless conquering and oppressive character of the
bourgeoisie and destroy its fanatical mind, Coubertin discards the Dionysian and Orphic, as
well as the ancient poiesis. He, like Hitler, does not want „peaceful aestheticians“, but „new
people“ characterised by an „iron body“ and the look of a „magnificent beast“. Coubertin
 136

tries to take over the political and discard the cultural legacy of ancient aristocratic
education.
Sports manifestations are dominated by songs of clubs and supporting groups,
which do not come from the cultural heritage, do not express man's need for another man,
do not humanize people... They are the forms in which the discontent of young people,
coming from their humiliating social position, is directed against their peers, who appear in
the form of rival supporting groups. They cause massive hysteria, vindictive fury, they
create the feeling of belonging to a group, which is reduced to a „civilized“ herd, and thus
the feeling of „power“. Ultimately, they serve to destroy all those feelings that make man a
human being and society a human society. Supporting songs indicate that decultivation is
the basic way of turning young people into modern hordes of barbarians: sport „satisfies
people's needs“ by depriving them of humanity.




























 137

SPORT AND PEDAGOGY

„Sports Pedagogy“


Thomas Arnold, the most influential reformer of the British system of education in
the XIX century, was one of the first to proclaim Hobbes' principles bellum omnium contra
omnes and homo homini lupus est, disguised in Christian moralistic rhetoric, the
fundamental pedagogical principles. Social Darwinism became the basis of the «elitist»
pedagogy which was eagerly accepted by Pierre de Coubertin, who built on it, discarding
the Christian veil, the foundations of his «utilitarian pedagogy» that became the
indisputable basis for physical education both in the fascist Germany and in the whole
«civilized world». Its basic aim was not «disciplining of the body», but confrontation with
senses, Eros, spontaneity, imagination, and the creation of a sado‐masochistic character,
which means the mutilation of a child's personality and his fitting into the model of a
submissive and usable subject. Coubertin clearly indicated that the aim of physical
education is not to produce a physically healthy person, especially not a child's cultural
development, but to destroy the libertarian (self) conscious and to create a «positive» man.
Hence he discards the maxim mens sana in corpore sano and opts for the maxim mens
fervida in corpore lacertoso. Coubertin's sports pedagogy seeks to produce «masters» and is
guided by the following views: «The battle at Waterloo was won on the sports fields of
Eton», ascribed to Wellington, and «Restore the colonial glory of France!» («Rebronzer la
France!») These views are corresponded by the following view: „Upon the fields of friendly
strife are sown the seeds which, on other days, on other fields, will bear the seeds of
victory.“ (1) – held by the American general Douglas MacArthur, which was and still is the
undisputed guiding principle of the sports pedagogy in the USA. «Sports pedagogy»
established upbringing without education. It is one of the basic reasons why it does not
have a theoretical part: its aim is not to enlighten the young and cultivate their body, but to
produce a ruthless belligerent character and an «iron body». Instead of promoting
spontaneity, imagination, pleasure, «sports pedagogy» promotes productivism,
utilitarianism, masochism... «The habit of obeying the commands» represents one of the
basic principles both of Coubertin's «utilitarian pedagogy» and of the bourgeois «physical
education».
A pursuit of virtue (arete) is the basis of the ancient paideia, on which the ancient
ideal of human existence is based. Physical motion is the expression of a spiritual motion
based on man's endeavours to fit into the cosmic order. The ancient conception of cosmos
and man's cosmic essence is corresponded by a holistic approach to man as the unique
physical, ethical and aesthetic being, whence follows the principle of a harmonious
development of human faculties as one of the basic elements of ancient eurhythmics. In the
 138

Hellenic world, the Olympic agonistes was modeled after the cosmological and not after the
anthropological conception. At the same time, physical exercises became a peculiar service
to gods, which Coubertin himself pointed out claiming that «by chiseling his body with
exercise as a sculptor chisels a statue” the athlete in antiquity was “honouring the gods”.(2)
Prevails the spirituality of the bodily movement that arises from a “religious feeling” which
pervades the whole life. Instead of insisting on a muscular body, as is the case in sport, the
highest challenge for physical exercises in antiquity was a geometrically constructed bodily
proportion, corresponding to the ideal of a closed and final world and representing the
basis of the Hellenes’ racial (self) recognition. The ruling model of the physical and the
spiritual, as well as the principle of a harmonious development of the physical and the
spiritual, were derived from the dominant conception of the world which originated from
the very essence of the Hellenic society and their strivings to preserve the established
order: the ancient physical culture was of a conservative character. In addition, in antiquity
there was no principle of “greater effort”, the dominant principles being “measure is the
best” (metron ariston) and “nothing too much” (meden agan), as well as the principle of
“beautiful and good” (kalokagathia). Instead of polis and a spiritual vault, represented by
the Olympic gods, as the basis of human self‐determination and mediators in interpersonal
relations, the basis of man’s “self‐conscious” and mediator in “interpersonal” relations in
sport is the animal world, degenerated by a technical world: a sports competition is of a
Social Darwinist and progressistic character.
In Rousseau’s pedagogy, man’s relation towards another man is mediated by
man’s relation towards nature and towards his own body as his immediate nature. A
natural motion is becoming the motion of one man towards another (homo homini homo).
This man is not denaturalized and thus dehumanized; he is not deprived of impulses,
affects and senses; it is a complete man, who is in nature and in unity with his natural
being; who aspires to a universal body as the expression of his universal life‐creating
powers... In Rousseau, (as well as in Goethe, Schiller, Klopstock, Pestalozzi, Fit, Guts Muths
and other philanthropists), a «return to nature» is the preparation for living in society:
nature becomes man's ally in the fight against the ancien régime. He seeks to free man from
a patterned behaviour which kills his vividness, to make him independent from his
childhood so as to enable him to develop his personality though his own life‐creating
activism and the experience acquired in this way. To liberate man from spiritual tutelage
and help him acquire the character of an independent and free person – this is the basic
purpose of Rousseau's «return to nature»: a natural movement becomes the synonym for a
free movement. Rousseau: «Those constant exercises, left to the guidance of nature,
strengthen the body and not only do they not blunt the spirit but, on the contrary, create in
us the only kind of reason for which the period of childhood is capable of, and which is
most needed at any age. They teach us to recognize the real use of our forces, the relation of
our body to the bodies around us, and the use of natural tools within our reach suited to
our organs.» (3) Speaking of the «ancient nations», Rousseau emphasizes the importance of
 139

«gymnastic exercises» for the «bodily and spiritual strength which makes those nations so
different from today's people.» (4) By way of a free movement, man is connected with
nature and is humanized as a cultural and natural being, since nature is not for man only an
immediate existential space, as it is for the animal, but is a space where he can realize his
working skill and spiritual powers. Most importantly, a «return to nature» means to return
man to his natural being which has been alienated from him by the development of
civilization.
A faith in the possibility of actualizing the true human nature is the basis of
Rousseau's relation towards man. What makes Rousseau's «savage» «noble» is the capacity
to become human. It is precisely this potential humanity that makes man human and,
through Emil and upbringing and education, it becomes reality. Class society degenerates
man, while towns and prevailing forms of movements mutilate him and kill his naturalness
and humanity. It is no accident that Rousseau does not speak of an escape to nature, but of
a «return to nature». Rousseau finds in nature a living environment which enables man to
develop his authentic human powers and become noble. Rousseau's «return to nature»
involves an uncorrupted humanity based on the existential unity of man and nature.
Rousseau's «good savage» is actually an idealized picture of man who has developed his
human powers, unlike the aristocracy whose natural and human powers were degenerated
by its parasitic life. Rousseau’s pedagogical conception is based on natural production and
manual labour, which means that there are no technical and scientific spheres which are
alienated from man and which mediate between man and nature. The skill man acquires
does not become the power with which man seeks to control and use nature, but with
which he can be completely united with it. Emil does not seek to become the «master and
owner of nature», but to live in nature using his cultivated natural powers. Between man
and nature there is no civilizatory mediation: nature itself produces mimetic impulses
which man spontaneously absorbs with his senses and they condition his (natural)
behaviour. The immediate challenge is not an a priori knowledge and the skill acquired in
that context, but natural circumstances, and by meeting that challenge man gains
experience and develops his human powers in the form of a skill which enables him to act
freely. Human movement is by its character a cultivated natural movement by which man
simultaneously develops his natural and human being.
«Sports pedagogy» is a radical conflict with the ideal of cultivating the human
nature. It emphasizes the «disciplining» of man, which means the suppression of individual
dispositions, repression of the body, and man's development after the model of an
instrumentalized «citizen». Instead of the conscious of an emancipated man, the conscious
of a subject is created. Unreasonable Social Darwinist («competitive») physical activism
aimed at quantitatively measured performance, which mutilates man's playing being,
represents even today the basis of «physical (sports) education». In sport, man's «will to
power» is, in fact, the realization of Social Darwinist and progressistic spirit: sports
competition does not produce cultural goods, nor does it develop man's cultural being; it
 140

destroys it and creates a civilization without culture. In «sports pedagogy», human can‐be
is not based on the development of man as a universal creative being of freedom, but on the
development of the ruling order: man is reduced to a tool used by capitalism for the
realization of «progress». Rousseau seeks to liberate man from the fetters of a repressive
civilization and to develop his authentic human powers; sport seeks to «liberate» man from
the emancipatory heritage of mankind and create a «civilized» barbarism.
Sport is a capitalist way of dealing with man's playing being, while «sports
pedagogy» is a technically perfected drilling. In sport, a dehumanized science and
technique are directly expressed, without the mediation of a pedagogical humanistic
heritage. «Sports pedagogy» is not based on the ancient techne, but on the modern
technique, particularly on that tendency in its development which seeks to turn technique
into a means for the abuse of nature and submission of man. Sport does not insist on the
development of man's creative powers, but on the development of a belligerent character
and aggressive muscular body, as well as on the cult of «intensive physical exercises»
which systematically mutilate the body and create a sado‐masochistic character. Instead of
a playing skill, sport is dominated by a belligerent and destructive technique which
becomes a tool for beating the «opponent» and achieving a record. It «disciplines» man by
instrumentalizing his body and turning the erotic charge into aggressive muscular energy
and murderous will. Horkheimer and Adorno emphasize in the «Dialectic of Enlightenment»
that gymnasts and athletes have always had a close affinity to killing. They see the body as
a moving mechanism, parts and joints, and flesh as the clothing of bones. They treat the
body and move the limbs as if they had already been wrenched. (5) Ernst Bloch speaks in a
similar tone: «…physical exercises, without the presence of the mind, ultimately means: to
be the cannon fodder and, before that, a murderer». (6) Sport does not aim at the softness
of movement and harmony of the body, at a variety of bodily expressions showing man's
spiritual wealth – but at the development of physical strength («iron body») and the
creation of a (self) destructive combative character. Bodily movement is separated from
the spiritual, sensual, erotic and visionary, from society as the community of people, from
nature, history and culture – without which there is no specific human movement. Sport
and physical drill become a way of producing physically and mentally degenerated people
who are prepared to destroy themselves in order to achieve the given end – and who find
«pleasure» in it. The destructive instrumentalism, based on the absolutized principle of
performance (profit), becomes one of the most important forms of the capitalist
degeneration of man: instead of the Christian «prison of the soul», the body becomes an
iron fist with which «progress» eliminates the obstacles on its way.
Unlike the classical bourgeois pedagogical concept, which sought to turn man into
a loyal and usable citizen by suppressing the authentic natural and human (potentially
creative) abilities (the so called «disciplining of the body»), modern sports pedagogy, using
the results of science and developing its own means and methods, destroys man's authentic
natural and human qualities – distorting them genetically. In spite of insisting on the
 141

«perfectioning» of personality, sports pedagogy discards the principle of the universal and
harmonious development of physical powers of man as a universal creative being. The
ideal of the sports body is not a creative body, nor is it the body in antiquity based on the
principle of kalokagathia according to a geometrically constructed cosmos; it is the body as
a highly‐specialized machine. In sport, man has entirely become a „one‐dimensional“
(Marcuse) being. The fatal character of a one‐sided physical exercise was pointed out by
Schiller: „Indeed, athletes are created by gymnastic exercises, but beauty – only by a free
and coordinate exercising of all parts of the body». (7) In sport, there is no room for the
principle of measure and optimum effort, which takes into consideration one's specific
body, health and personal integrity. In his «utilitarian pedagogy», Coubertin attached
primary importance to the principle of «greater effort» which is the most important means
for overcoming man's «lazy» animal nature, developing a ruthless combative character of a
bourgeois and creating a positive man. Nature and body become a technical means for
achieving inhuman ends.
As far as using competition as a pedagogical means is concerned, Rousseau is
strongly against competition, giving priority instead to the love of man over the love of
fame: «Especially, let all the vanity stay far away, all competition, all love of fame and all the
feelings that make us compare with others. As these comparisons are never made without a
certain feeling of hatred being aroused in us against all those that deny us the primacy...»
(8) In this context, man does not try to «compete» with nature or to «conquer» it, and from
this follows Rousseau's relation to the body. The basis of «happiness» is not a conflict with
one's natural being (body), but a free and spontaneous development of the body, spirit,
senses, mind, skills... Nature, life and freedom are at one. We find in Rousseau the most
important elements of sports pedagogy – courage, stamina, self‐initiative – but the way
they are realized does not turn people into enemies and does not turn man against nature
(body), as it is in sport; it rather turns people into friends and teaches man how to respect
nature and his natural being.
Today's capitalism imposes a new anthropological model which corresponds to
the destructive nature of the «consumer society». Instead of the model of «man‐beast»,
suited to the original spirit of capitalism (homo homini lupus), the prevailing model is that
of «man‐(self) destructor». Man's being reduced to the beast has been overcome in sport
itself. Today's coaches do not try to stir in man a competitive («animal»), but a fanatical
self‐destructive motivation: in sport, violence is of an instrumental and destructive
character. The most important element in a coach’s «work» is no longer a psychological
manipulation by which sportsmen are turned against opponents, but an attempt to make
them use increasingly monstrous dope and accept increasingly monstrous medical
«treatments». The main challenge for the contemporary «champions» is not «rivalry» and
thus aggression directed towards the opponent, but their readiness to destroy themselves
and thus their aggression to their own body. Sport is marked by a (self) destructive
sublimation. The elementary human needs remaining unsatisfied; the «negative» energy is
 142

directed towards the «opponent», record, conflict with one's own body. Sports pedagogy is
no longer aimed at winning; it is now an education aimed at performance (record) – and it
is corresponded by the «philosophy of performance» (Leistungsphilosophie). Instead of
liberty and ever greater probability of human survival, a dehumanized and denaturalized
«progress», as another name for the process of capitalist reproduction based on the
principle «Money does not stink!», becomes the highest «pedagogical» challenge.
Modern man realizes only a fraction of his intellectual and spiritual capacities and,
in addition to that, capitalism mutilates his (potential) universal creative being and turns
him into a specialty‐idiot. Instead of developing his mind and his artistic talents, man is
reduced to the ruling model of a «new» man (cyborg), in whom memory and
operationalized intellect are being developed (manipulative dehumanized intelligence) –
which is but one of the forms in which modern capitalism deals with «traditional» man. A
humane civilization, by developing a pedagogical model which is not based on deprivation
and repression, but on emotional closeness between people and mutual respect, as well as
on education through life itself with its creative character – will enable the development of
man's creative powers from an early age. In a future society, the highest pedagogical
challenge will not be a dehumanized «progress», but the development of man's creative
being and of society as a brotherly community of emancipated people.


School – Faculty


The civilization deprived of culture is corresponded by upbringing without
education, which means pedagogy deprived of humanistic essence. Under the influence of
«globalism», «physical culture» was expelled from school and «physical education» was
introduced, which indicates the unity of the body and a positive character, the «spirit»
being a synonym for character. The name «physical education» implies that it is the body
that should be educated, whereas it is about a repressive model of physical exercises
mutilating man both physically and mentally and turning him into a «citizen» suited to the
nature of the ruling order. This is contained both in the principle mens sana in corpore sano
and in Coubertin's principle mens fervida in corpore lacertoso. The highest challenges of
«sports pedagogy» ‐ «overcoming the human», «perfectioning» and the like insist on the
development of man's physical powers, and not on the development of interpersonal
relations and on the overcoming of the existing world. Hence «sports pedagogy» discards
the principles without which modern society cannot be imagined: Freedom, Equality,
Brotherhood. Basically, it is about a development of human powers reduced to establishing
interpersonal relations which are the embodiment of the ruling spirit and involve a
struggle with the idea of future. «Sports education» is marked by physical one‐sidedness,
which corresponds to the model of school that abolishes the right to individual difference
 143

and seeks to «produce» certain «profiles» of experts who meet the demands of a
dehumanized technological development. Man's submission to the established order is
mediated by the development of technological processes, so the impression is being made
that «technical world», as an autonomous phenomenon, is to be «blamed» for the
established processes of specialization (an increasingly early selection and mental and
physical mutilation of children), and not the capitalist order that turns science and
technique into dehumanized and destructive forces. The whole system is marked by
competition and elimination based on (destructive) performance. The most important task
of «sports education» is not only to subordinate a child's physical development, starting
from an increasingly early age, to a particular sport, but to deal with the critical mind and
subordinate his spiritual development to the requirements of the absolutized principle of
performance and the maxim homo homini lupus. «Physical education» should contribute to
the development of an aggressive and ruthless individualistic combative‐productivistic
spirit in young people – according to the spirit of the «New Age» (neo‐liberalism). That is
why Hobbes, Arnold and Coubertin are still relevant, and Rousseau, Goethe and Schiller are
not. Instead of sociability based on solidarity and tolerance, there is a «sociability» reduced
to a merciless struggle between the «opponents» for acquiring the highest social values and
for survival. It is about imposing on children, from an early age, a Social Darwinist model of
life, that is to say, about the reduction of the human community to a «civilized» menagerie,
the teacher of «physical education» being the embodiment of the ruling «competitive»
spirit of the order and the body technician, while the coach is the whip of capital. The
acceptance of the order in which survival and social status are achieved through a ruthless
fight is the basis of modern sports (physical) education. The spiritus movens of man's
physical activism is not his fear of repressive authority; it is his fear of being beaten in the
increasingly ruthless struggle for a place under the sun.
Physical education was, and still is, one of the earliest forms of children's
repressive socialization. The ruling «pedagogical principles» have always served to support
the bars of the cage, and not to make room for free individual development. Instead of
being a means for developing versatile and creative people, «physical education» is
becoming a means for physical, spiritual and social mutilation of young people. Just as
upbringing involves a certain type of education, so education involves a certain type of
upbringing. Education that produces «specialists» involves upbringing the aim of which is
not the creation of a versatile and proud individual who will have a (critical and change‐
oriented) relation to the world departing from his (human) needs, but of specialty‐idiots
who (by their mutilated positivistic minds) become the ideal means of capital and alienated
centres of political power for realizing their own interests. The instrumentalization of the
body becomes the instrumentalization of man. The typical examples are the so called «top
sportsmen», who are dehumanized (decultivated) «physical workers» ready to mutilate
and kill their «colleagues» and mutilate and destroy their own organism – only to acquire
«fame» and money. They become a spectacular embodiment of the supreme values of
 144

«sports education» and as such the «idols» of young people. As far as space is concerned,
sports centres become modern temples and thus a means for man's enclosure into the
spiritual horizon of the capitalist civilization. In the gloomy barracks (which will become a
model for the construction of gyms in schools and at universities) and with the help of
militaristic drill, the vividness of spirit and imagination is lost. Sports stadiums and centres
take man away from nature, and sport is an activity that destroys in him the feeling of
belonging to nature. Even in those sports that take place in nature, nature is reduced to a
«competitive space» and thus has a technical character.
The repressive pedagogy of «physical education» of the bourgeois society (which
first appeared in barracks and includes jamborees) has become the model for the pedagogy
of «physical education» in the countries of «real socialism». To an authoritarian system
corresponds an authoritarian school to which corresponds an authoritarian «physical
culture». In the so called «socialism», the role of school was to produce loyal «socialist
citizens»; today, the role of school is to produce loyal «capitalist citizens». The purpose of
the then physical culture was to produce, by way of a repressive model of physical
exercises, an «average» citizen, who is «part of the community» and who obeys the
authority of the ruling political will embodied in the state. The development of a «new»
capitalism brought about the atomization of people, based on the fight for personal
interests. Society is no longer a community of people the integration of which is dictated
and ensured by the totalitarian political and economic power of the state (the ruling party),
but a conflict of private interests according to increasingly ruthless «rules of the game»,
based on the principles homo homini lupus and bellum omnium contra omnes. The basis for
ensuring survival and acquiring a social status is not only the loyalty to the ruling political
will, but also the loyalty to the ruling principle of monopolistic capitalism «Big fish devours
small fish!». By attacking the (authoritarian) «socialist collectivism», the ideologues of
capitalism do not seek to overcome it by advocating an authentic community, but to deal
once and for all with the very ideal of community based on solidarity and social justice.
Instead of creating a humanistic civilization, school becomes an instrument for creating a
capitalist civilization based on the absolutized principle of profit. «Physical education»
becomes an instrument for adjusting life to the rhythm dictated by the increasingly faster
operation of capital, increasingly higher risk of living, new requirements imposed by the
development of technique and, in that context, increasing domination of the so called
«intellectual» over physical forms of labour.
In contemporary capitalism the autonomy of the faculty as a scientific
(pedagogical) institution has completely been abolished and it has become a tool for
realizing the strategic interests of the ruling order. This can be seen from the changes in the
names of the faculty: the «Faculty of Physical Culture» has changed its name into the
«Faculty of Sport and Physical Education», or the «Faculty of Sport». As sport is becoming
an increasingly important instrument for depolitization of the oppressed and for «making
money», the pressure on the faculties to become «scientific» service to sports associations
 145

and clubs which «do business» according to mafia principles, is becoming greater.
Professors, who have become «expert consultants» in sports organizations, use the
authority of the faculties and their titles in order to obtain «scientific» legitimacy for the
increasingly ruthless destruction of people in sport. Students have become hostages, and an
increasingly important source of financing, of the interest groups which hold control over
the faculties. The critical mind is abolished as well as the cultural heritage and an
immediate relation between sports show‐business and the faculty is being established. In
this context, the difference between sport and physical culture is abolished and thus a
possibility of establishing a critical distance to sport from the aspect of libertarian physical
culture and of creating a humane physical culture. Sport is deprived of its historical and
social essence and becomes a phenomenon sui generis, which by way of humanistic rhetoric
(«peace», «happiness», «progress», «beauty» ...) obtains a mythological character. In this
way, its propagators are no longer responsible for the consequences of sport when it comes
to physical and mental health of young people and to the ruling (destructive) order
produced by it. «Sports pedagogy», as it is taught at faculties, is not marked by a
humanistic, but by a technical education. Instead of subjects which emphasize physical
movement as an expression of man's libertarian‐creative nature, prevail sports and
technical subjects, which use man and his body as a means for realizing inhuman ends. The
faculties do not produce pedagogues, but experts for particular sports and body technicians
whose «pedagogical work» is reduced to physical and mental mutilation of young people.
Instead of humanization, physical and mental drill, based on (inhuman) science and
realized by technical means, becomes the basis of contemporary pedagogical practice. Man
is abolished as a biological and humane being, and reduced to a mechanical being.
As far as the division in physical culture, sport and recreation is concerned, it is
conditioned by physical abilities, and ultimately, by the existing division of labour and the
nature of the ruling (Social Darwinist) existential and value model, and not by the
development of man's playing being. We are dealing here, only apparently, with three value
models based on physical powers. In this division, physical culture corresponds to the
upbringing of children for the ruling order; sport corresponds to a «mature» phase in life in
which man openly «fights for a place under the sun»; recreation is meant to preserve health
and prolong life once man leaves the fight for survival. It is not a humanistic, but a
functional and instrumental conception. Basically, sport, which has become the industry of
death, is the supreme value challenge. As far as the «General Theory of Physical Education»
is concerned, it is a way of putting under the same roof physical education in schools, sport
and recreation. The idea is to build, by way of positivistic disciplines, such a «theoretical»
bastion around sport which will prevent any «attacks» on sport from the point of view of
the emancipatory legacy of physical culture, art, pedagogy, sociology, philosophy... The
conflict between sport and physical culture is basically a conflict between a repressive
civilization, whose sport is a condensed ideological expression and which is based on the
 146

Olympic (oppressive) principle, and a (possible) humanistic civilization based on the

Promethean (libertarian) principle.


«Physical Culture»


One of the most fatal characteristics of the philosophy of sport is that it
completely devalues the movements of physical culture which developed on the best
humanistic traditions of the ancient physical culture, Christianity, Renaissance,
Enlightenment, popular cultures, French Revolution, emancipatory legacy of bourgeois
society – and which are opposed to sport. Sports theoreticians cover the area of physical
culture by the term «sport» in order to conceal the character of sport as a concrete
historical phenomenon and prevent the creation of the foundations for establishing a
critical distance to sport from the aspect of a (genuine) physical culture. In that they are
similar to Coubertin, for whom sport is physical culture in the real sense of that word,
while between sport and physical culture only theoretical differences can be made.
«Physical culture» offers the possibility of a principally different relation to man
than that offered by sport and «physical education». It indicates that culture is the source of
the relation to the body and that bodily movement is a natural movement refined by spirit.
Sport is marked by the movement of one man against another man, the absolutized
principle of performance, the principle of «greater effort», industrial mimesis and
militaristic drill; physical culture is marked by the movement of one man towards another,
development of the cultural being, principle of «optimum effort» (in that context, a
difference between tiredness and exhaustion is made), physical movement as a way of
cultivating man's natural being... It is about the development of Eros, imagination, the
aesthetic, the visionary, spontaneity, tolerance, solidarity – which is opposed to the
production of robotized beasts who fight for survival, as is the case in sport. Physical
culture is the most complex pedagogical field as it involves the development of man as a
whole – his physical, cultural and social being. It is no accident that physical culture was
attached such importance in the ancient paideia, which had a holistic approach to man.
Contrary to the modern bourgeois pedagogy, where there is no conflict between physical
culture and sport, in the ancient Greece, with the appearance of democracy, the
aristocratically based Olympic agonistics was questioned from the point of view of the
citizen as a political and rational being.
The insistence on a cultural (historical) character of the body and bodily
movement is based on the attempt to overcome the dualism between the body and the
spirit which is characteristic of «physical education». From this follows that «physical
culture» is acceptable only conditionally – if it involves the development of man's spiritual
and intellectual powers, cultivation of the body and development of interpersonal relations.
 147

This is not to say that culture is quite another world, independent of the ruling relations
and values, but that culture, unlike sport, offers a possibility of stepping out of the existing
world, which means that it has a liberating and creative potential. As a cultural sphere,
physical culture essentially contains this possibility – which need not be realized, and this
applies to culture in general. The bourgeois (as well as the so called «socialistic») «physical
culture», which reached its climax in barracks and «jamborees», is a bodily drill which
destroys personality and produces a submissive conscious. It is no accident that «physical
culture» in schools has not had its theoretical part, which means that the young have not
been given an opportunity to realize the true nature of sport and physical exercises and
develop a conscious relation to their own body as the integral part of their personality.
Hence the need to emphasize the difference between repressive and libertarian physical
culture which seeks to realize it’s cultural, which means its libertarian and creative
potential. Libertarian physical culture is opposed to a given model of the body, as the
criterion for determining «beauty» and other bodily (human) qualities, like “Barbie” and
«sporting body», which are contemporary (global) forms of a fascistic approach to the body
(man) according to the model of the destructive «consumer society». Libertarian physical
culture involves a socially engaged man, and thus is a political activity par excellence. It
seeks, on the grounds of a libertarian creative mind, to resist the attempts at the creation of
an atomized society, where man is to another man but a means for satisfying his private
(pathological) interests, and to resist the «technical civilization» based on the absolutized
principle of (quantifying) performance. The road to a genuine physical culture leads
through the liberation of the body and movement and, ultimately, through the liberation of
man from the bonds of the repressive and destructive capitalist civilization. Instead of
fighting for a new «model» of physical culture, we should fight for a new society with
versatile and creative people, who will have a completely developed creative body; instead
of «acquiring the habit» of behaving in a particular way, which involves the uncritical
adoption of an a priori normative model, we should develop the need of one man for
another and, in that context, a developed playing personality. Physical culture is the
supreme creative manifestation of man as a playing being according to the principle
«everyone according to his own abilities» (Marx). Hence it’s most important part is to get
acquainted with the nature of exercises and plays: how they can affect man's character and
conscious, what social (interpersonal) relations they produce, what is their true nature… It
involves the development of a creative activism aimed at the development of interpersonal
relations, and not the development of a dehumanized productivistic activism and the spirit
of competition and hatred, as is the case in sport, on the basis of which various forms of
social pathology are being developed. The establishment of brotherly relations between
people makes repressive institutions, which find their justification in man's «selfish and
aggressive nature», meaningless, and these are in fact the characteristics of a «model
citizen» ascribed to man by the ruling ideology as his anthropological determination. The
level of the development of capitalist society is measured by numerous forms of a
 148

commercialized bodily activism; the level of the development of a humane society is

measured by various forms of a free (creative) bodily activism. Essentially, libertarian
physical culture means elevating the entire life‐creating capacities of a society to a higher
level.


Pedagogy of Libertarian Physical Culture


The relation to physical culture should be seen in the framework of its relation to
school, while the relation to school should be seen in the context of the current
development of society. The current tendency is to eliminate school as an educational
institution and turn students into specialty‐idiots. The tacit aim of the «course of reforms»
leading us to the «modern world» is to submit every segment of life to the circulation and
reproduction of capital. The neoliberal project of the development of capitalism as a global
order involves dealing with national cultures, libertarian traditions of mankind and with a
reasonable man who is capable of understanding his real needs and of establishing a
critical and change‐aspiring distance to the ruling order. It is all about the destruction of
the critical and creative mind and reducing it to operationalized intellect. Instead of
creating a humanistic civilization, school is becoming a means for creating a «technical
civilization», which is a modern form of the «civilized menagerie» created by capitalism. In
that context, physical culture is expelled from school and «sports education» is introduced,
which is reduced to a physical and mental mutilation of young people. The «liberation» of
students from uniform physical exercises, which once prevailed on lessons of «physical
culture», proceeds by way of «sports competition». Exercises mechanizing the body and
creating a militaristic spirit are replaced by a dehumanized and denaturalized playing skill
and a ruthless combative individualism. Desk‐mates are no longer «comrades from the
same ranks», performing the same «task», but are «opponents» in the «struggle for a place
under the sun». Instead of developing versatile and creative personalities, teachers of
sports education become body technicians and slave drivers and as such are the long arm
of mafia organizations in the form of sports clubs and political clans.
If we bear in mind that school is a social institution and that the nature of society
determines the nature of school, then there is no point in speaking of a «new» school
without mentioning a new society. There is no «free and open school» in a society where
the entire life is submitted to the operation of capital and manipulation carried out by
alienated centres of political power; in a society where knowledge (reduced to
«information») is not a road to the truth, but a commodity on the market and as such is a
means for destroying man's libertarian dignity and the emancipatory heritage of mankind.
There can be no «freedom for school» if society is ruled by the tyranny of capital,
repressive institutions and corrupted political clans. There can be no «freedom for
 149

students» at schools if there is no freedom for man in society. The struggle for a “new”
school can make sense only if at the same time it is the struggle for a new society.
The pedagogy of libertarian physical culture includes the following:
(1) Theoretical part. It includes the child's becoming aware of itself as a free,
creative and social being and thus the development of the body as an integral part of its
personality. The child should be aware of the purpose of physical culture and be able to
make the difference between a libertarian physical culture and repressive forms of physical
activism. Teachers should explain the nature of the body and its functioning and should
help young people to respect their own body which marks their human authenticity. Young
people should learn that a proper diet, physical activity and exercising are not only the
preconditions for a proper development of their body and preservation of health, but also
for a proper development of their personality. It is about directing young people towards
an active social life, and not towards a narcissistic obsession with their own body and
loneliness.
(2) Body hygiene. On classes of physical culture young people should learn the
proper physical exercises they should do every day. Teachers should teach them by way of
demonstration and correction. This offers a lot of possibilities for implementing scientific
discoveries. Floor exercise and apparatus that contribute to the development without risk
of injuries should be insisted upon. The basic principle of physical health is an adaptive and
creative agility. The work with young people should develop a need for everyday physical
exercises. As far as gyms are concerned, instead of a military atmosphere, gyms should
have a libertarian and friendly atmosphere. Freedom, Equality, Brotherhood – this should be
the banner in every school gym and in that spirit murals and stained glass windows should
be made...
(3) Return to nature. The teachers of libertarian physical culture should initiate a
return to nature, which is not only our immediate existential, but also a historical,
esthetical and global living space. The purpose of a return to nature is not to «conquer» it,
as is the case in sport, but to preserve it and to cultivate young people. Only in nature can
man attain his natural being. The struggle for a healthy man becomes the struggle for a
healthy living environment: in healthy nature – healthy man (homo sanus in natura sana).
The teachers of libertarian physical culture should launch a campaign within which every
school should be responsible for preserving one part of the environment; every child
should plant at least one tree every year; students should explore nature, take care of
animals and draw ecological maps; schools should develop brotherly relations with villages
and pupils should help old people's households... Here we depart from one of the most
important postulates of Rousseau's pedagogy: if a child is to become a good man, it should
be given the opportunity to do good acts.
(4) Folk dances and other forms of dances. It is a traditional form of social activism
which returns man to his cultural being and is the most authentic expression of man's
 150

playing nature. As far back as in the ancient Greece people realized the importance of
music, in addition to gymnastics, for man's cultivation.
(5) Plays. Libertarian physical culture does not discard playing skills in sport; it
rather tries to cultivate them by creating new (artistic) plays which, instead of a ruthless
rivalry, will be characterized by cooperation and tolerance. It means that boys and girls, as
playing beings, will be able to play together – which will lead to the abolishment of
segregation according to the gender, on which sport is based, without which there is no
humane society.
As far as desirable physical abilities are concerned, libertarian physical culture
does not emphasize strength, speed and stamina, but creative agility, which means a
creative body which is in unity with man's creative spirit. It is the basis for the
development of a creative skill that is not characterized by the movement of man against
another man, as is the case in sport, but by the movement of man towards another man.
Instead of striving for a body‐machine and mechanical motion, based on the absolutized
principle of quantitatively measurable performance, libertarian physical culture strives for
an artistic body and artistic motion. Instead of being the bodily mechanics, physical culture
should become the bodily poetics: bodily motion should express man's poetic being – a
poetic motion of man towards another man. The development of a rich creative
personality, humanisation of man's natural being and society as the community of free
people – these are the ultimate aims of libertarian physical culture.
School is an institution which can carry out an organized campaign aimed at
saving children from bodily and mental destruction. It should become a spiritual workshop,
open 365 days a year, where every child can have a chance to develop its talents and
socialize in a way which will help them develop their cultural being. Since physical culture
is a pedagogical area which, together with art, offers a good opportunity for the
development of bodily, spiritual and social being of young people and enables man's return
to mother nature which is increasingly bleeding – it deserves to have a special place in the
system of education.
The struggle for libertarian physical culture means the struggle for teachers who
are strong advocates of the libertarian and cultural tradition. They should acquire a broad
humanistic education, which will enable them to understand the nature of man as a
universal creative being of freedom, they should be aware of the difference between the
true physical culture and repressive (destructive) forms of physical activism, and they
should become the creators of a rich culture of movements used for cultivating man's
playing being. Humanistic education includes:
(1) Man's libertarian self‐conscious as a historical and social being, which means
man's awareness of his universal creative powers and unalienable human and civil rights.
(2) Awareness of social causes of injustice and processes that cause the destruction
of life.
 151

(3) Awareness of the existing possibilities of the development of society and

eradication of the causes of injustice and destruction.
(4) Idea of a society that should be striven for.
Instead of being silent participants in the destruction of children and employees of
sports clubs, teachers of libertarian physical culture should become the carriers of
Promethean fire and as such the leading figures in education. Their primary role should not
be to have the classes of physical culture, but to initiate, organize and conduct various
activities of pupils, inside and outside school, like Vasa Pelagić, the great Serbian «popular
teacher» whose work represents extraordinary lessons in physical culture as the means for
building a physically fit, spiritually rich, nationally proud and socially active individual.


«Humanization of Sport»


Can sport be «humanized»? For Coubertin, this question is meaningless since, for
him, Olympism, which is the quintessence of sport, is the «cult of humanism», meaning the
«cult of the existing world». If we depart from the modern concept of humanism, based on
the guiding principles of the French Revolution, sport deals with the emancipatory legacy
of modern times. Sport is not the symbol of a humanistic civilization; it is rather a form in
which the «technical civilization» deals with the objective possibilities of creating a
humanistic civilization. Sport is not characterized by humanistic challenges, but by a
technical mimesis, technocratic efficiency, functionality and the absolutized principle of
quantitatively measurable performance... A sporting body is the symbolic manifestation of
the «technical civilization». The «perfect work of the machine» is the mimetic impulse
arousing an «aesthetic» inspiration in a sportsman. Not only does sport step out of the
existing world, it steps out of the living world as well.
Sport is a radical conflict with the ancient ideal of man's existence, as well as with
the humanistic heritage of the Renaissance, Christianity, aristocratic and popular culture
and philanthropic and dancing movements. At the time when sport was becoming an
institution, it was Tissié who saw in sport a «muscular primitivism» and a conflict with
Western humanistic traditions. Sport eliminated all forms of physical culture which were
connected with classes, social strata and peoples. By way of the absolutized principle of
quantitatively measurable performance the basic forms of a free physical activism, whose
purpose as a human activity can only be grasped within the concrete cultures in which they
appeared, are reduced to sports events. A leveling took place on the basis of «objectivized»
quantitative criteria, which led to their losing the quality of a natural, cultural and
individual human expression. Instead of expressing their life force as natural beings, of
being representatives of their cultures and manifesting their peculiar human, which means
creative (spiritual) powers, people, in the form of «sportsmen», became denaturalized and
 152

dehumanized storm troopers of political centres of power and moving billboards of

capitalist companies. Victories and records express a degeneration of the original natural,
cultural and individual needs and man's degradation to the tool for fulfilling political ends
and material interests. Instead of the triumph of cultures, we are witnessing the triumph of
colonial and destructive spirit of the capitalist «internationalism». By the
institutionalization of sport, at the end of the XIX century, a repressive institutionalization
of citizens' free (non‐working) physical activism took place: sport became a tool for
physical and spiritual integration of people into the ruling order. Instead of a free
individual, a loyal and usable «citizen» «was obtained»; instead of a class‐based integration,
a «supraclass» ‐ «national» integration was established; instead of affirming the national
cultures, of being a form of the struggle for freedom (of workers, colonized peoples,
women) and the development of individual human powers – «free» physical activism in the
form of sport becomes a battlefield, where the most powerful capitalist corporations fight
between themselves, and a means for conquering the world. Countries which «lag behind»
as far as historical development is concerned, have accepted sport as one of the ways of
bridging the gap between them and the developed capitalist world and of becoming part of
the «modern» civilization. The development of capitalist proprietary relations in villages
and disintegration of the traditional social organization; atomization of society according to
the principles homo homini lupus and bellum omnium contra omnes; development of trades,
industries, commerce and, based on that, growth of towns and working force which had to
be controlled after the official working hours; endeavour to «discipline» population in
villages and prepare them for industrial work; to homogenize society on national basis (so
that the struggle of workers from the field of class struggle can be transferred to the field of
the «struggle for national interests» under the patronage of the bourgeoisie in the form of
military structures) – all these led to the disappearance of the traditional forms of
libertarian (cultural) physical activism and to the development of sport.
The development of capitalism as the order of destruction led to the degeneration
of the original spirit of sport, which became a populist circus‐like entertainment. Instead of
developing faith in the «eternal values of capitalism», sport has become an instrument for
suppressing the discontent of the oppressed and for their idiotization. For the leading
theorists of sport, like the American sociologist Allen Guttmann, the future of mankind
cannot be imagined without sport. It is, in fact, only another way of saying that there is no
future without capitalism, which means that capitalism is “the end of history“ (Fukuyama).
At the same time, they proclaim sport the most important means in the struggle for a
«humane society», meaning the «perfectioning» of capitalism. To try to make sport the
most important means for combating drug‐abuse, alcoholism, violence and other
pathological forms of young people's behaviour, is as justified as to try to eradicate
mosquitoes with atom bombs. Sport is not a product of man's libertarian and creative
practice; it is an institutionalized destructive violence and as such is the production of the
ruling relations and values in an immediate form – which are the origin of all evil. It
 153

degenerates man by submitting him to the existential interests of the ruling order and by
creating an ecocide conscious. Sport adds fuel to the flame of capitalism, which, if it is not
extinguished, will turn the world into a completely burned place.
Even among those who are well‐aware of the fatal consequences of the
development of sport, the prevailing tendency is to separate «professional» and «amateur»
sport and thus save sport as a pedagogical method. They do not treat sport as an
institutionalized value model which is a concrete historical product and which, in its
original form, is the ideology of liberal capitalism, but proclaim it an idealized projection of
universal human values and thus the supreme «humanistic» challenge. By doing this, they
come close to the views of Coubertin, Baillet‐Latour, Diem, Brundage and other fervent
champions of «amateur sport» ‐ the most reactionary and militant ideologues of capitalism
– who saw in the «moral» values of sport its primary pedagogical significance. It should not
be forgotten that Coubertin, who insisted that sport should obtain a religious character
(like the ancient religio athletae), called professional sportsmen «circus gladiators» and
proclaimed money the «greatest enemy of sport». By the end of his life Coubertin accepted
the sports (capitalist) reality and gave to professional sportsmen the dimension which had
been reserved only for amateurs. This, however, does not change the essence of his
Olympic philosophy, which insists on sport as a (positive) «religion» that is beyond both
Christianity and «ethnic» religions, which, according to him, are ranked lower in terms of
value than Christianity. Interestingly, at the time of the development of commercialism and
professionalization of sport in the West, the ideologues of «real socialism» elevated
amateur sport to the highest possible level and turned it into one of the chief ideological
means for criticizing the «rotten capitalism». This is one of the main reasons why in the
Soviet Union the «morally clean» Coubertin became a mythological figure, in spite of being
one of the most militant opponents of socialism and a fanatical champion of fascism. By an
ideological hocus‐pocus, Coubertin has turned, from a zealous anti‐communist into the
mascot of «real socialism».
It is only when the destructive tendencies of the development of capitalism are
fully understood that we can see the disastrous consequences of dividing sport into a «bad»
professional and «good» amateur sport. The upbringing by way of sport involves such a
way of thinking that glorifies destruction and renounces the idea of future – which is not
only a libertarian, but the basic existential imperative. At the same time, it is the kind of
upbringing which turns people into enemies – destroying young people's hope that a
humane world is possible, as well as their need for such a world. The question is, in fact,
what existential and value model should be adopted: should we struggle for sport which
develops the spirit of destruction and degenerates man or for those forms of physical
activism which develop man's cultural, creative, physical, social and visionary being?



 154

SPORT AND LABOUR

Historically, play is the privilege of the ruling classes. It is not a respite from labour
nor is it a preparation for labour; it is a means for ensuring their domineering social
position and for proving their «superiority» over the working layers. Play includes
activities which contribute to the strengthening of their oppressive power (war games,
hunting...) as well as the activities which prove their elitist status. Finally, play is part of the
privileged life‐style of the ruling class. Hence opting for play is not the matter of one's
individual choice, it is a class duty. Unlike the previous ruling classes, the bourgeois seeks
to integrate the oppressed working «masses» into its spiritual orbit and thus prevent their
libertarian struggle. This acquired a special political significance when workers managed to
obtain the eight‐hour working time which enabled them to become class‐conscious and
politically engaged: play became one of the most important means for colonization of the
workers' leisure time and for their depolitization. The ruling forms of play have always
been the embodiment of the ruling relations and values in a condensed ideological form.
Even when, temporarily, they were a form of the political struggle against the ruling order,
they remained a way of spiritual integration of the oppressed into the ruling order. Sport is
a typical example. That is why Coubertin, in his Olympic philosophy, insists on the principle
to «rule in the heads» as the supreme «supraclass» pedagogical (political) principle. He was
aware that real social changes were impossible if the workers remained within the spiritual
horizon of the capitalist order. Here it should be noted that the following discussion is to
supplement what was said in the book «Sport, Capitalism, Destruction», regarding the
criticism of Plessner's, Habermas's, Rigauer's and Lasch's views on the relation between
sport and work.(1)


Play as the «Respite from Work»


Aristotle’s view that play is the «respite from labour» is the most widely accepted
starting point in determining the relation between labour and play. In ancient Greece, it
was not physical labour, which was the «privilege» of slaves and as such unworthy of a free
man (Hellene), it was the execution of civil duties which were the precondition for the
survival of polis. In his work «Culture and Society», Marcuse claims that play as a whole is
necessarily connected with something else, from which it derives and at which it aims –
and this something else has also been previously mentioned as labour in the characteristics
of composure, tension, worry etc. (2) Marcuse concludes that in one single “throw out” of a
ball by a man who plays lies an endlessly larger triumph of the freedom of man's being over
 155

objectivization than in the highest achievement of the technical world. (3) According to
Marcuse, in this disregard of objectiveness man comes precisely to himself in the
dimension of the freedom he is deprived of in work. (4) A need for play as «amusement» is
possible only in the relation to labour as a coercive one‐sided activity: without labour there
is no play. A lack of freedom in labour becomes the basis for the «freedom in play», whose
main characteristics are «voluntariness» and a «lack of effort», which becomes a synonym
for «pleasure». Man is not a unified creative being; he is reduced to the «worker» and
«player», depending on the sphere he is in. In this context, man's playing being is not the
authentic source of his humanity and the basis of his totalizing (liberating‐creative)
practice, the starting point is rather play as a specific phenomenon which is a
compensation for the unrealized (suppressed) humanity. Play is not the realization of
man's liberating‐creative nature; it is a psycho‐physical response to a work reduced to
repression. Marcuse points this out indirectly when he insists not on passing the ball but on
“throwing out” the ball, which is not the expression of freedom but serves to give vent to a
suppressed being and its discontent. The nature of work determines the nature of the
respite from labour, which means the nature of play. Alienated labour cannot result in a
free play, but only in a play as a form of letting off the steam of non‐freedom: play as the
respite from alienated labour is not de‐alienation; it is an alienated form of de‐alienation.
At the same time, the nature of play is determined by man's physical and playing abilities.
Alienated labour produces a mutilated man who can realize his mutilated playing being in a
mutilated way. Man who is de‐eroticized through labour and who is deformed by a one‐
sided and excessive physical exertion cannot manifest his erotic nature in play, which
becomes a respite but, at the same time, a preparation for work. As far as the ball is
concerned, it is a historical product and so is the skill of “throwing out” the ball and the
playing body. The ball is “objectivized” and man must have appropriate physical abilities
and playing sensibility, which involves the playing skill, in order to play with the ball. At the
same time, “throwing out” the ball does not only express man's relation to work, it
symbolically expresses man's relation towards another man, which means to the value‐
related model embodied in play. The purpose of “throwing out” the ball is not to liberate
man from the chains of the capitalist civilization and to develop human powers; it is the
sterilization of his critical conscious and change‐aspiring will («pacification»), as well as
the renewal of his working powers. «Readiness to work» represents, according to Adorno,
«one of the hidden tasks of sport». (5)
Sport has been formed as an institution at the time of the most intensive industrial
development and therefore industrial labour represents the form of labour with the most
profound influence on sport. Unlike slave‐owning society and feudalism, where physical
culture was a privilege of the ruling class and where work and the working body represent
the negative basis of physical culture relative to which the «beautiful» is determined (slave
work and slave body in antiquity, peasant work and body in the Middle Ages), in capitalism,
the industrial way of production conditions the nature of the sports movement and body,
 156

as well as of the bourgeois «physical culture» (bodily drill). At the same time, there is an
aggressive muscularity which is a physical manifestation of the ruthless combative spirit in
a society marked with the bellum omnium contra omnes. It is about the conflict between the
original spirit of liberal capitalism, which insists on an atomized society based on the Social
Darwinist principle (which obtains legitimacy of being «humane» through the slogans such
as “Equal chances!”, «Personal initiative!» and the like) and the ruling spirit of the
monopolistic capitalism ruled by the principle «Big fish devours small fish!» and the
absolutized principle of quantitatively measurable performance expressed in the Olympic
maxim citius, altius, fortius.


Charles Fourier: Labour as Play


Fourier is one of the fathers of the theory according to which labour can become
play and as such a pleasure. In «German Ideology» Marx claims that Fourier wanted to «put,
instead of today's travail repugnant (repulsive labour), travail attrayant (attractive
labour)». (6) Engels speaks similarly of Fourier's view on labour in his work «Advance of
the Movement for a Social Reform on the Continent»: «Fourier is trying to prove that
everyone was born with a disposition to some kind of labour, that absolute inactivity is
nonsense, something that has never existed and cannot exist: that the essence of the human
spirit is to be active itself and move the body towards action and, therefore, there is no
need to force people to be active, as it is the case in the current state of society, but only to
properly direct their natural activity. He then goes on to argue that labour and pleasure are
identical and shows the absurdity of the present social system, which separates them,
turning labour into torture and placing pleasure out of the reach of most of the workers; he
then shows that in a rationally constituted society, labour can be what it is supposed to be,
that is to say, pleasure, and everyone should follow their own personal inclinations ...» (7)
In his work «The Basis of the Critique of Political Economy» Marx criticizes Fourier for trying
to reduce labour to play: «Work cannot become play, as Fourier wants it, who is greatly
credited for declaring as the ultimate end the overcoming not only of distribution but of the
way of production into a higher form.» (8) For Marx, «travail attractif», which appears as
the «self‐realization of an individual», is by no means a «sheer joke, sheer amusement, as
Fourier, somewhat naively, like a grisette, would have it. A really free labour, for example,
composing, is at the same time a highly serious matter, the most intensive kind of work».
(9)
Fourier takes labour seriously, though not as a torture, but as a pleasure. Instead
of trying to view play in the light of labour, Fourier tries to view labour in the light of play
as a festive form, not as a frolic. While Marx insists on changing the nature of labour and
thus on changing man's relation to labour, Fourier insists on changing man's relation to
 157

work by changing the form in which work is executed and by changing the meaning it is
given. Fourier does not try to abolish work as a physical exertion, but to obtain for it a
respect by creating such working conditions and atmosphere which will give it a «festive»
character. Fourier: «And thus the customs and the policy of Harmony seek to bestow on the
productive work all the illustriousness, all the support of luxury that is now applied only to
non‐productive jobs; while agricultural labour and workshops remain in the worst of
misery». (10) He continues: «Workshops and agricultural labour should attract the worker
by elegance and cleanness»... (11) The festive atmosphere, «illustriousness», «luxury»,
«elegance and cleanness» indicate that it is not only about the change of the worker's
relation to work, but also about the change in the ruling value‐related model which is to
enable work to be valued in the same way as non‐working activities, and this should
change the social position of workers. Fourier claims that «attractive work does not lead to
exhaustion or spiritual pain. It is an amusement to a manual worker, free exercise of his
abilities». (12) He sees in work a free activity of a free «Harmonian» who is aware of the
necessity of work, but is employed by nobody and nobody forces him to work: work is
voluntary. Fourier does not say that explicitly, but it follows from his conception that man
himself determines the length and intensity of work, which means that he works as long as
it gives him pleasure. Instead of degrading him, work affirms his freedom and is a way of
gaining respect.
According to Fourier, man's nature is not determined by the nature of labour; it is
man's (erotic) nature that determines the nature of the relation to labour and thus the
nature of labour. In antiquity, eroticized physical exercises in gymnasiums and fights at the
Olympic playing grounds were a way of «winning over the favour of» the gods and a form
of the Hellenes' spiritual integration. With aristocratic manners and war (oppression),
Nietzsche tries to turn the “new nobility” into an organic (physical) community. Huizinga
sees in the war tournaments of noblemen and their bloody fierceness a supreme erotic
stimulus and a means for the class integration of the aristocracy. For Fourier, labour is the
most important means of social integration: society is the community of working people,
while the working movement, which realizes man's erotic nature, is the basic movement of
one man towards another. By arguing for «work becoming sport», whereas the meaning of
the term «sport» is closer to the aristocratic desportare (entertainment through
competition) than to the modern conception of sport (record‐mania), Fourier proposes the
establishment of an (agricultural) «working tournament where each athlete will show his
strength and agility, show off before the beauties who, at the end of the shift, will bring him
lunch or snack». (13) Fourier does not speak of changing the nature of labour, but tries to
make labour attractive and give it a playing form. Thus, man's playing being expresses its
superiority over labour as a limiting activity, and labour turns into «festivity» and
«pleasure». A need for labour expresses man's need to realize his erotic being. Labour is a
way in which men can express their masculinity and impress the girls: the working
community becomes the erotic community. The real result of labour has nothing to do with
 158

the purpose and aim of labour (to ensure existence as an existential necessity); it has to do
with a reward acquired by labour, which is to win the favour of girls and affirm one's
masculinity. Essentially, the role of the «vestals» is to draw man's attention away from
work as an arduous activity. In Fourier, women are instrumentalized in the working
process similarly to the way «noble ladies» were instrumentalized in chivalrous
tournaments. The very presence of women gives an erotic charge to labour which is the
essence of its «festive character». The need for a woman (erotic desire) is manifested as a
working activity: work becomes a peculiar (fore) play where the erotic charge turns into a
working enthusiasm. The festive atmosphere that should accompany the work is an
eroticized ritual, while work releases the suppressed sexual energy. This is the main reason
why man does not experience it as a physical and spiritual suffering, but as a pleasure.
Fourier's conception of sport is not marked by the principle of «natural selection» and the
absolutized principle of performance, nor by the principle of idleness which is
characteristic of the aristocratic desportare, but competition through a cultivated
productivistic activity where everyone can freely express their human powers and where
there are no winners or losers. Instead of garlands and fanfares, a shy but motivating smile
of girls represents the biggest «award». Chivalrous tournaments are festivities dedicated to
the oppressive power of the aristocracy; Fourier's working tournaments are festivities
dedicated to man's life‐creating powers.
In «Harmony», nature is not experienced as the object of exploitation and
destruction, but as a living space. Work is a form of man's immediate relation to nature. It is
dominated by life‐creation: the transformation of nature becomes its cultivation
(fertilization) and this becomes a symbolic projection of a (desired) relation to the woman.
In Fourier's agricultural labour there is no machine which represents the «technical
civilization» as a mediator between man and nature; the mastered powers of nature do not
appear as a means for man's submission, for mutilation of his erotic nature and
exploitation (destruction) of nature; there is no working technique which alienates man's
working skill from him, nor is there a productivistic movement based on the absolutized
principle of quantitatively measurable performance. In the industrial labour man is part of
the machine and his working rhythm follows the rhythm of the industrial process of
production, which destroys the biological rhythm of organism. Man is depersonalized in
work above all by being denaturalized: his body loses biological properties and becomes a
machine. In Fourier, the rhythm of bodily exertion is conditioned by man's biological
capacities and, in that context, by his working skill. Work is not dominated by a technical
mimesis, but by a natural movement cultivated through work. This work does not mutilate
man's erotic being turning him into a mechanicized freak, as is the case with the capitalist
form of industrial production. There is no technique (alienated from man) as a mediator
between man and his own body and girls, and the dominant skill is working skill with the
erotic nature. Work is a cultivated natural activity; the body is a cultivated natural body,
while the relation between men and women is a cultivated natural relation. Fourier does
 159

not speak of one‐sided physical work as if it were a conflict with man's erotic (playing)
being, as Marx does when he speaks of the industrial work, but of the manual work as a
demonstration of masculinity and provocation for a sexual fantasy. Instead of work being
impersonalized by machines, which reduces man to the working tool and force, Fourier
insists on such a manual work which will express man's libertarian and erotic nature
through physical motion. Eroticized relation between men and women is the basis of
working dynamics and its dramatic. Work does not destroy individuality and does not
reduce workers to impersonalized working force; it is rather that man realizes his
personality through work as a specific physical being – by way of a specific working activity
through which he expresses his peculiar human qualities in a specific way. Unlike the
festivities of the aristocracy, where the esthetics had a decorative character and served to
glorify its parasitic (looting) exclusive class character as against the working «masses»,
Fourier's esthetics is grounded on the erotic nature of man as a being who ensures his
social existence through work and has a festive character. Work, body, nature, Eros,
interpersonal relations, esthetics – all that is given in unity. Agricultural labour is not
dominated by a playing motion, and therefore the playing body is not produced. It is
deformed by work, sense‐based mobility which enables the development of soft
movements and the creative body is mutilated... Fourier tries to establish such a relation to
work which will give it a human dimension and thus a playing character. By insisting on the
«festive» character of work, Fourier suggests that bodily (working) movement itself should
be suited to the nature of work, which means that it should be marked by a cultivated
bodily posture and a motion expressing «masculinity». This conditions the dramatic
character of the bodily expression and its rhythm. Work does not change its nature; what is
changed is man's relation to work which enables him to express (experience) through work
his human being. One of the most important characteristics of Fourier's theory is that it
offers a possibility of a change‐oriented relation to work based on a need to realize man's
playing being – without which there is not any true humanization of work. Instead of
appearing at the existential, work appears at the essential level: it is not only the «primary
life necessity» (Marx), it is the primary human necessity. Work produces sociability in an
immediate form: work is not only the production of material goods; it is the production of
interpersonal relations, which means of society as the community of happy people. The
«Harmonians» work with a smile on their faces.
Erich Fromm recognizes play in the crafts from the XIII and XIV centuries: «There
is no dichotomy of work and play, of work and culture.» (14) When he speaks of play,
Fromm thinks of art – which makes craftsmanship closer to the ancient techne as the art of
shaping guided by virtue. Craftsmanship is play in the technical sense, but not in the
essential sense. Fromm overlooks the position of the craftsman (worker) in the working
process and in society, the evaluation of work and his experience of his own working
activity. The work of a craftsman is not voluntary, especially not spontaneous; he is not
guided by the artistic passion, but by existential needs; a craftsman does not work as a free
 160

man, his work is commissioned in a society in which people's work is not valued according
to its creativeness but according to their wealth; where «cultural» status is not acquired by
the development and realization of one's cultural being, but by the acquisition of works of
art: a work created by a craftsman is alienated from him and is the private property of the
members of parasitic classes and as such is a means for proving their elitist status and
degradation of workers (craftsmen). As far as skill is concerned, it is not only a «technical»
part of play; it involves the development of man's physical and spiritual (creative) powers.
Unlike the crafting skill which is limited to the manual work that proceeds in a limited
(closed) space and does not enable a harmonious development of physical (playing)
capacities, the acquisition of the playing skill involves a complete development of the body,
senses, emotions, spirit, in a natural environment, the only place where man can attain his
natural being. There is no play if man does not express spontaneously and freely his
playing being and thus experience himself as a playing (free) being. Play is dominated by
the esthetical, which means man's endeavour to express his authentic creative personality.
At the same time, play has a social character: it is dominated by a spontaneous
interpersonal relation based on the movement of one man towards another. The immediate
product of play is not an object, but the development of man's playing being and of
interpersonal relations.


Labour, Praxis, Poetical, Play


For Milan Kangrga, play is the «result» ‐ «either of labour or creativity, but only the
fought for, actively mediated, produced, established «medium», where, as already formed
human beings, we can then play and entertain ourselves in a human way in our –
meaningful idleness, which is then the established spiritual horizon of self‐realization
based on creative imagination.» (15) Play is a potential result of labour or creativity, but
the nature of labour (creativity) conditions the nature of play. It is one thing to create the
possibilities of play by creating a non‐working time which is only potentially workers' free
time, and quite another to create play as the realization of man's playing being. Work can
produce a non‐working time, but play is only formally possible if man is not capable of
playing. Labour which mutilates man's playing being directly conditions physical abilities,
playing skill and imagination – which means the possibility of playing and thus the creation
of play. Man whose body is reduced to a machine and who has lost physical qualities that
enable the development of the playing, meaning a creative body, does not have a need to
play, but to engage in such a physical activity which is conditioned by the properties of a
mechanicized body. It not only reduces man's playing abilities, it reduces the possibility of
man experiencing himself as a playing being, and thus the possibility of his playing self‐
consciousness. A physically crippled man can feel «free» only in those plays in which his
 161

mutilated being can be realized. At the same time, he aspires to those plays in which he can
find compensation for the constraints in the working process – where he is reduced to an
impersonalized working force: playing becomes a psychological response to labour. Most
importantly, play is not only a respite, it is a preparation for work, which means that man
can develop in play those qualities which enable him both to «keep fit» and keep his job.
Alienated labour, where man is reduced to the «working force» and instrumentalized as an
impersonalized part of working processes, does not distort only man, but also
interpersonal relations – which has a direct influence on the playing imagination. Sport is a
typical example: a «sports team» is a capitalistically degenerated form of grouping people
– degenerated sociability. When the playing skill is developed on the basis of a suppressed
and distorted humanness, it becomes a compensatory mechanism for a frustrated
humanness, a means to escape from reality, for a conflict with other people – as is the case
in sport. There is no «formed human being» unless man has developed a need for and
ability to play. «Meaningful idleness», «spiritual horizon of self‐realization» and «creative
imagination» are all conditioned by the development of man's playing being, his physical
powers and acquired playing skills, the conception of man and relation to people. The
imagination of a slave is one thing, the imagination of a free man is quite another; a
«reasonable» opting for play of a man with a mutilated body and playing being, for whom
play is compensation for the alienation in work, is one thing, while «reasonable» opting for
play of a man who has a playing (creative) body and playing being and who develops in
work his physical and spiritual powers is quite another. At the same time, man should see
freedom in play not only in relation to work, but above all in relation to the world in which
he lives, which means in relation to the ruling order. The idea that man can realize his
playing being in relation to work within the repressive (destructive) capitalist order is
illusory. Work is not the only form in which man is alienated from himself as an erotic
(playing) being, the whole life is such a form, based on the «technical civilization» which
represents the form in which capitalism destroys nature and man as a natural and human
being. It is not about the freedom of man reduced to the «worker», it is about the freedom
of man in the totality of his social existence. The possibility of play (playing) does not lie in
the relation work –play, but in the relation man – ruling order. Libertarian play is not only
the result of work or creativity, but above all of the fight for freedom which involves the
fight for the creation of a new world. The relation of man to the world, himself, other
people, the full humanity he acquires in the fight for survival and freedom – this is the
necessary «mediator» which enables the cultivation and development of man's playing
being, his playing skill and human community as a playing community. The theses of a
«meaningful idleness» can be productive since it enables the creation of such forms of play
through which man will be able to develop his libertarian, creative and social being, which
means to stand against the existing world trying to create a new world. Kangrga's
definition of play is close to the idea of libertarian play, but «creative imagination» should
 162

have a visionary character and its realization should be part of a political movement which
seeks to create a new (humane) world.
Marcuse cites Marx's view on how free time affects man: „Free time transforms its
possessor into a different Subject, and as a different Subject he enters the process of
immediate production“. (16) Here it should be added: as a potentially changed subject –
provided that it is really about free time, and not about apparent «free time» where the
ruling relations and values are reproduced, as is the case with the ruling forms of play.
Leisure time does not have an abstract, but a concrete historical nature: non‐working time
is «free» from work, but not from capitalism nor from the consequences of work for man
(mutilation of his erotic being, physical and mental deformation of man and interpersonal
relations ...). In the «consumer society» both working and non‐working time have become
constituent parts of the capitalist time: time of production and time of consumption. At the
same time, the content of non‐working time is conditioned by class relations, which means
by the struggle for the instrumentalization of non‐working time for the purpose of
protecting the ruling order. The bourgeoisie tries to prevent by all means the non‐working
time from becoming the free time of the oppressed. Stadiums, designed according to the
Roman Coliseum, were built at the end of the XIX century, when workers managed to obtain
the eight‐hour working time, in order to keep the «working masses» under control during
non‐working hours. The ruling forms of play, which were to become the cheapest and chief
spiritual food for workers, occupied most of the non‐working time and as such were «free
time» imposed on workers by the bourgeoisie: non‐working time became the means for the
integration of workers into the spiritual orbit of capitalism. Marx himself unintentionally
encourages that when he recommends that young workers, in their free time, do gymnastic
exercises, which were done by the bourgeois youth and which had a mechanical form and
militaristic nature, meaning that they were reduced to a physical drill mutilating man's
erotic, and thus, his playing nature. (17)
The establishment of the relation between work and praxis enables us to attain the
notion of true play. Mihailo Marković says on that: «In principle, work is different from
praxis. Work is instrumental, praxis is the end in itself. Praxis is a free, spontaneous,
creative activity where each individual realizes his unique, specifically human powers.»
(18) For Kangrga, praxis is a «free self‐realization of man as the universal generic being.
This involves the process of man's historical self‐becoming in the totality of his
manifestation as the only purpose or the unique purpose (meaning) of his life.» (19) Praxis,
as the «total way of the appropriation of the world (and oneself in it)» (20) by man is the
«natural» basis of play. In this context, particularly important is the connection between
praxis and poiesis: “Historical novum in terms of the epochal change in the essence of praxis
proceeds not only through a practical determination of the theory which is heading for its
realization, but even more: through the identification of praxis and poiesis, whereas in the
very definition of the modern concept of practice poiesis obtains not only a constitutive but
also a prevailing character». (21) The alienated labour is possible because man is «more»
 163

that that he is reduced to as the labour tool and hired worker. It involves a distance to
labour from the point of view of man as a libertarian and universally creative (playing)
being. By working, man has put chains on himself and became alienated from his authentic
playing being, but at the same time he developed his creative powers which enable him to
acquire a libertarian and creative self‐conscious. The dialectic of praxis is based on the
conflict between the acquired creative powers and the (im) possibility of realizing them in
a way which would affirm him as a human being, which means of creating a humane world.
This is one of the most important reasons why the capitalist propaganda machinery and
entertainment industry increasingly try to destroy man's libertarian self‐conscious. Non‐
working time must not become the time for development of workers' self‐conscious, but
the means for their integration into the spiritual orbit of the bourgeoisie and reproduction
of capital, which means a consumer time. It is particularly important today when, due to
the imposed dynamics of innovation as the basic requirement for survival on the market,
man, instead of factories and machines, has become the most important «investment». The
creative mind has become the driving force of contemporary capitalism, which indicates
that there are objective possibilities for a libertarian totalization of the world by a
(liberated) man.
Writing in the «Capital» on the freedom in work Marx concludes: «Freedom in this
area can only exist in the associated man's, associated producers' rational organization of
their exchange of matter with nature, in bringing it under their joined control, instead of its
dominating them as a blind force; in executing it with the least possible expenditure of
energy and under the conditions which are the most worthy of and adequate to their
human nature. But this always remains the realm of necessity. Beyond it begins the
development of the human power, which is the purpose for itself, the real realm of
freedom, but which can thrive only in that realm of necessity as its foundation. The
reduction of the working time is the primary condition.» (22) Analyzing the process of the
automatisation of work Marcuse says: „In the technique of pacification, aesthetic categories
would enter to the degree to which the productive machinery is constructed with a view of
the free play of faculties. But against all ‘technological Eros’ and similar misconceptions,
‘labor cannot become play...’ Marx’s statement precludes rigidly all romantic interpretation
of the ‘abolition of labor’. The idea of such a millennium is as ideological in advanced
industrial civilization as it was in the Middle Ages, and perhaps even more so. For man’s
struggle with Nature is increasingly a struggle with his society, whose powers over the
individual become more ‘rational’ and therefore more necessary than ever before.
However, while the realm of necessity continues, its organization with a view of
qualitatively different ends would change not only the mode, but also the extent of socially
necessary production. And this change in turn would affect the human agents of production
and their needs..“ (23) By becoming a total and global order of destruction, capitalism has
posed, in a new and far more dramatic way, the question of necessity and freedom, and
thus the question of the relation between work and play. No longer is work as such man's
 164

most important existential duty, but the fight for preserving the life on Earth (and the
appropriate work). The struggle for survival has become the modern «realm of necessity»
and man will develop on its foundation as a totalizing life‐creating being. Modern
capitalism «has united» the existential and essential spheres: the struggle for freedom
becomes an existential necessity, and the struggle for survival is the basic libertarian
challenge. It means that the starting point of libertarian practice are no longer the spheres
of work, art and play – it is man as a totalizing life‐creating being which sees his whole life
at the existential‐essential level, and this means in the context of the fight against
capitalism which has turned social institutions, the laws of nature and man into the means
for annihilation of life. In this context, work, which realizes man's (life) creative powers and
creates a genuine human world, becomes the basic essential activity. Just as today the
production of goods (commodities) is at the same time the destruction of life, so in a future
society the production of goods will at the same time be the production of healthy living
conditions and the creation of a healthy man.
The thesis that play is possible only relative to work means that the point of
departure is play as an area, and not man as the playing being and thus the subject of
totalization (humanization) of social life and nature, which includes work as an
interpersonal relation and man's self‐creating activity. Instead of work and play as areas
alienated from man, the starting point is man as a universal creative being, who treats work
in the totality of its totalizing libertarian‐creative (life‐creative) practice. Then it will be
impossible to apply the mechanistic scheme on the «feedback that play has on work», man
being only a mediator between the social spheres alienated from him. It is about the
domination of man and humanizing interpersonal relations over all social processes; about
the humanization of the world through an ever fuller realization of man's playing being;
about the totalization of the world through man's (life) creative practice, whereas work, art
and «sheer» play («production» of the human in an immediate form) are but forms in
which true human powers are realized. From the «adaptive» and instrumentalized working
force we have come to man as the totalizing subject of the entire social life. The
abolishment of the dualism of work and play abolishes the dualism of man as homo faber
and homo ludens and man becomes the emancipated homo libertas.
Fourier has attained the notion of work as play departing from man's erotic nature
and emphasizing interpersonal relations, and in that context man's relation to work. Marx
criticizes the work which is imposed on man from outside, and where man is a hired
worker, and argues for the work of free people, which has become man's «primary life
need». Engels, in «Anti‐Dühring», speaks of the «productive work» which «instead of being
the means for suppression, becomes the means for people's liberation, giving a chance to
each individual to perfect his abilities, both physical and spiritual and apply them in all
areas, and where work thus turns into pleasure instead of being a burden». (24) Following
Marx, Jean Divigno insists on the abolishment of the gap between mental and physical
work, and thus the question of the relation between work and play is posed in an
 165

essentially different way: «When this difference is abolished, we will get a new picture, new
conception of work, and thus of play, and this is something we cannot even imagine now,
but we can fight for it. For I believe that things can move in that direction. When man (...),
who developed his esthetical, imaginative, and thus productive powers, no longer
distinguishes between mental and physical world, imaginativeness will become a common
property, while everyday life will be enriched by unimaginable powers that for the time
being are the privilege of a small number of people.» (25) Creative work represents the
overcoming of the classical division of work and a partial man reduced to a «specialized
working force». Instead of being reduced to an operationalized intellect, which means to
the technical means for producing «innovations» and reproducing the capital, the creative
mind becomes the basis of creative work and the basis of social integration. It is not only
the production of useful goods, but also of the visionary: the creation of humanum becomes
the creation of the novum and vice versa. Creative work involves realizing the human in a
humane way and ensuring the existence by transforming nature in a way which is not
destructive and which cultivates man's natural being... A need for work becomes a need for
developing creative powers and interpersonal relations and for dealing with the
consequences of destroying nature and man as a biological being. It overcomes the partial
man and enables the integration of mankind on the basis of the creative mind. Ultimately,
work becomes not only a way of ensuring existence, but also of enriching interpersonal
relations and of returning man to his human essence. Creative work is a direct form of the
production of society as the community of emancipated individuals, which means creative
and totalizing sociability. The results of creative work, just as in artistic work, cannot be
measured. They cannot be private property, but only the «property» of mankind. Creative
work is by its nature limitless both in terms of the development of man's creative powers
and in terms of its time and spatial effect. It is the basic form of the totalizing practice
which produces an endless (human) world. Creative work is opposed to the capitalist work
which is based on destructive irrationalism. It involves not only the creation of useful
goods and the creation of man as a universal creative being, but also the creation of life.
Creation is the common denominator of man's universal life‐creative activism, while
creative effort makes the essence of work and play. The genuine play is the result of man's
creative development and at the same time the highest and most direct form in which man
produces the human. In that sense, play overcomes art. A creative effort is man's true
condition, just as the constant life creative activity of vital organs is the true condition of
the organism and the basic condition of life. A playing effort is the most authentic form of
the realization of man's life – his creating force, his will to be human... On it a flight towards
new worlds is based. The true result of the creative effort is the development of man's
playing being and interpersonal relations, which means the liberation of the playing and
the development of a need and ability to play. A constant creation of the human – this is the
way in which man's life‐creating pulse should beat.
 166

The development of automatization creates the possibility of perceiving the

relation between work and play in a completely different way. Marcuse: „Complete
automation in the realm of necessity would open the dimension of free time as the one in
which man’s private and societal existence would constitute itself. This would be the
historical transcendence toward a new civilization.“ (26) He also argues: “Progress is not a
neutral term; it moves toward specific ends, and these ends are defined by the possibilities
of ameliorating the human condition. Advanced industrial society is approaching the stage
where continued progress would demand the radical subversion of the prevailing direction
and organization of progress. This stage would be reached when material production
(including the necessary services) becomes automated to the extent that all vital needs can
be satisfied while necessary labor time is reduced to marginal time. From this point on,
technical progress would transcend the realm of necessity, where it served as the
instrument of domination and exploitation which thereby limited its rationality; technique
would become subject to the free play of faculties in the struggle for the pacification of
nature and of society. (...) Such a state is envisioned in Marx’s notion of the ‘abolition of
labor’.“ (27) The shift of industrial labour towards automatization is the greatest
contribution of capitalism to the future. However, automatization in itself does not abolish
repression but makes it, in the current state of capitalist reproduction, more impersonal
and efficient. Limitless possibilities of scientific and technological advances are not founded
on limitless possibilities of the development of capitalism, but on the limitless possibilities
of the development of man's creative capabilities. Capitalism has set those capabilities into
motion and has directed the effects of their development to the destruction of life. The
«power of technique» has become from men alienated and capitalistically instrumentalized
creative power. The real value of the technological development is not in the creation of
«material wealth» but in the development of man's creative powers that enable the
preservation and humanization of life. In this context, the genuine play becomes possible.
Man's playing being can be fully developed only when work becomes a form of
the free expression of man's universal creative powers. Then play will not be opposed to
work and thus a compensatory activity for a lack of humanity, but a creative activity
complementary to work, which means the highest form of man's spontaneous realization
as a creative being. The more man is capable to freely express in work his creative
personality, the more freely and completely will his playing being express itself in play –
and this will be a new incentive to a humanistic innovation of working processes. The fact
that work is a purposeful and rational activity does not mean that the way of achieving the
given effects cannot contribute to man's humanization, which means that work should
acquire increasingly artistic character. Even work which involves the possibility of man's
creative expression can be play, but it will not be as complete and spontaneous as a play in
which man fully affirms his playing being – as in the love play which is the creation of the
human in a pure sense. What is relative is the «degree» of spontaneity in the expression of
man's playing being. Plays are graded according to the possibilities they offer for the
 167

expression and development of man's playing being. Love play is the highest form of
realization of the playing being, but in it spontaneity and intensity of experiencing the
human are not always the same.
Work, as a creative human activity which enables the survival of society, is not a
negative but a positive foundation of the genuine physical culture based on Rousseau's
principle homo homini homo. The industrial as well as the scientific (post‐industrial) work
have a collectivistic character and are based on cooperation and solidarity. With work
becoming not only an existential but also an essential activity – not only the creation of
conditions for freedom but also the affirmation of man as a libertarian being – the dualism
of work and play is abolished, which means that man becomes a unique libertarian‐creative
being, and work and play are only specific forms of realizing his indivisible human nature.
It is not about discarding the principle of performance, it is about its being «placed» into
the framework of creativity, that is, of satisfying genuine human needs (instead of
producing for the sake of profit). The real result of creativity is not the production of
objectiveness, but of men playing being and society as a playing community in an
immediate form. The poetical does not only denote the nature of creativity, but also the
nature of the one who creates and of that which is created. To reach the level of one's true
human powers means to be a free man.
The question of genuine play as a concrete social (historical) phenomenon can be
posed only departing from the ruling destructive tendency of the development of the
world, in the context of the life‐creating praxis which is to win a new world. It is about the
libertarian play expressing the emancipatory heritage of modern society and the vision of a
future world – through the development of the playing being and man's need of another
man. This is what capitalism (by way of sport also) destroys: man's need of another man.
Life‐creativeness is the essence of a genuine praxis, while the creation of a human world
and ever greater certainty of its survival are its direct and most important result.


Herbert Marcuse:
«Liberating Transformation of Nature»


Speaking of Hegel's concept of freedom Marcuse says: „Hegel’s concept of freedom
presupposes consciousness throughout (in Hegel’s terminology: self‐conscious).
Consequently, the ‘realization’ of Nature is not, and never can be Nature’s own work. But
inasmuch as Nature is in itself negative (i.e., wanting in its own existence), the historical
transformation of Nature by Man is, as the overcoming of this negativity, the liberation of
Nature. Or, in Hegel’s words, Nature is in its essence non‐natural – ‘Geist’.“ (28) He
continues: „History is the negation of Nature. What is only natural is overcome and
recreated by the power of Reason. The metaphysical notion that Nature comes to itself in
 168

history points to the unconquered limits of Reason. It claims them as historical limits – as a
task yet to be accomplished, or rather yet to be undertaken. If Nature is in itself a rational,
legitimate object of science, then it is the legitimate object not only of Reason as power but
also of Reason as freedom; not only of domination but also of liberation. With the
emergence of man as the animal rationale – capable of transforming Nature in accordance
with the faculties of the mind and the capacities of matter – the merely natural, as the sub‐
rational, assumes negative status. It becomes a realm to be comprehended and organized
by Reason.“ (29) In capitalism the spirit by way of which nature acquires self‐conscious is
abolished by technique, which does not only have an anti‐spiritual (anti‐rational) but also
an anti‐existential character. It is a form in which the powers of nature are
instrumentalized in a capitalistic way and have become an anti‐natural power. The idea of a
«liberating transformation of nature» (30) acquires a concrete historical dimension only in
the relation to the process of the destructive capitalist «transformation» of nature. The
basic shortcoming of pure nature is not that it is non‐rational, but that it cannot prevent the
destruction of life on the earth. The «liberating transformation of nature» does not only
have a libertarian but, above all, an existential character. The basic condition of human
freedom and human survival is not man's liberation from nature, but man's liberation from
capitalism. To stop the natural forces from being instrumentalized for the sake of the
destruction of life (atomic bomb and other numerous means produced in the capitalist
laboratories of death; the development of technique which is based on the «destructive
productivity» /Marcuse/ and which is reduced to the destruction of nature and man ...), and
preservation of life on the earth by preserving nature as a life‐creating environment
through its humanisation – this is the primary task of mankind.
Writing on the domination of «technological rationality» in the «developed
industrial society» Marcuse concludes: „Their truth value depended to a large degree on an
uncomprehended and unconquered dimension of man and nature, on the narrow limits
placed on organization and manipulation, on the ‘insoluble core’ which resisted integration.
In the fully developed industrial society, this insoluble core is progressively whittled down
by technological rationality. Obviously, when cities and highways and National Parks
replace the villages, valleys, and forests; when motorboats race over the lakes and planes
cut through the skies – then these areas lose their character as a qualitatively different
reality, as areas of contradiction.“ (31) Marcuse's term «technological rationality», based
on the «physical transformation of the world», is but another name for the destructive
capitalist irrationality. The destruction of nature includes the destruction of the cultural
heritage of mankind created over thousands of years, and based on the organic link
between man and nature. Hence the preservation of the cultural heritage based on man's
life‐creating unity with nature is of primary importance for the development of man's life‐
creating conscious. Marcuse: „All joy and all happiness derive from the ability to transcend
Nature – a transcendence in which the mastery of Nature is itself subordinated to liberation
and pacification of existence. All tranquillity, all delight is the result of conscious mediation,
 169

of autonomy and contradiction. Glorification of the natural is part of the ideology which
protects an unnatural society in its struggle against liberation. (...) Civilization produces the
means for freeing Nature from its own brutality, its own insufficiency, its own blindness, by
virtue of the cognitive and transforming power of Reason. And Reason can fulfil this
function only as post‐technological rationality, in which technic is itself the instrumentality
of pacification, organon of the ‘art of life’. The function of Reason then converges with the
function of Art.“ (32) Marcuse overlooks that nature is by itself cultivating. Rousseau
speaks of the «skill of living» which a child will learn in nature that «calls him to a human
life». (33) The «brutality of nature» has an existential and life‐creating character, unlike
capitalism which is destructive – and to which the anthropological picture of man
corresponds: instead of being a «beast», man becomes a «(self) destructive“ being. In sport,
which mirrors the true face of capitalism, nature is not free from its shortcomings and
brutality, but becomes the object of exploitation and destruction. In it, the body, which is
man's immediate nature, becomes an opponent which should be beaten and used for the
sake of inhuman ends. Sport does not liberate man from his dependence on the body; it
«liberates» him from life.
In nature, the struggle for survival is the basis for the survival of the living world:
it is life‐creating. In capitalism, the struggle for survival is «overcome» by being turned into
the destruction of life. It is not based on the struggle for survival between people, but
between capitalist concerns, which means that it is not guided by the existential needs of
living beings, as is the case in nature, but by inhuman and antiexistential interests of
capital. It is not driven by poverty, but by the development of the «consumer society»
where the production and acquisition of goods becomes the way of destroying man as a
cultural and biological being, as well as of destroying nature. In capitalism, «nature ceases
to be the sheer nature» by being deprived of naturalness and reduced to a sheer object of
exploitation and destruction. Since capitalism destroys the natural brutality by destroying
nature, it is necessary to fight for its naturalization, which means for its liberation from the
capitalist destruction. Natural forces should be turned into the means for preserving and
humanizing nature. The liberating possibilities of nature lie in its life‐creativeness – in the
creation of living forms. Man is by his nature a life‐creating being and can be cultivated only
by respecting his life‐creativeness – as the integral part of nature. Only in nature can man
experience the fullness of his human being. The humanization becomes the development
(overcoming) of the original naturalness, and not its submission to a rational model, the
model of the «noble» and the like. Instead of man appearing as a form in which nature
acquires the possibility of being overcome by the «spirit», meaning of attaining the notion
of itself and of relating to itself, man should overcome his original natural life‐creativeness
(procreation) through the development of his playing being, which means that it should
become the basis for the totalization of the world. It is about the transformation of the
procreative into the life‐creating principle, and about the transformation of the life‐creating
into the universal creative principle.
 170

In capitalism, the instrumental and exploitive relation to nature is the basis of the
relation to the human body. It is not a harmonious part of the living nature which, as such,
should be respected; it is reduced to the object of processing and the means for achieving
inhuman ends. Instead of the working, sporting, technical, consumer and destructive body,
libertarian play should develop a creative (poetical) body and a variety of movements (skill
as a humanized movement) which will enable man to realize his creative personality. It is
not only about the fight for preserving the cultural heritage of mankind and man as a
cultural being; it is about the fight for the survival of man as a natural and playing being.
Libertarian play should enable the preservation and development of the emancipatory
achievements of physical culture which are being destroyed by the «technical civilization».
Instead of the naturalization of the body, which is reduced to a machine, we should strive
for the humanisation of man's natural being through the development of his playing being,
which means through a creative skill by which man is developed as a whole (physical,
intellectual, erotic, social) being. It is not about the humanization of technique by way of
art; it is about the humanization of man, which means about the development of his
universal creative being, which abolishes technique as man's relation to nature alienated
from him, and abolishes art as a separate social sphere. Instead of the relation between
social spheres alienated from man, which are the basic way of functioning of the «social
life», we should insist on the development of immediate relations between people as
emancipated playing beings. The world as an artistic creation – this is the purpose of the
fight for the future. By fighting for a new world, the whirl of the human will be created,
which will «suck» all that is alienated from man. Instead of Nietzsche's cosmic energy, life
which is alienated from man will start to flow in him again; instead of art being a means for
turning the cosmic energy into life, man's creative energy will become the basis for the
creation of a new – human cosmos.
Here, together with Marcuse, we could pose the following question: „In view of
what this standard has made of Man and Nature, the question must again be asked whether
it is worth the sacrifices and the victims made in its defence.“ (34)






 

 
 171

LIFE AS PLAY


Libertarian Play


Freedom is the essence of play. In a world in which there is no freedom, free play
is not possible. Only libertarian play – as an integral part of the social (political) movement
that tends to create the new world – is a possibility. It has a tendency to liberate man's
playing being by superseding the ruling relations and the repressive normative
confinement which are a part of the prevailing play‐forms that are in fact a way of letting
off the steam of non‐freedom, and as such represent "chain rattling". On the contrary,
regardless of its intention, play is being reduced to the creation of space for an illusory
"happiness" within the existing world, where man hopelessly seeks to discover his own
mislaid humanity – and sinks deeper and deeper into the mud of despair. Libertarian
physical culture does not campaign for "free play" but for free man, that is, for a new
society within which free play will represent the utmost (self) accomplishment of man as a
universal creative and free being. Genuine play is attainable solely by superseding the
existing world, that is, by totalizing the world through man’s libertarian and creative
practice, and in that context through the turning of life itself into a creation of his playing
being. One does not arrive directly from libertarian play to the genuine play through the
use of new forms of player proficiency, but by way of the society within which man has
achieved freedom. True play is a result of the libertarian struggle that generates the new
world.
The most important characteristic of libertarian play is life‐creativeness.
Destruction is a totalizing life power of capitalism; life‐creativeness is a totalizing life
power of man. As distinct from the animal which is unconscious natural life‐creating being
(procreation), man is a self‐conscious life‐creating being that creates its own world. The
essence of the animal’s life‐creativeness is determinism; the essence of human life‐
creativeness is freedom. Man’s playing being represents the anthropological basis of his
life‐creativeness, and play is the supreme form in which the life‐creative nature of man is
realized. The “major” religions have also acknowledged the life‐creativity principle.
Development of man’s self‐conscious as a creative being and creator of (his own) world
represents the basis for the theory of the world as a “divine creation”. “God” is a symbolic
incarnation of creative powers alienated from man, a manifestation of man’s independence
from nature and the placing of human powers “above” those of nature. By means of the idea
of “God”, man becomes an autonomous creative power and, in that sense, a specific
(unique) cosmic being: creation of the world is a conscious and wilful act. Historically, man
has been subordinated to the (real or imaginary) universe of a metaphorical and politically
 172

instrumental nature that serves as means for obtaining eternalness for the ruling order.
Human life‐creativeness is imaginary: creation of imaginary conscious becomes
compensation for depriving man of the ability to create the earthly world in his own image.
Capitalism has degenerated and instrumentalized man’s life‐creating powers: they now
serve to preserve the capitalist order that destroys both life and man as a life‐creating
being.
Libertarian play is guided by the spirit of life‐creating pantheism: all that lives and
creates possibility for life should become a unique life‐creating being struggling against
capitalism.
Libertarian play requires visionary conscious of a utopian nature. It represents the
supreme form of man’s change‐creating practice by which the objective possibilities of
freedom, established within a civil society, become realistic possibilities for man’s
liberation. This affirmation of man’s life‐creating powers is accomplished by the
surmounting of civilization’s barriers and diversions. The life‐creating power becomes the
basis of the self‐creation of both man and society as a community of life‐creating beings.
Man used to be a toy in the hands of “superhuman” powers; it is necessary that he become
a free playing being, while life in its entirety should become a form of affirmation of his
own playing nature. The basic relation, though, is not one of play – player, but of society as
a community of free men – man as a universal free creative being. The moment when man
becomes a self‐conscious and unique life‐creating being is when the true history of
humankind begins. Play per se does not contain what‐is‐yet‐to‐be, for this is not what
defines its utopian nature; it is a specificity of man as free self‐creating being: man is not
what he is but what he can be.


Space and Time


Man lives in inhuman time and in inhuman space. His attitude towards time and
space is given by the ruling order. In the contemporary world capital is the master of both
time and space. This goes for the capitalist determination of time, in a context of the
capitalist totalizing of the world by repressive and destructive commercialization (“Time is
money!”), which turns the world into a labour‐consumer concentration camp. An
“objectification” of time has taken place: time as a virtual or abstract phenomenon becomes
a power of destiny (“It’s a matter of time!”, “Time will tell!”…). The speed of capitalist
reproduction conditions the dynamics of social life. Using science and technique as means
for acceleration of the profit‐making process, capital increasingly “diminishes” human
existential and spiritual space and at the same time creates a growing gap between people,
one that is not measurable in meters, but in a feeling of loneliness and despair that has
 173

reached epidemic proportions. Acceleration of capitalist reproduction makes human time,

which represents the duration of life, run out more and more quickly.
“Measuring of time” in sports is a typical example of the instrumentalization of
“physical” time and space in order to overmaster man. In sport, space and time are given
dimensions, independent from man. This relates to closed space and to definitive time:
upon this ground, and within this framework, basic relationships and basic values of the
existing world are being reproduced. Sport is an area where quantitative and mechanical
“mastering” of time and space are most perceptible, one of the major features of “technical
civilization” used by capital to turn natural forces into a vehicle for the destruction of
human time and space. In sport, man exists outside of biological and historical (cultural)
time and finds himself in an area of mechanical time. “Sport time” is a phenomenal form in
which the process of capitalist reproduction pulsates: development of capitalism
conditions the “openness” of sport time and of sport space. This is the essence of record‐
mania. In sports where “competing against the chronometer” dominates, results are not
being measured only in minutes, but in seconds, tenths and hundredths of a second. From
the point of view of the development of human powers, such improvements are
nonsensical and of an abstract value for man. There is an endeavour to preserve the
dominant principle citius, altius, fortius at any cost, and, along with it, the belief in the
“progressive” nature of the ruling order. Consequently, the “history of sport” is being
reduced to a sequence of numbers that increase in a linear manner, and to which names of
un‐personalized “champions” are adjoined. Sport “progress” does not represent a moving
forward, but is reduced to limitless and increasingly intensive circular movement that
occurs on the sport track, which is supposed to halt history and hinder man’s striding away
from the existing world. The record is not an expression of the development of human
powers but represents a quantum of destruction of man as a biological and cultural being.
The “quality of play” is being measured by the quantity of occurrences per time unit
(points, passes, rebounds…). Spaces of some future time are not being developed in sports.
Instead, the ruling relations are being reproduced, at a higher quantitative level. A sports
spectacle represents a symbolic form of complete integration of man into capitalist time
and space. The Olympiads (the “holy” four‐year period ending with the Olympic Games)
represent a mythological time that annuls historical time in order to attain “eternity” for
capitalism: modern Olympic Games are a reincarnation of the “immortal spirit of antiquity”.
Motion through space is the basis of the (existential, libertarian, visionary)
relation of man to space, from whence a notion of space derives, as well as the creation of
the concept of space which surpasses the directly perceived and experienced living space,
and represents the ground for creation of the notion of “world” and of the existence of us,
humans, in it. It represents the basis of man's uniqueness and of his libertarian self‐
conscious. What differentiates human motion from mechanical and animal motion is the
fact that it requires a change‐aspiring relation towards the existing world and a moving
towards new worlds, which means that it possesses a creative, libertarian and visionary
 174

dimension. It is a historical motion ‐ the essence of which represents freedom measured by

development (accomplishment) of man's playing being and by an increased certainty of
human survival. Space is not a given fact that defines the framework of playing, neither is it
an emptiness in which the world exists. It represents a possibility of creation of a new
world and is, as such, a symbol of man’s openness towards the future. The creation of life
and life itself become inseparable contents of time, the "measure" of its "duration", of the
"boundaries" and of the "dimensions" of space.
Through playing, man ceases his existence in the given time and space and creates
his own (human) time and space. "Expansion of space" results from man's creative practice,
opening possibilities for the development of humanness. In authentic play, space is
limitless and time is endless. The challenge shifts from the variety of outer world forms
towards the richness of the inner, creative, interpersonal... Through playing, the duality of
the "outer" and the "inner" is abolished: genuine creativity represents a "transformation" of
the world into an experience of humanness. The real world is what man carries inside and
what he creates together with other men. In this sense play becomes "fascination", a sense
of life taken to the extreme – through experience based on the creation of life ‐ instead of
evasion as a compensation for a deprived humanness. The "duration" of playing time and
the "dimensions" of the space are conditioned by a flourishing of the senses and emotions,
by human closeness and creative life... "Comprehension" of humanness is the basic and the
sole authentic "dimension" of human time and space. It requires the annulment of all forms
that mediate between man and world, forms that transform the world into "otherness".
Attainment of man's playing being becomes the "source" of playing time and space. Playing,
which is the most authentic human mode for totalizing the world, becomes a
"metamorphosis" of historical time and space into "purely" human time and space, and, in
that sense, a specifically human universe. Fantasy represents an essential aspect of human
time and space, not as an escape from the existing world and daydreaming, but as a
projection of a future world and the creation of novum. It is, anyhow, a sort of time that has
no quantitative dimensions, no comparison that annuls all humanness. Man’s becoming a
human being is the authentic content and the authentic measure of human time.


Nature


With the expulsion of man from nature and the creation of a surrogate "natural
space" in the form of cities, halls, stadiums, shopping malls – physical movement loses the
uniqueness and steadiness that it can have solely within a natural environment, and
becomes a phenomenal form of the ruling relations. Libertarian play inclines towards a
genuine natural space. Instead of creating special spaces for physical exercise, the way it
used to be in antiquity (stadium, hippodrome, gymnasium, palaestra) which are assigned
 175

the status of cult sites where, through physical agonic activities, men tend to achieve a
harmony with the cosmic order and to elicit divine erotic enchantment – nature itself
should become a cult site where the life‐creating cult would be worshiped through life‐
creating activism that enhances the natural through development of man's playing being.
Genuine naturalness, in a word, authentic motion, is possible exclusively in nature, which
for man represents not only a physical, but also a historical, esthetical, living, and visionary
space – which means that nature is the sole space in which man can experience the
wholeness of his own natural, human, and historical existence. Nature “enters” man by
means of motion. When man steps into the water and starts swimming, this experience not
only sets the basis for other physical activities, but it also influences the development of his
senses and opens new spiritual spaces – which becomes the basis for the development of
the creative imagination; his perception of the possible is being completed through his
ability to move; he actively realizes a contact with nature and atones with his own natural
being. Richness of the inner life‐creating impulses can be experienced and refined in the
space where life thrives in innumerable and astonishing forms. Senses react to the
swinging of branches, the quivering of leaves, to the richness of sounds, scents, colours…
When he finds himself in a glade full of flowers or by a mountain stream, man finds out that
he is fascinated. A spontaneous, authentic human reaction: fascination ‐ reason accepts
with surprise and unease. Man does not disappear within the richness of natural forms and
motions, the way it happens to the animal; instead, he becomes a human being. His rapport
with nature occurs through personal experience that becomes a creative and motivating
inspiration contributing to the further enrichment of his personality. Man’s need for free
physical activism should be also comprehended as a need to go beyond the environment in
which he, as a man, is encumbered. In that sense man perceives a “return to nature” as
existence within a space that is neither given nor defined with artificial boundaries, but in
which he can, over and over again, create new horizons by means of his own physical and
spiritual activity. For man, natural space is at the same time spiritual space; physical
motion is at the same time spiritual motion. When human sight perceives mountaintops
protruding through the mist, this represents a symbolic “fusion” with the world that exists
“beyond”, and that becomes an imaginary space of desired humanness – the vision of which
is an inspiration for the creation of the new world, and not for escape from the existing one.
At the same time, a sip of fresh mountain water develops man’s longing for a life in which
he would exist at one with nature and, thus, with his own natural being. Nature as life‐
creating life, the thriving of life in an extreme variety of forms and the unity of all forms of
life – induces man to create life. Hilarity, fascination, exaltedness – these are all erotic
reactions stimulated by a stay in nature. When man’s senses are better developed he can
experience nature more intensively, absorb its scents, sounds, colours, motions, merge with
nature more completely and more intensively and be nourished by its power. Being in
unity with nature means being in unity with one’s own primary life‐creating powers.
Replenishing the power of nature represents an inspiration for creative activism, not for
 176

the adaptation of man to the established (life) rhythm. Living nature “never repeats, but
renews”. However, it does not represent a mere surrender to the rhythm of life which then
acquires an abstract, mystical aspect: man is the creator of his own world. Only when fear
of nature (through mastering its rules) is eliminated and the aesthetic sense (playing
being) developed, does man attain a chance to experience the richness of natural forms as
creative, libertarian inspiration. In authentic play man comprehends and experiences
himself as the utmost form of life‐creating natural being.
With animals adaptive‐existential activity dominates. In the course of the struggle
for survival, a qualitative jump occurred in the development of living creatures, in the form
of man: with the development of instincts, senses, physical mobility, and of the intellect, the
development of creative powers took place – which became the basis for the “detachment”
of man from nature and for setting up an active (change‐aspiring) relationship with nature.
While creating a civilization man has not developed his own playing nature “inherited from
animals”, but has developed his own specific playing being which continuously “breaks
through” the limits imposed on him, in the form of an established “play”, by the ruling
order. There is no continuity of animal play in the play of man. A similarity of behaviour
between some animal species and man does exist – based on which Huizinga made the
wrong conclusions. Through playing, man does not confirm his animal nature, but his
human nature – becomes man (unique personality), while the animal through “playing”
becomes an animal (a member of the species). Engendering (one’s own) freedom is the
essence of man’s play, unlike animal play where natural exigency is being reproduced.
Creation of play as a symbolic form, which as such represents the highest point of
humanness, provides human play with a special aspect. Apart from this, unlike animal play,
human play tends towards creation of new worlds, which means that it has a visionary
disposition. There is no “tenseness” between animal and civilization, upon which
philosophy of play insists; this “tenseness” exists between man’s libertarian and creative
nature and the repressive (destructive) capitalist civilization.
Man’s body represents his immediate nature, his elementary and natural
existence, and the basic possibility for his achieving a unity with nature, his “un‐organic
body” (Marx). A distinction should be made between civilizing and cultivating the body;
between disciplining and humanizing the body; between the repressive and the libertarian
pedagogy… In sport the body is civilized “by means of discipline”; libertarian physical
culture endeavours to humanize the body by means of cultivation: free physical
development requires free development of the personality. In sport, the body is moulded,
which means it is systematically mutilated in order to achieve the imposed prototype that
incarnates the principle upon which the ruling order is based. Sport and physical exercise
do not just nurture the body ‐ they nurture man. A relationship to the body is in effect a
relationship of man to other people, to the world and his own self as a man. Man as a
universally creative being “corresponds” to a creative body. Instead of acquiring skills for
performing certain motions (exercises), attaining abilities to create motions, the meaning
 177

of such a body and of such abilities as enable the articulation of a creative (playing)
personality of man – this represents one of the most significant challenges for libertarian
play. In playing, the dynamics of biological rhythm obtain a human, and consequently,
cultural, that is, libertarian (visionary) dimension. The rhythm of motion becomes a
spontaneous expression of man’s creative pulse and, as such, a non‐replicable indicator of
humanness, and its “sign mark”. In lieu of the ideal of strength, speed, rigor (which are
oriented towards the creation of a liege/performer nature and conscious that should
eventually bring about the turning of man into “lethal flesh” and a vehicle for destruction of
life) the challenge should shift towards mobility, softness, coordination, self‐control,
intention, spirituality, tremulousness, motion towards man and nature, harmonious
development of the entire body – which corresponds to man’s universal creative potentials
and to his human (individual) complexity. Creative mobility is a basic aspect of a healthy
body. It requires surpassing of the artistic motion as a way of producing artistic forms and
sensual effects (object, colour, sound…), and affirmation of the genuine playing motion that
represents a creation of humanness in an immediate form. Physical movement becomes an
expression of man’s playing nature, which means that its essence consists of man’s motion
towards another. Man’s relationship with his own body, as an immediate nature, is possible
exclusively by means of another human being.
Development of a universal creative body and of lavishness of motion is the basic
condition for development of mind, man's libertarian and creative personality – which is
one of the key objectives of the libertarian play. This represents an essential difference
between physical culture and sport, which requires an ever earlier specialization that
disfigures not only the body, but also the mind. Rousseau was one of those who perceived
the existence of the conditioning linkage between the development of sense‐based mobility
skills and the intellect. From there derives one of his most significant pedagogical
instructions: "Exercise incessantly his body; endeavour to make your scholar strong and
healthy, so that he can be clever and intelligent; let him work and act, let him run and
shout, in a word, let him be constantly in motion. Let him primarily be man per strength
and he will shortly be man per intellect." (1) In his developmental psychology Piaget has
indicated the fact that sense‐based mobility represents the first stage of the development of
the intellect: based on concrete action‐related operations the body attains knowledge that
represents the foundation of the whole of cognitive development. From there derives a
conclusion that stereotypical models of motion limit the development of intellect. Imposing
a defined model of behaviour at the same time represents the infliction of a defined model
of thinking (which means stereotyping and maiming the mind), but also of interpersonal
relations, the concept of the world and man’s position towards the world. This is most
clearly expressed in Coubertin's "utilitarian pedagogy" which represents a modern
Procrustean bed. It should not be forgotten that "physical education", which dominated in
the 20th century, was generated in the greyness of the military gymnasiums and was, thus,
limited to mere physical drill. Libertarian play represents an integral part of the overall
 178

culture of man as a universal freedom‐creating being. There is no cultivated body without a

cultural man – there is no free movement without a free man. The intention of libertarian
play is not to limit and deform man's instinctive actions through aggressive exercise, nor to
create valves for their release in the form of violent and destructive behaviour, but to help
those actions attain their refined expression while respecting man's individual personality.
It is, therefore, not a matter of developing a model of (physical) motion that should be
imposed on man, but of encouraging the creation of motions that would enable each
individual to express his own specific and non‐repeatable personality.
Creation and imitation should be distinguished. Like many other "naturalists",
Hebert rejected the emancipating heritage of the physical culture and reduced body
movement to behaviour imitation of the Brazilian Indians. Instead of humanizing the body
and the body’s movement through the cultural (emancipating) heritage of modern society,
"naturalizing" the body and its movement occurs through re‐introduction of "primitive"
movements which represent spontaneous expressions of its original naturalness, and are
not limited by any imposed stereotypes that destroy man's vitality – as happens with the
aristocratic and Christian physical cultures. What we have here goes for copying the
movements of the Indians, who are reduced to being "savages", taken out of their original
historical environment (living conditions, hunting, war, religion, customs...) and are, thus,
deprived of their cultural contents, and reduced to technical movements that are assigned
the dimension of "naturalness". Man cannot attain his own naturalness by imitating the
movements of animals or those of the natural environment, but by means of culture, in a
word, by means of a creative activity in which man’s concrete historical (social) movement
towards another man dominates. Instead of "melting into nature", where man loses
individuality, development of humanness, which corresponds with creative discontent,
should be the goal. Instead of immerging in the existing world, a new one should be
created.
The most immediate form of nature‐humanizing is body‐humanizing. Outdoing
the capitalist world, dominated by the dehumanization and denaturalization (robotization)
of man, requires humanization of man's natural being (which at the same time represents
his own naturalizing), in a word, liberation of the body (nature) from the destructive ruling
order, and asserting the humanized original natural motion aimed at man within which the
libertarian creative essence of man is being expressed. "Immerging in nature" is an illusory
opposite to "technical civilization". What occurs here, in fact, represents man's immerging
in the existing world at a "lower" level of civilization – the way it happens with physical
culture of the Far East where man as an emancipated personality, which, as such, in his
position towards the world, tends to create a new world in his own human (libertarian and
creative) image ‐ does not exist. "Naturalism" is an off course in a struggle against the
"technical world". The humanization of natural motion and not naturalizing of the technical
motion is what we are talking about here. "The liberating transformation of nature"
(Marcuse) requires artistic motion, and therefore a developed artistic being. Playing a
 179

violin does not merely require attained flexibility of the fingers, hand and arm (technique
of motion), but also a development of an artistic (creative) being. In that sense flexibility of
the human body requires a creative body: development of the aesthetic feeling represents
the basis for development of sense‐based motion. It is a matter of a natural motion
humanized by means of the emancipating heritage that forms man's cultural and, thus, his
playing being, and which manifests itself in a relation towards repressive (destructive)
behavioural forms imposed by "technical civilization". Play becomes the utmost form of
man’s "embracing" the world and his most immediate relationship towards his own natural
being, and also towards nature in general. Man does not "return" to his natural being by
means of play as a specific sphere, but through transforming of his entire life into a
humanized natural life: "humanization of nature" is achieved through totalizing the world
by means of man's playing being.
Regarding the relation between play, on one hand, and science and technique, on
the other, we are not advocating the establishment of parallel spheres, but bestowing on
science and technique an artistic nature which would enable them to become the means of
humanization of nature and of man's natural being. Rousseau's "return to nature" deals
with the notion of a "noble savage" in whose behaviour the principle homo homini homo est
dominates, and, consequently, so does the motion of man towards another man. Voltaire
ridicules Rousseau and fails to notice that his "noble savage" has a metaphorical quality
and represents a critique of the distorted aristocratic world deprived of naturalness and
humanness. In the same way Rousseau and the philanthropists formed their "alliance" with
nature in the struggle against the ancien régime, contemporary man should form an
"alliance" with nature against capitalism – only now the struggle is not merely for freedom,
but for survival.
In order to be able to humanize man's natural being by means of libertarian (life‐
creating) play, man's original natural motion should be identified and respected.
Libertarian play tends to enable such a passage from natural towards creative motion as
will not cause negative impact on the development of a personality and becomes a source
of frustration. This does not mean that man should return to the water, but that he should
have a notion of his own original natural motion, of the psychological and physical
consequences deriving from forced adapting of his system to concrete living conditions
(standing upright, walking on two legs…), and he should know what he must aspire in
order to be as close as possible to his own natural being. It is complete nonsense to assert
that man was in “unity with nature” a long time ago. In pre‐historical times man was
merely a part of the nature. In order to merge with nature man had to become a man, which
means a self‐conscious being capable of having a relation towards nature and, based on this
relation, to merge with it.
Man’s playing skills are the basic expressive option of his playing being, and
richness of expressive possibilities represents the basic precondition of the esthetic
(libertarian). It is grounded in the cultural heritage of mankind and represents the utmost
 180

form of the refined body motion. In libertarian play skill does not present itself as
independent from man, from the (objective) social sphere, but as a form of specific
(individual) human expression. Skill and the way of playing do not derive from play as a
separate social sphere that possesses its own mechanics of development and its own rules,
but from a spontaneous, creative relationship between men, where one man is another
man's inspiration for play. In this context the playing skills developed in sport (giving up
the ball, dribbling, etc.) can be productive. Genuine playing skills require annulment of the
technical sphere as an intermediary in fulfilment of man's playing potential, in the context
of annulment of institutional (repressive) intermediation between men. The range of
creative spirituality, opulence of sensuality and of interpersonal relations based upon
solidarity and tolerance – which means the fullness of man's playing being – this represents
the basis of the playing skills and playing manner. Instead of "motion control technique",
body, glance and vocal conversation should be introduced... The acquiring of skills through
(body) motion control requires development of human powers, of a rich and unique
individuality, and, thus, the fulfilment of individual predilections, and not the pushing
(destroying) of humanness into the background and adapting man to the "model citizen"
pattern. Genuine human motion is aimed at the whole lot that impedes man's overcoming
the existing world, that restricts, moulds, and degrades him... Development of playing skills
becomes an expression of the development of man's universal creative (playing) powers.
This represents the basis for the development of the creative physical activism that attains
its expression in physical mobility. Healthiness, spirituality, harmony of motion – all are
comprised in physical mobility as a supreme spontaneous play of nerves, muscles, tendons,
joints, heart, lungs... Genuine physical motion requires a genuine engagement of the
organism. This does not merely mean "the exerting of a large number of muscles", but a
harmonious activity of the entire system, from whence derives the "softness" of motion
which determines physical "elegance". The ideal of harmonious physical development
corresponds to man's creative universality. Man's prolific creative life should become the
basis for the development of his playing skills. No free and contented personality can exist
if man does not liberate his body and his motion from destructive capitalist civilization. The
supremacy of libertarian and creative (playing) motion should be established, and this
motion turned towards man and the living world (nature) that has no intermediary but
represents man's genuine necessity for other men. Development of playing skills is being
manifested as openness towards the future, as creation of novum, and not as
"improvement" of the playing model that represents a ritual expression of submissiveness
to the ruling order, within which man is being reduced to a mechanical doll. The most
important task of libertarian play is to enable physical motion, through the development of
man's artistic being, to become the playing motion by means of which man will attain
"unity" with himself as an undivided creative being, and society will become a playing
community. Schiller's position "education by means of art is education for art" is one of the
most significant postulates of the libertarian play, for education by means of libertarian
 181

play is education for the free society. Regarding the universal grammar of motion (skills), it
provides possibilities for establishing of a comprehensive approach to body exercise,
however, at the same time it enables creation of an artificial body language which is more
of a technical (strictly defined motions, repetition, "objectivity" of the form being
developed as an area alienated from man, space defined in advance...) than of a cultural
nature. Instead of assigning a defined model of body and motion, which is, in essence, of a
repressive nature, a spontaneous motion which is an expression of man's playing being
should be strived for: richness of motion is conditioned by richness of the playing
personality and by development of interpersonal relations.
Human motion cannot be perceived merely from a technical or organic (purely
medical) aspect. Not solely the body, but also man as a historical and social being plays a
part in the motion. The relation of man towards another man, the world, nature, the
future... is comprised in it. Giving up the ball is not an action of throwing an object from one
position to another that has an "objective" form and technical character, but is a humanized
(by means of cultural heritage) motion of one man towards another man and, as such,
represents establishing human community in an immediate form. This is what constitutes
its concrete historical (social) nature and endows it with a "soul". Play is not an immediate
relation of man to himself, but requires the existence of a playing community of
emancipated, creative personalities where the motion of man towards another man
dominates, and where homo homini mirrors humanness. Therefore, development of
interpersonal relations represents a conditio sine qua non of play. The playing disposition is
a potential human disposition that can be actualized exclusively within a community of free
and creative personalities. Play is a result but, at the same time, also a supreme
spontaneous form of man's self‐creation and a supreme mode for generating society as a
community of free people. The spontaneity of play requires an emancipated personality. If
this is lacking, the effort to express uniqueness leads towards extremism, narcissism,
aggression, destruction... Richness of personality is a basic precondition for opulence of
interpersonal relations and vice versa. Each new friendship opens up a new human space
inside man, develops his sense of humanness, in the same way a developed esthetic sense
provides opportunity for distinction in music or painting, experiencing and creation of an
abundance of tones, forms and colours. It is essential to develop a communal spirit while
developing, and not destroying, individuality. The immediate goal of libertarian play is not
to produce records, improve playing techniques, develop the play as a normative sphere
and create a healthy body, but to create a healthy society within which creative
personalities will be developed.
Man's need for another man is the basic quality of his life‐creating being.
Therefore, man's motion towards another man, as a humanized motion of a live being
towards another live being, represents the essential motion of man as a specific natural
being, and as such represents the basis of life‐creation. Eros, as a synthesized life‐creating
energy, is the most important source of man's motion towards another man, based upon
 182

which life as a playing act can be developed. Love play between man and woman is the
supreme form of play where the unrestricted playing being is expressed, in other words:
"production" of humanness in the most immediate form. It represents the supreme form of
humanization of man's natural being. Life‐creativeness represents the essence of erotic
union with the nature and basis of erotic play. Without it, enjoyment in the erotic
relationship is compensational, which means of an adaptive nature. Already in antiquity, in
the homosexual (paedophilic) relationship, sterilization of man's (society's) life‐creating
ability occurred, by means of partition of the erotic from the naturally reproductive
(fertile). In the homosexual relationship Eros loses its life‐creative disposition and turns
into an anti‐existential principle. Narcissistic, homosexual and lesbian Eros represent a
clash with man's natural life‐creativeness and, therefore, with the likelihood of the erotic as
a humanized natural relationship. The option of love play as the life‐creating play between
genders is being abolished, and the life‐creating sexual relation is being reduced to
technical fertilization of women – to technical production of children.


Play as a Form


Philosophy of play does not make a clear distinction between man's playing
nature, playing and play. Play is a form in which playing occurs and, as such, the way of
manifesting man's playing being. A distinction should be made between playing as
fulfilment of man's playing being (playing act) and play as behaviour in accordance with
the imposed norms. Play as a normative constraint has no tendency towards the
improvement of man and of interpersonal relations, but tends to reduce ("discipline") him
to the model of a usable citizen (subject). It is a matter of endeavouring to preserve the
ruling order and to reduce man to the "dimension" which corresponds to that order. The
ruling historical forms of play are behavioural forms deprived of humane (playing)
contents, alienated from man. They are reduced to a behavioural model that is in fact a
form of play in which the ruling relations are being manifested. Playing is reduced to the
endeavour most consistently to imitate the assigned model of play, of which the rules
should not be violated at any cost. Therefore, the play's "unchangeableness" becomes its
crucial feature. The ideal of "perfection", by means of which "cultural" legitimacy and
infinity of the ruling forms of play are provided, is reduced to the complete submission of
man to the rules of play, as well as to the imposed aesthetic pattern – which represents the
"stage set" of the ruling order. Man's longing for another man is being mediated by
relations that estrange man from other human beings and reduce him to the role imposed
on him. A typical example is the "sport play": it becomes a mechanism by means of which
man is made to express other men's non‐liberty. The intellectual sphere cannot be man's
compensation for the senseless life he lives; in the same way the love song cannot be a
 183

substitute for a lack of human closeness. Instead of endeavouring to define the notion of
genuine life, which always occurs as a response to false life, the genuine human life should
be lived.
Libertarian play does not strive for the creation of new forms of play, in a word,
for assigning a normative constraint, but for the development of man's playing being.
Specificity and irreplicability, which derive from the specificity and irreplicability of man as
a creative personality, dominate. Instead of the development of play as a separate social
area, we should have a propensity for development of the playing disposition "inside man"
and, on that basis, for establishing society as a playing community, where (potentially) each
form of human activity represents at the same time a form of expression of his playing
being. Libertarian play endeavours to annul the fragmented man that has been
decomposed in accordance with the requirements of the fragmented world, where the
requirement of "synthesis" is reduced to the development of technical expressions that
should impress with a lavishness of colour, sound and form and become a "compensation"
for an increasingly impoverished humanness. It is a matter of superseding the world
divided into the world of "misfortune" and the world of “happiness”, and a matter of
"restitution" of man's powers from alienated social spheres and of establishing the human
Ego as an integral source of man's relations towards the world as whole.
The form libertarian play does not represent a limitation, but an opening of
possibilities for development of man's playing nature and in that sense only one of the
expressions of his creative nature: the development of forms of play is an expression of the
development of man's creative (playing) powers. It is not an issue of the form as an
imposed pattern of behaviour, and in that sense an ideal of "perfection", but of the form as
a spontaneous and non‐replicable expression of the specific moment in the manifestation
of man as playing being which is symbolic of the libertarian and visionary. The "encounter"
of men by means of the pure (aesthetic) forms is a clash between soap bubbles. In a
repressive society play as a form represents a repressive normative confinement that
impedes the fulfilment of man's authentic playing being. The endeavour to get through to
the essence of humanness and to "catch" it by fixing human existence at the level of certain
forms, structures, spiritual formations – inevitably leads towards preservation of the world
in which such forms and structures are possible. The expression of play has to be of such a
nature as to enable man to realize his own playing being. Genuine creativity does not go for
the creation of playing forms, but for the enrichment of the human personality and
development of interpersonal relations. Play is neither a transcendental nor a trans‐
subjective, but an immanent and inter‐subjective phenomenon: it is an immediate
interpersonal relation and, as such, represents the supreme form of establishing a society
as a community of free persons, in a word, the creation of the humanum in the untainted
sense. Commitment to play means a struggle for the fulfilment of man's necessities and
abilities for play, and not just becoming skilled and imitating the imposed model of play –
which appears as the "supreme human challenge". Instead of play as "cultural form"
 184

representing the basic possibility of playing, there is man as a cultural (playing) being: the
authenticity of play is the expression of the authenticity of man. Play is not a criterion for
determining a playing disposition and playing, reduced to the transcendental normative
form, but the free realization of human playing (universally creative) powers. Play is the
supreme and the most immediate form of experiencing the world through creating it,
which means that it represents the most immediate and the most authentic form of man's
becoming human. In genuine play the dualism of the “being” (Sein) and the “ought” (Sollen)
has been dissolved. Nothing is earlier than man, above man or exterior to man. The so
called "universally human" does not exist outside of man any more (as an imposed or
transcendental sphere); it is no longer the image of the "man" for which man longs and
exclusively within which he can distinguish "his own (human) look" – but man as a free and
dignified person becomes the creator and the "image" of humanness. Instead of the
"perfection" model, the free man becomes a source of the aesthetic inspiration: freedom is
the substance of beauty. Schiller indicated the correct path: instinct for play is the instinct
for freedom. Playing turns into the awakening of the lethargic (deterred) playing being,
"enlivening" the senses, surmounting anxiety and shedding the snakeskin of the (petit)
bourgeois. Instead of giving vent to the deterred being, spontaneity in play requires
breaking through the barriers that constrain man. What develops the playing disposition is
not play per se, but humanness that develops as man faces limitations, misfortune, and
challenges imposed by life. A rich creative life is the basic precondition for the development
and enhancement of the playing being. Genuine play is the expression of an extended
horizon of the freedom achieved, an expression of enthusiasm for life, and the supreme
form of manifestation of man's life‐creating powers. Enjoyment in play derives from
contentment with the engagement of life; interpersonal closeness in play is possible
exclusively because of the closeness acquired in the process of struggle for a new world:
man's motion towards another man at the same time represents man's motion towards
new worlds. The actual result of playing is not play, but man enriched with spirit, emotions,
sensuality, and enhanced interpersonal relations. The completed experience of humanness
represents the "measure" of the richness of playing.
Libertarian play rejects a competition reduced to combat between people aimed at
preservation and development of the ruling order, and advocates outplaying (similar to
"outsinging" typical of traditional folk music) that in essence represents struggle against
the established order of destruction and development of man's universal creative powers.
In outplaying, man represents another man's inspiration, which means that man's motion
towards another man is dominant in it – which is possible exclusively based on man's need
for another man. In this context Rousseau's principle homo homini homo est attains its true
value. Outplaying requires endeavouring to supersede what has already been achieved (for
creation of the novum) through the development of interpersonal relations, and not
through clashes between people based upon the Social Darwinist principle bellum omnium
contra omnes and the progressistic principle citius, altius, fortius. The principles of
 185

domination and elimination have been abolished within it and replaced by the principles of
tolerance and solidarity, and all that creates life opposes whatever destroys life and
restricts freedom. Instead of striving for victory and records, outplaying calls for an
attempt to "enlarge" humanness and to create a new world. The key issue here is not how
much, but by what means – where the starting point for defining humanness is not the
repressive aesthetic stereotype that tends towards "perfection", but man himself.
Development of the "quality" of play requires development of rich individuality and of
interpersonal relations. In this context, the skills are not manifested in relation to man as
an independent ("objectivized") power (reduced to a dehumanized and denaturalized
"playing technique"), but as specific (individual) human expression. Outplaying in the
elements of play, where playing of one individual represents inspiration for the playing of
another (like in traditional folk dances, jazz, love play...) creates the possibility for everyone
freely to express his own playing being. Spontaneity, creativity, imagination – are
expressions of the playing uniqueness, as an originally human uniqueness.
A distinction should be made between man as play being, and man as playing
being. In the first case he represents an object, while play is the subject; in the second case
he is the subject, and play is a result of the fulfilment of his playing being. Huizinga's homo
ludens is not man‐player but man‐toy of superhuman forces. It is exactly the same with
antique and Christian man, as well as with Nietzsche's Übermensch: he is a toy of the cosmic
forces. With Fink and Gadamer the notion of play is being used to reduce man to a
phenomenological abstraction which is merely a masque behind which the concrete man,
reduced to a toy of capitalism, is hiding. The emancipated playing personality requires a
man as a unique life‐creating being, and as such a creator of his world – and, thus, a self‐
creator. Through playing, the playing disposition turns into play that becomes the basis for
identification of the limitations of playing and of the possibilities of its development.
In the capitalist world play is a vehicle for entangling the repressed working
"masses" into the spiritual orbit of the bourgeoisie and, therefore, attains a "classless”
determination – which is manifested in the well‐known maxim "sport has nothing to do
with politics". Libertarian play is not apolitical, but represents an inherent part of political
struggle against class society. As regards Nietzsche, he perceives in play a vehicle for the
creation of a "new aristocracy" in an exclusive organic (class) community. It is, instead, an
issue of creating an organic community of free creative personalities by means of play. The
new society cannot be created through play but through political struggle, however, there
is no true political struggle if, at the same time, it does not represent a struggle for the
liberation and development of man's playing being. Schiller's fascination with play was
directly encouraged by the French Revolution, which opened the gates for the new era.
Likewise with Goethe, Klopstock, Fait... The struggle of the oppressed and the awakened
and, in that context, the belief in man and in his ability to realize his libertarian being,
provides play with a meaning. Without the struggle for the free world play becomes
escapist and an empty form.
 186

Play as a Cosmic Phenomenon

Play is a specific cosmic phenomenon. It is the most authentic human way of
creating the human world, which means creating the new universe. In the act of playing,
the process of cosmic life‐creation attains a new quality – in which the specificity of man as
a cosmic being is expressed. In ancient Greece play is the basic cosmic phenomenon of a
divine (metaphoric) nature and, as such, represents a symbolic incarnation of the ruling
relations and values. It is the most original way for man to integrate into the cosmic order.
Man is the toy of the gods, and the world is their playground: the divine necessity for
playing ensures survival of the human world and provides it with a meaning. Modern man
is an emancipated cosmic being and, as such, the "nucleus" of the new universe. When man
becomes a self‐conscious libertarian being, play stops being a privilege of the gods and the
instrument for devaluing man, and turns into man's self‐creation and the creation of the
human universe. The essence of play is not determinism, which is fatalist in nature, but
freedom.
A stance regarding the universe is a projection of the stance regarding the earthly
living environment. In the contemporary world the prevailing stance regarding space
(universe) is based upon the expansionist spirit of capitalism. By means of
instrumentalized science and technique a "break" into the universe is going on in order to
"conquer" it. Capitalistically degenerated science has the same stance regarding the
universe as it has regarding the Earth: the universe has been reduced to an object of
exploitation. The position of the "extra‐terrestrials" towards the Earth is a projection of
capitalistically degenerated man's attitude towards the universe. Technique, based upon
the quantity principle that corresponds to the ruling principle of capitalist reproduction
(augmenting of profit), turns into the destruction of human life‐creativeness as a specific
form of cosmic life‐creativeness. "Conquering the universe" becomes a vehicle for obtaining
a legitimacy in the endeavour to supersede "traditional humankind" and to create the new
(master) race of "cyborgs" that will be able to "compete" with the "intelligent machines"
and to "conquer" the universe. At the same time, the myth of the "conquest of the universe"
is being used for preservation of the myth of the "progressive nature" of capitalism, which
is being identified with the conquest, and for creation of an illusion that technical
development would ensure the survival of mankind. The way the Europeans were
"discovering" the new continents, contemporary man will be “discovering the new worlds
and populating them”. The Earth is not man's cosmic home that needs to be preserved; it
turns into a springboard for the “conquest of space”. The "conquest of space" project is
based upon an assertion that the Earth will "certainly collapse", which contributes to a
fatalistic surrender to destructive capitalist craving. The possibility that capitalism will
destroy life on Earth is far more certain than the possibility that life on Earth will disappear
– in five or ten million years. It is an issue that opens, by way of a cosmologic concept, the
 187

possibility of establishing a critical distance from the ruling order of destruction and
towards creation of the new world: the stance towards the universe should function as a
defence of life on Earth and of the development of humanness. The issue of the survival of
humankind will be resolved on Earth, and not in space. Instead of "conquering of space" a
clash with capitalism must take place in order to prevent the destruction of life on Earth.
The prevailing position towards reality, dictated by dehumanized science and
technique, does not permit man to comprehend the essence of his own human existence,
and, therefore, the essence of the world he lives in, and the essence of the universe. Ancient
peoples were closer to the cosmic essence of man than the contemporary (petit) bourgeois,
for they were, in spite of ignorance, prejudices, mythical conscious – guided by symbols of a
holistic nature: for them the issue of the universe was the issue of man. Contemporary man
possesses an incomparably wider knowledge, however, the way and manner of attaining
this knowledge deprive him of comprehensive humanness without which he can neither
ask the right questions nor provide the right answers. The more man knows about the
universe, the more remote is the possibility for him to experience his own cosmic essence.
Instead of human questions, man asks technical ones imposed on him by capitalistically
degenerated science and technique – which mutilate man and annihilate the possibility for
him to ask the significant human questions. Also, "primitive" man was conscious of what
freedom and slavery were, in contrast to the "average" modern (petit) bourgeois who,
being stuck in the nothingness of "consumer society" and the television screen that offers
compensation in the form of an illusory world, has lost the notion of freedom. Capitalism
deprives man of his natural cultural being and transforms him into a technical vehicle for
the employment of assets – a walking mechanical corpse.
Development of man as a cosmic being is not possible on the basis of (mechanical)
cosmic rules or by means of technical control of time and space, for they transform man
into a mechanical (lifeless) "being", but only by means of a quality that provides a
possibility for a "union" with the universe – in which the cosmic essence of man is included.
The universe that is being created by man is not comparable with the vastness of the
cosmos. It has a qualitative, not a quantitative, dimension. Man's attitude towards the
universe, which means his attitude towards himself as a cosmic being, cannot be
established by means of technique, but by means of the aesthetic that can enable man to
supersede the quantitative dimension of the universe and reach (his own) cosmic essence.
It is an issue of relating to the universe by means of symbols that enable man, as a life‐
creating being, to experience the universe. By means of those symbols the phenomenal
form of the universe can be superseded and his very essence can be reached – by means of
which a dualism of the earthly and the cosmic existence of man is being abolished. In that
context a possibility is being created for the notion of "God" as the one, which supersedes
the infinite quantum of the universe (the endless lot), where it is not an issue of "God" as a
superhuman force, but of "God" as a constantly new, increasingly splendid product of the
creative powers of man that represents a symbolic incarnation of the "unity" of man with
 188

his own cosmic essence. "God" becomes man's host in his own cosmic home. A new
clarification of the notion of "God the Son" is needed: man's life‐creating power represents
an autonomous cosmic force that enables man – as a unique libertarian being ‐ to be a
creator of his own, which means of the new universe.
Man's "conquest of outer space" is being achieved through development of his
playing being. This is an issue of a specific human cosmic dimension – creative freedom and
sociable disposition – which means, it is of a new cosmic quality upon which space and time
that have no quantitative dimension, are based. In the physical universe, the passage of
mechanical time is measured by movement through space; in the human universe, the
passage of historical time is measured by the development of man's creative powers, and
eventually by his freedom. The physical universe is regulated by relations between celestial
bodies (particles); the human universe is regulated by relations between human beings.
Physical time is characterized by quantitative (linear) temporality; historical time is
characterized by qualitative changes. Human existence represents opposition to the cosmic
laws of motion which destroy quality and reduce everything to the lowest (energy related)
level (entropy). The cosmic life‐creativeness is fatalistic: all that is being originated
eventually disappears. Human life‐creativeness is productive: all that man creates becomes
a (potential) basis for creation of the new. Solely man is capable of creating something new,
of being the demiurge of the new world.
Man will not "enter" the universe through a hole bored by a science alienated
from him. Telescopes and space sounds do not direct man towards his cosmic being; play
does: the development of man's playing being is a path that leads towards the development
of his cosmic being. The key is not in the "conquest" of cosmic vastness, but in the
development of spiritual richness and of interpersonal relations. It is an issue of
"transformation" of the outer quantity into a human quality, of a "metamorphosis" of
physical space through a widening of human space, which is not attained by means of
technique, but by means of play. Cosmic space merely appears to be open. The openness of
cosmic space is preconditioned by the openness of man, which means by the development
of his creative powers. Fullness of man's creative being is what fills the cosmic vastness. A
thought, a song, a painting, an embrace – tell more about the essence of man as a specific
cosmic being than do all the "space programs" combined. Finally, man's stance towards the
universe is a depiction of his stance towards his own self. The issue of infinity should be
resolved in a manner that provides possibilities for man's self‐confirmation as a life‐
creating being. Man's unlimited creative powers are the "measure" of infinity: the
enhancement of humanness represents widening of the boundaries of the new universe.
The essence of the physical universe is determinism; the essence of the human universe is
freedom. By means of freedom infinity attains an authentic, in a word, a human dimension.
The occurrence of man is the only truly cosmic occurrence; man's becoming human is the
only truly cosmic process.

 189

Life as Play


In ancient Greece, the entire life of the Hellenic people was filled with agonistic
activities performed as a ritual service. It is a similar case with Christianity and other
"great" religions: life is of a liturgical nature. In capitalism, the spirit of victory, based upon
Social Darwinism and progressism (elimination by means of victory that attains a better
result/record), represents a totalizing power that conditions man's life, the nature of the
body, of motion. The “sportivization” of society is a process by which the total domination
of man by the ruling order is established.
Not only play, but also the very approach to it is being dehumanized.
"Bewilderment" dominates this development, for play as a form is being mediated by
dehumanized and denaturalized spheres to such an extent that it is becoming a vehicle for
the degeneration and destruction of humanness. Time, space, technical means... have been
instrumentalized in it. Man is always present in a defined (assigned) time and space where
the dynamics of the destruction of humanness (life) become more and more intense behind
a masque of "elegance", "clarity", "functionality", "efficiency", "precision", "harmony", etc.,
in a word, through a spectacular act that makes the basic values of the ruling order non‐
aesthetic (non‐erotic). Where, in the contemporary world, the authentic position of
humanness is given, man appears as a fly in the spider’s web. Aspiring towards genuine
play is not a theoretical project, but an issue of concrete political struggle. It requires the
development of critical conscious about the existing world – perception of the objective
possibilities for creation of a new world and for development of the playing self‐conscious
as a libertarian and creative self‐conscious; demystification of the present serves as an area
where people will discover joy; development of interpersonal relations, of the artistic
disposition, orientation towards nature, towards the emancipating heritage of humankind,
development of the visionary conscious... Instead of play as a form, the objective aspired to
should be liberation of man's playing being; instead of a tendency towards escapism and
"distraction", the key motive of the player should be man's life‐creating necessity for
another human being. Development of spontaneity does not require development of a
normative conscious, but rather the development of comprehensive humanness. Liberation
of man's playing being is the most important immediate task of libertarian play. This
represents its specificity, as a form of libertarian struggle, compared to other forms of
struggle. Freedom is a reasonable desire, and the awareness of a necessity is an
indispensable, but insufficient, precondition for freedom. Genuine freedom does not consist
of the possibility of choice between what man can and cannot do, but between what he can
– and wants or does not want to do. It is not based upon knowledge of the world, but upon
the experience of man.
 190

The endeavour to create genuine play is not an expression of the hope to establish
a separate social sphere that exists "parallel" to the "world of worry" (like Fink's "oasis of
happiness"), where man will futilely try to fulfil his playing needs and powers, but is rather
an expression of the endeavour to create a truly human world where life itself represents
the realization of man's playing being. A critique of established play (world) is not the
expression of an aspiration for "free play", but of an aspiration for life that manifests itself
as the fulfilment of the universal creative (playing) powers of man as an emancipated
member of the human community. For libertarian physical culture play is not a separate
area of life, but represents the entirety of human living within which man strives to realize
himself as a playing (libertarian/creative) being. Since living is understood as a series of
interpersonal relationships, we are referring here to a totalizing man who interacts with
other people proceeding not from separate areas of life (work, science, philosophy, play...)
but from fundamental humanness: man's life‐creating need for another human being
represents the basis of man's motion towards another man. Life as play requires the
abolishment of man's duality as a social being and a "player", which means that man, as a
concrete social being, has realized his own playing being – which represents his original
social being. The playing sensitivity is the supreme form of the realization of the sense of
humanness, that is, man's ultimate and most complex ability to experience another human
being. It requires not only a creative body, but also a (life) creative motion. The self‐
production of man as a playing being is the highest human act and requires the (self)
production of the society as a community of free creative personalities. Man's need for
another human being, from where derives man's original playing motion towards another
man, represents a genuine motif for play and the authentic basis for establishing of a
society as a human community: homo homini is a mirror of humanness.
The significance of playing is not in the production of objectiveness or form, but in
the immediate development of humanness. The abundance of playing forms becomes the
opulence of genuine interpersonal relations. By means of playing man’s creative being is
fulfilled in such a way that a need for artistic expression, as a compensation for non‐
expressed (non‐fulfilled) humanness, is superseded. From the sphere of production of
works of art by isolated individuals, who discharge their own desire for humanness
through their works, play establishes the immediate relations between people, within
which the opulence of man’s playing (creative) being is realized. Play, as an interpersonal
relationship, requires an emancipated man for whom “the freedom of each represents the
basic precondition for the freedom of all” (Marx). This does not refer to people who know
what “freedom” signifies, but to those who experience other people as their brothers, in
every sense of the word. Play is the supreme form of performing humanness – the utmost
human act of which the immediate result is a contented man. The attempt to preserve
“humanness” in a form of normative confinement, or artistic form, is an expression of
disbelief that freedom is possible at all. Replacement of the “imperfect” normative
conscious with a “perfect” one does not imply the creation of the “perfect” man. The
 191

normative sphere is not the one that should be changed. The sphere of fundamental
interpersonal relations, that is, the ruling order, should be changed.
In the world that turned out to be fulfilled humanness it is futile to establish
normative criteria upon which human existence is to be determined. In it, there is no more
dualism of approach to man in which the real and the ideal world are contained, which
means that a model of man – a projection of life alienated from man, has been abolished. In
a society where man is genuinely happy it is absolute nonsense to determine the ideal of
“happiness”: life itself becomes the fruition of the ideal of humanness. In the same way, the
“aesthetic sphere” which counters the non‐aesthetic (ugly) world, is being abolished.
Instead of the endeavour for “perfection”, that is for a constrained world, development of
unconstrained humanness becomes the supreme challenge. This requires the abolition of
separate spheres, including the sphere within which the novum is sought. For libertarian
play homo homini represents the supreme challenge and is, as such, a mirror of humanness,
and not an idealized (abstracted) “man” that represents an incarnation of the “future”
society for which struggle is waged. Therefore, not an aspiration towards “the future” as an
abstraction, not even as a real utopian project that confronts the existing world on an
intellectual level and turns into a certain normative idea of the future, but the life‐creating
necessity of one man for another man, that is being developed as a response to an
increasingly dramatic destruction of life, becomes the basis of creative life that represents
the creation of the future. In play, what man can be is being fulfilled: man’s becoming a
human being is the criterion of genuine progress. Only when the development of his
playing being becomes the “measure” of humanness will the real development of man’s
universal creative powers occur – the one that today we can merely foretell. The
“tenseness” of which Marcuse speaks, will always exist, for man will always strive to be
more than he is, for he will always have a critical/transformation‐aspiring attitude towards
the world in which he lives trying to create a new, better one. However, the nature of this
“tenseness” will be conditioned by fulfilment of two key preconditions of freedom: freedom
from natural imminence (natural forces overcome) and freedom of man from man
(abolition of class society and of exploitation). The third precondition for freedom still
remains, liberation of man’s universal creative powers – which will dominate in the future
society and which requires humanization of nature and development of interpersonal
relations. “Tenseness” in play does not result from the development of the theoretical mind,
but from man’s endeavour to realize his own freedom and his own creative universality –
through the superseding of forms of play in which limitations imposed on man by the
existing order are manifested. Aspiration towards play, in its essence, represents
endeavour for the free expression of humanness; basically, it is the supreme form of
determination for being man – creation of humanum in an elemental form. Freedom,
creativity, humanized naturalness and sociability – these are the characteristics of playing,
in a word of playing and of play. Man’s authentic nature is a genuine origin of authentic
play.
 192

With the introduction of automation, conditions are being established for

abolishing repressive and degenerating work‐related activities, and for instituting creative
work that offers opportunities for the development of man’s playing being and, thus,
possibilities for refinement of man’s natural being. On the basis of creative work, which can
only result from libertarian struggle, and cannot represent a mere consequence of the
development of technical processes, division of work between intellectual and physical, as
well “private” and “public” zoning, in a word, the institutionalized political powers
alienated from man ‐ can be eventually abolished. When the rule of creative work is
instated the most important causation for dual perception of the world as the “world of
worries” (labour, suffering, misfortune), and the “world of happiness” (illusory “play”)
disappears. Work becomes not only the “primary life necessity” (Marx), but also the
primary human necessity, and play ceases to be a compensatory activity and becomes the
supreme form of man’s spontaneous creative self‐realization and the supreme form of
interpersonal closeness. Only when work stops being an activity where man is alienated
from himself as a creative and libertarian being; when the dualism of homo faber and homo
ludens is abolished with a creative man; when creative work becomes affirmation of human
freedom: only then can man’s playing being be liberated from all forms of compulsions –
only then does true play become possible. It is an issue of the attainment of “unity”
between the playing being, playing and play – in a free, spontaneous and creative
endeavour, that is, of play as a realization of the playing disposition through a creative
effort – through comprehensive self‐creation of man (human community). With creative
work man renders not only his own existence, but at the same time generates himself as a
creative and social being. Creative collectivism represents the basis of playing collectivism.
Instead of the martial contests that dominate sport, life‐creating competition
should be introduced, based upon outplaying, where there are no winners and no
vanquished, and where a physically, emotionally, spiritually and intellectually enriched
man is being created. A consequence of outplaying is not the removal of the “weak” and the
triumph of the “strong”, but a humanized man, an individual who experiences his own self
in his own way, developing his own individuality. Instead of immerging inside himself, man
should aspire towards the enrichment of the contents of interpersonal relations. This is
exactly where the apex of the genuine life creating practice that generates a society as a
human community is being manifested – with man’s turning into a human being. Life as
play means that creation of interpersonal relations is the supreme manifestation of the
playing disposition: man’s social being becomes his fulfilled playing being. Play represents
the making of the society as a playing community in the most immediate sense, which
means that living becomes an artistic act, and life a work of art. The joy of creative
fulfilment, attaining true respect through companionship (playing) is manifested in an
attitude towards “ecstasy” which is, in the existing world, the supreme form of exhibition of
slavery as an imitation of “spontaneity”. Physical and spiritual activism, without which no
play exists, requires creative effort: creative activism determines the rhythm of play. It is
 193

aimed at establishing and developing interpersonal relations and represents the basis for
attaining (self) respect. Play turns into midwife skills – delivering humanness through
creative effort, that is, through the most immediate form of man’s self‐creation. The
specificity of play as creativeness is in its being based upon man’s spontaneous,
unconditioned and unmediated necessity for another human being. Genuine play is based
upon authentic love developed in a creative (libertarian) exaltation, unlike petit bourgeois
love which originates in the context of struggle for money and power where, rather than
human symbols, status symbols which incarnate prevailing values are dominant. The
development of a necessity for man, true belief in man, opening new spiritual spaces,
development of creative personality – these are all inducements for genuine play. Homo
homini becomes the supreme challenge, instead of being reduced to a vehicle for fulfilment
of pathological “needs” imposed by capitalist civilization. The experiencing of man always
reappears as an option of the new, more complete, more beautiful… Human nearness
becomes the source of life’s warmth. Co‐living has no temporal and spatial dimension, only
a human one. Instead of being an escape from nothingness, play becomes an eruption of
unrestrained humanness.
Through playing, the world is being abolished as outer‐human reality and
becomes man's self‐existence. The variety of the outer world forms is not a challenge
anymore but is being replaced by the opulence of the inner, the interpersonal... The world
is what man carries inside himself and what he can establish together with other people.
Authentic creativeness is "transformation" of the outer world into an experience of human
intensity, happiness... Instead of the world of misfortune as a negative basis for play, which
is, therefore, an expression of a hopeless attempt to escape from the society, the world of
happy people will become the ground and inspiration for the development of a rich playing
personality. Genuine play is not merely man's supreme intellectual relation with the world;
it does not only represent man's self‐knowledge and self‐expression, but also his self‐
creation, and is, as such, the most comprehensive form of experiencing the world. No more
will man live in a world he refers to as something (im) posed and outer‐human (alien).
Instead, he will perceive the world as his own creation, in a word, as his manifested (and
not "infested") humanness. This is not an issue of simulated totalizing of the world by
means of simple subjectivism, as is the case with romanticism, but of totalizing the
libertarian (creative) activism of which the main "product" is a society as a community of
free people. Playing becomes the supreme form of "appropriation" of the world by man,
which eventually represents the "appropriation" of himself with "no residue". Man will not
attain "unity" with the world through labour, technique, play, art... – but will make the
world: creation of the world will become man's self‐creation; "unity with the world" will
become "unity" of man with another human being. The development of man as a universal
free creative being and the enhancement of interpersonal relations will become the
"measure" of development of the world. Life itself will become the supreme symbol of
humanness.
 194

In the world of freedom the real value will be attributed to poetic expression,
which will also imply the body‐talk. In that sense, not language, but play becomes the
supreme form of establishing human society. Instead of living the life of the chosen, as it is
with Nietzsche, the acme of life will represent living life as free, creative people; instead of
the aristocratic class as an organic community united by parasitism and by existential fear
of the labourers, the supreme challenge will be the society as an organic community of free
creative personalities; instead of the need to suppress repressive normative confinement
and the repressive aesthetic canons (by means of which the elitist class status is
determined), man's need for the other as a physical and spiritual being will dominate;
instead of the child's subordination to repressive normative stereotypes, the child's
education by means of living life as free creative personalities will become the basic
pedagogical principle... It is an issue of superseding the "fragmentized" and of attaining the
"synthetic" man who represents a unity of Apollonian and Dionysian, that will not
represent a privilege of the "new nobility", as it is with Nietzsche, but the basic human
right.
Man has nowhere to return to. He has to build the home that he never really
possessed. In pre‐Socratic times man did not exist in his own world, but in the world of
gods who temporarily assigned him their own powers so that he could entertain them. In
contrast to antiquity, where man could not be at one with being, in the world of today
possibilities exist for man to reach being. Man's becoming a human being and the creation
of being represent the same process: man's self‐creation becomes the self‐creation of being.
True history will begin when man's playing being becomes the indisputable source of his
own life. In the beginning there was play.

x x x

 195

NOTES

Sport and Cult


(1) Bertrand Rasel, О obrazovanju i vaspitanju, 91.p. Klub NT, Beograd, 1996.
(2) In : “Historia”, Numero 595, 53.p.
(3) Jeger Verner, Paideia, 159.p. Književna zajednica Novog Sada, 1991.
(4) Compare : Maurice Merleau‐Ponty, Fenomenologija percepcije, V.Masleša, Sarajevo,1990.
(5) Herbert Marcuse, One‐Dimensional Man, 246. p. Beacon Press, Boston, 1964.


Sport and Culture


(1) Л.П.Матвеев, Основи обшчеи теории спорта и системи подготовки спортсменов, 12.p,
Олимпийская литература, Kиев, 1999.
(2) Max Horkheimer, "Nouveaux modeles dans les relations sociales", "Les Cahiers de l’IRSA", no
2, février 1988, p.23‐34.
(3) Ernst Bloch, Das Princip Hoffnung,Gesamtausgabe, Band 5, Kapitel 33‐42, 524, 525.p.
Suhrkamp Edition, Frankfurt am Main, 1977.
(4) Max Horkheimer, "Nouveaux modeles dans les relations sociales", "Les Cahiers de l’IRSA,
no2", février 1988, p.23‐34.
(5) Max Horkheimer, Theodor Adorno,Dijalektika prosvjetiteljstva, 11.p. Veselin Masleša‐
Svjetlost, Sarajevo, 2.izdanje, 1989.
(6) Ibid, 155.p.
(7) Max Horkheimer, "Nouveaux modeles dans les relations sociales", "Les Cahiers de l’IRSA",
no2, février 1988, p.23‐34.
(8) Max Horkheimer,“Die Sehnsucht nach dem ganz Anderen“, Furche‐Verlag, Hamburg, 1971,
84.p. Ein Interview mit Kommentar von Helmut Guminior.
(9) Max Horkheimer, Theodor Adorno, Dijalektika prosvjetiteljstva, 6.p.
(10) Ibid, 20, 21.p.
(11) Ibid, 21.p.
(12) Ibid, 47.p.
(13) Ibid, 9.p.
(14) Ibid, 39.p.
15) Danko Grlić, Estetika III, 43, 44.p. Naprijed, Zagreb, 1974.
(16) In : Sreten Petrović, Umetnost i simboličke forme, 136.p. Veselin Masleša‐Svjetlost,
Sarajevo,1989. Cursive I.К.
(17) Compare : Immanuel Kant, Pädagogik, In : Kants Werke, IX Band, 449. 450.p. Walter‐de‐
Gruyter,Berlin,1968.
(18) Milan Kangrga, Predgovor, Immanuel Kant, Kritika praktičkog uma, 8.p. Naprijed, Zagreb,
Cursive M.K.
(19) Ibid,
 196

(20) Compare : Carl Diem, Weltgeschichte des Sports, I‐II, Cotta Verlag, Stuttgart, 1971; Mangan
J.A. and Roberta J.Park (Ed.), From "Fair Sex" to Feminism, Frank Cass, London, 1987.; Мага
Maгазиновић, Историја игре, 187.p. Просвета, Београд, 1951; Francoise et Serge Laget /
Jean‐Paul Mazot / Elizabeth Foch, Le grand livre du sport feminin, SIGEFA, Belleville.
(21) Мага Maгазиновић, Историја игре, 187.p. Просвета, Београд, 1951.
(22) In : Мага Магазиновић, Историја игре, 177.p. Compare : I.D.
(23) Ibid, 177.p.
(24) Compare : Мага Магазиновић, Ibid, 178.p.
(25) Ana Maletić, Pokret i ples, 20.p. Zagreb, 1983.
(26) Ibid, 21.p.
(27) In : Аna Маletić, Pokret i ples, 81.p.
(28) Ibid, 176.p.
(29) Ibid, 27.p.
(30) In : Аna Маletić, Pokret i ples, 111.p.
(31) Мага Магазиновић, Телесна култура као васпитање и уметност, "ПроФемина", бр. 5‐
6, Зима‐пролеће, 1996, Увод, 189.p. Cursive М. М.
(32) Аna Maletić, Pokret i ples, 54.p.
(33) Мага Магазиновић, Историја игре, 196.p.
(34) In : Ana Маletić, Pokret i ples, 60, 161.p.
(35) Ibid, 73.p.
(36) Ibid, 21.p.
(37) Ibid, 42.p. Cursive А.М.
(38) Ibid, 177.p.
(39) Ibid, 176.p.
(40) Ibid, 72.p.


Sport and Philosophy


(1) Eugen Fink, Osnovni fenomeni ljudskog postojanja, 293.p. Nolit, Beograd, 1984.
(2) Ibid, 293.p.
(3) Ibid, 294.p.
(4) Eugen Fink, Oaza sreće, 15.p. "Revija", Osijek, 1979.
(5) Eugen Fink, Оaza sreće, 16.p.
(6) Жан Кокто, Дневник непознатог, ”Видици”, 3‐4 1981. Cursive Ж.К.
(7) Eugen Fink, Osnovni fenomeni ljudskog postojanja, 294, 295.p.
(8) Eugen Fink, Oaza sreće, Ibid, 10.p.
(9) Eugen Fink, Osnovni fenomeni ljudskog postojanja, 298.p.
(10) Eugen Fink, Оaza sreće, 23.p.
(11) Eugen Fink, Osnovni fenomeni ljudskog postojanja, 337.p.
(12) Compare : Fink, Osnovni fenomeni ljudskog postojanja, 340.p.
(13) Милан Узелац, Филозофија игре, 71.p.
(14) Compare : Eugen Fink, Оsnovni fenomeni ljudskog postojanja, 334.p.
(15) Еugen Fink, Oaza sreće, 14.p.
(16) Еugen Fink, Оsnovni fenomeni ljudskog postojanja, 296.p.
 197

(17) Ibid, 297.p.

(18) Žan‐Pol Sartr, Biće i ništavilo, II том, 568.p. Nolit, Bgd, 1983. Cursive Ž‐P.S.
(19) Ibid,
(20) Žan‐Pol Sartr, Kritika dijalektičkog uma, 2.knj. 465.p. Nolit, Bgd, Cursive Ž‐P.S.
(21) Ibid, I књига, 17.p.
(22) Rože Kajoa, Igre i ljudi, 35.p. Nolit, Beograd, 1979.
(23) Ibid, 35.p.
(24) Herbert Мarcuse, Čovjek jedne dimenzije, 21.p. V. Masleša, Sarajevo, 1968.
(25) Ibid, 82.p.
(26) Ibid, 74.p.
(27) Ibid, 34.p.
(28) Theodor W.Аdorno, Мinima moralia, 160, 161.p. V. Masleša, Sаrajevo, 1987.


Sport and Art


(1) Compare : Jürgen Habermas, "Soziologische Notizen zum Verhältnis von Arbeit und Freizeit,
In : H.Plessner / H.E.Bock / O.Grupe (Hrsg.), Sport und Leibeserziehung, 28‐46.p. Piper,
München, 1967.
(2) Max Horkheimer, Theodor Аdorno, Dijalektika prosvjetiteljstva, 96.p.
(3) Ibid, 148, 149.p.
(4) Ibid, 170.p.
(5) Pierre de Coubertin, "Pedagogie sportive", Cursive P.d.C.
(6) Christopher Lasch, The Culture of Narcissism, 63, 64.p. Warner Books, New York, 1979.
(7) Ibid, 194, 195.s.
(8) Johan Hojzinga, Jesen srednjeg veka, 106, 107.p. Matica srpska, Novi Sad, 1991. Cursive
Lj.S.
(9) Ibid, 71.p.
(10) Blacking John, How Musical is Man?, 44.p. Sixth printing, University of Washington Press,
Seattle and London, 2000.
(11) Ibid, 116.p.
(12) Ibid, 115.p.
(13) Ibid, 115,116.p.


Sport and Pedagogy


(1) In : Jack Scott, The Athletic Revolution, 21.p. The Free Press, New York, 1971.
(2) Pierre de Coubertin, “The Philosophic Foundation of Modern Olympism”, In : Pierre de
Coubertin, The Olympic Idea, 131.p. Discourses and Essays, Carl Diem Institut, Ed, Pub. and
Copy by Karl Hofmann Verlag, Schorndorf bei Stuttgart, 1966.
(3) Žan‐Žak Ruso, Emil ili o vaspitanju, 120.p. Valjevo‐Beograd, 1989.
(4) Žan‐Žak Ruso, Еmil, 122.p.
(5) Max Horkheimer, Theodor Аdorno, Dijalektika prosvjetiteljstva, 247, 248.p.
 198

(6) Compare : Еrnst Bloch, Das Prinzip Hoffnung, 33‐42 Kapitel, First part, 524.p.
(7) Fridrih Šiler, O lepom, 136.p. Kultura, Beograd, 1967.
(8) Žan‐Žak Ruso, Emil ili o vaspitanju, 250.p.


Sport and Labour


(1) Ljubodrag Simonović, Sport, kapitalizam, destrukcija, 8‐43.p. "Lorka", Bgd, 1995.
(2) Herbert Markuze, Kultura i društvo, 127, 128.p. BIGZ, 1977.
(3) Ibid, 126.p.
(4) Ibid, 126,127.p. Cursive H.М.
(5) Theodor Adorno W, Freizeit, Stichworte, 65.p. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt a.M, 1969.
(6) In : К.Маrx‐F.Еngels, Dela, 6. књ, 400.p. Просвета, 1974.
(7) Friedrich Engels, "Напредак покрета за социјалну реформу на Континенту",
К.МарxФ.Енгелс, Дела, 4.књ,13,14.p. Просвета, Београд, 1968. Cursive Ф.Е.
(8) К.Маркс, Основи критике политичке економије, К.М.‐Ф.Е, Дела, 20.књ.79. p.
(9) К.Маркс, Основи критике политичке економије, I том, In : К.Марx‐Ф. Енгелс, Дела, 19.
књ. 420.p. Просвета, Београд, 1977.
(10) Charles Fourier, Civilizacija i novi socijetarni svijet, 244.p. Š.K, Zagreb, 1980.
(11) Ibid, 161.p.
(12) Ibid, 85.p.
(13) Ibid, 161.p. Cursive Š.F.
(14) Ерих Фром, Здраво друштво, 180. p. Rad, Beograd, 1963.
(15) Milan Каngrga, Praksa, vrijeme, svijet, 423.p. Cursive М. К.
(16) Herbert Маrcuse, One‐Dimensional Man, 241.p. Beacon Press, Boston, 1964.
(17) Compare : Карл Маркс, "Инструкције делегатима Привременог централног већа", In :
К.Марx‐Ф.Енгелс, Дела, 27.књ.157,158.p. Просвета, Београд, 1979.
(18) Михаило Марковић, Рад, праxис, игра, "Тhеоriа", 3, 1983, 119.p. Curs. М.М.
(19) Milan Кangrga, Praksa, vrijeme, svijet, 64.p.
(20) Ibid, 65.p.
(21) Ibid, 55.p. Cursive М.К.
(22) Karl Маrx, Кapital, III том, 682.p. K.M.‐F.E, Dela, Prosveta, Bgd, 1977.
(23) Herbert Маrcuse, One‐Dimensional Man, 240, 241.p.
(24) F.Еngels, Аnti‐Dühring, К.Маrx‐F.Еngels, Dela, 31.том, 224.p.
(25) In : Петар Живадиновић, Од филозофије до политике, 14, 15.p.
(26) Herbert Мarcuse, One‐Dimensional Man, 37.p.
(27) Ibid, 16.p.
(28) Ibid, Fus. 236.p.
(29) Ibid, 236, 237.p.
(30) Herbert Marcuse, Čovek jedne dimenzije, 222.p.
(31) Ibid, 66.p.
(32) Ibid, 238.p. Cursive H.М.
(33) Compare : Žan‐Žak Ruso, Еmil, 17.p.
(34) Herbert Marcuse, One‐Dimensional Man, 242.p.

 199

Life as Play


(1) Žan‐Žak Ruso, Emil, 112.p.




BIBLIOGRAPHY




Aristotel, Politika, Kultura, Beograd, 1970.

Armytage W. H. G, "Thomas Arnold's Views on Physical Education", "Physical
Education", Vol.47 / 1955.

Adorno W. Theodor, Freizeit, Stichworte, Suhrkamp Verlag, Frankfurt a.M, 1969.

Adorno W. Theodor, Minima moralia, Veselin Masleša, Sarajevo, 1987.

Adorno V. Teodor, Estetička teorija, Nolit, Beograd,1979.

Brohm Jean‐Marie, Corps et Politique, Editions universitaires, Paris, 1975.

Brohm Jean‐Marie, Sociologie politique du sport, Ed. universitaires, Paris, 1976.

Brohm Jean‐Marie, Le Mythe olimpique, Christian Bourgeois Ed, Paris, 1981.

Bohme / Gadow / Guldenpfennig / Jensen / Pfister, Sport im Spätkapitalismus,
Limpert Verlag, Frankfurt a.M, 1972.

Burkhart Jakob, Povest grčke kulture, IV том, IK Z. Stojanovića, Novi Sad, 1992.

Burkhart Jakob, Kultura renesanse u Italiji, Dereta, Beograd, 1991.

Buytendijk F.J.J, Wesen und Sinn des Spiels, Kurt Wolff Verlag, Berlin, 1933.

Bošnjak Branko, Filozofija i kršćanstvo, Stvarnost, Zagreb, 1986.

 200

Bulonj Iv‐Pjer, Olimpijski duh Pjera de Kubertena, Narodna knjiga, Bgd, 1984.

Boulongne Yves‐Pierre, "Pierre de Coubertin. Ein Beitrag zu einer
wissenschaftlichen Untersuchung seines Lebens und seines
Werkes", In : Die Zukunft der Olympischen Spiele, Hrsg. Hans‐
Jürgen Schulke, Pahl‐Rugenstein, Köln, 1976.

Bleking Džon, Pojam muzikalnosti, Nolit, Beograd, 1992.

Blacking John, How Musical is Man?, Sixth printing, University of Washington Press, Seattle
and London, 2000.

Bernett Hajo, Nationalsozialistische Leibeserziehung, Karl Hofmann Verlag,
Schorndorf bei Suttgart, 1971.

Bernett Hajo, Sportpolitik im Dritten Reich, Karl Hofmann Verlag, Schorndorf bei Stuttgart,
1971.

Bloch Ernst, Das Princip Hoffnung, Werkausgabe, Suhrkamp Edition, Frankfurt am
Main,1977.

Bloch Ernst, Oproštaj od utopije?, Izdavački centar Komunist, Beograd, 1986.

Coubertin Pierre de, The Olympic Idea, Discourses and Essays, Carl Diem Institut
Ed., Pub. and Copy by Karl Hofmann Verlag, Schorndorf bei Stuttgart, 1966.

Coubertin Pierre de, Textes choisis, I‐III t, Comité International Olympique,
Weidmannsche Verlag, Zürich, 1986.

Coubertin Pierre de, Un Programme, Imprimerie Chaix, Paris, 1887.

Coubertin Pierre de, L ' Evolution Francaise sous la Troisième République, E.Plon
ed. Paris, 1896.

Coubertin Pierre de, L ' Education en Angleterre, Hachette ed. Paris, 1888.

Coubertin Pierre de, "La Force Nacionale et le Sport", Revue des Deux Mondes,
1902. Tome Septième.

Coubertin Pierre de, Essais de Psychologie Sportive, Lausanne, 1913.
 201

Coubertin Pierre de, Lecons de Pédagogie sportive, Edition La Concorde
ed. Lausanne, 1921.

Coubertin Pierre de, Où va l ' Europe?, Les Editions G. Gres et Cie, Paris, 1923.

Coubertin Pierre de, Olympische Erinerunngen, W. Limpert Verlag, Berlin, 1936.

Caillat Michel / Jean‐Marie Brohm, Les dessous de l 'olympisme, Ed. La Decouverte, Paris,
1984.

Ćirić Aleksandar, Igre u Olimpiji, "Vreme knjige", Beograd, 1996.

Đurić Miloš, Ogledi iz grčke filosofije i umetnosti, Savremenik sprske književne
zadruge, Beograd, 1936.

Đurić Mihailo, Humanizam kao politički ideal, Srpska književna zadruga,
Beograd, 1968.

Descartes Rene, Philosophical Writings, Random House, Toronto, 1958.

Diem Carl,Olympische Flamme, Utscher Verlag, Berlin, 1942.

Diem Carl, Weltgeschichte des Sports, I‐II, Cotta Verlag, Stuttgart, 1971.

Diem Carl, Wesen und Lehre des Sports und Leibeserziehung, Weidmannsche
Verlag, Berlin, 1960.

Diem Carl, Der Olympische Gedanke, Reden und Aufsätze, Carl Diem Institut Ed,
Köln, 1967.

Dunning Eric, ''Social Bonding and Violence in Sport : A Theoretical Empirical Analysis '', In :
Jeffrey H. Goldstein (Ed.), Sports Violence, Springer Verlag, New York, 1983.

Dil Pol, Simbolika u grčkoj mitologiji, IZ Zorana Stojanovića, Novi Sad, 1991.

Eichberg Henning, Der Weg des Sports in die industrielle Zivilisation, Nomos
Verlag, Baden‐Baden, 1973.

Edwards Harry, Sociology of Sport, Dorsey Press, Illinois, 1973.
 202

Elias Norbert / Eric Dunning, Sport et civilisation, Lib. Fayard, 1994.

Frojd Sigmund, Uvod u psihoanalizu, Kosmos, Beograd, 1964.

Frojd Sigmund, Nelagodnost u kulturi, Rad, Beograd, 1988.

Fromm Erich, Anatomija ljudske destruktivnosti, Naprijed, Zagreb, 1973.

From Erih, Zdravo društvo, Rad, Beograd, 1963.

From Erih, Bekstvo od slobode, Nolit, Beograd, 1973.

Francoise et Serge Laget / Jean‐Paul Mazot / Elizabeth Foch, Le grand livre du sport
feminin, SIGEFA, Belleville.

Fink Eugen, Spiel als Weltsymbol, W. Kohlhammer Verlag, Stuttgart, 1960.

Fink Eugen, Oaza sreće, "Revija" 12, Osijek, 1979.

Frankl E. Viktor, Nečujan vapaj za smislom, Naprijed, Zagreb, 1981.

Fourier Charles, Civilizacija i novi socijetarni svijet, Školska knjiga, Zgb, 1980.

Fuko Mišel, Istorija seksualnosti, I‐II, Prosveta, Beograd, 1988.

Fukujama Frensis, Kraj istorije i poslednji čovek, CID, Podgorica, 1997.

Grupe Ommo, Leibesubung und Erziehung, Lambertus Verlag, Freiburg im
Breisgau, 1959.

Grupe Ommo, "Philosophisch‐antropologische Grundlagen des Sports", In : Hans
Lenk, Simon Moser, Erich Beyer (Hrsg.), Philosophie des Sports, Karl
Hofmann Verlag, Schorndorf bei Stuttgart, 1973.

Guldenpfennig Sven, "Tendenzen in der Sportsoziologie", "Soziologische Revue",
Jahrgang 7, 1984.

Guttmann Allen, The Games Must Go On, Columbia University Press, 1984.

 203

Guttmann Allen, From Ritual to Record, Columbia Uni. Press, New York, 1978.

Gramši Antonio, Problemi revolucije, BIGZ, Beograd, 1973.

Gadamer Hans Georg, Istina i metoda, Veselin Masleša, Sarajevo, 1978.

GutsMuths, Gymnastik für die Jugend, Schneppenthal, 1793.

GutsMuths J. F, Turnbuch für die Sohne des Vaterlandes, Frankfurt a.M, 1817.

Grlić Danko, Estetika, I‐III, Naprijed, Zagreb, 1974.

Gombrih E.H, Umetnost i iluzija, Nolit, Beograd, 1984.

Goeldel Peter, Begov Franz, "Die Leibeserziehung in den pädagogischen

Bestrebungen von der Aufklärung bis zur Reformpädagogik",
In : Einfuhrung in die Theorie der Leibeserziehung, Hrsg. Ommo
Gruppe, Karl Hofmman Verlag, Schorndorf bei Stuttgart, 1973.

Gardiner Norman, Athletics of the Ancient World, Clarendon, Oxford, 1930.

Horkheimer Max /Adorno Theodor, Dijalektika prosvjetiteljstva, Veselin Masleša‐
Svjetlost, Sarajevo, 2.izdanje, 1989.

Horkheimer Max, "Nouveaux modeles dans les relations sociales", "Les Cahiers de l’IRSA", no
2, février 1988.

Habermas Jürgen, "Soziologische Notizen zum Verhältnis von Arbeit und Freizeit",
In : Sport und Leibeserziehung, Piper, München, 1967.

Habermas Jürgen, Problemi legitimacije u kasnom kapitalizmu, Naprijed, Zagreb, 1982.

Huizinga Johan, Homo ludens, Matica hrvatska, Zagreb, 1970.

Hojzinga Johan, Jesen srednjeg veka, Matica srpska, Novi Sad, 1991.

Hargreaves John, Sport, Power and Culture, Polity Press, Oxford, 1986.

Hoch Paul, The Rip off the Big Game, Doubleday, London /New York, 1972.

Huserl Edmund, Ideja fenomenologije, BIGZ, Beograd, 1975.

 204

Haug Volfgang Fric, Kritika robne estetike, SSO Srbije, 1981.

Hopf Wilhelm, Kritik der Sportsoziologie, LIT Verlag, Münster, 1984.

Hobbes Thomas, Leviathan, Reclam, Stuttgart, 1976.

Hobbes Thomas, Naturrecht und allgemeines Staatsrecht in den Anfangsgrunden,
Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, Darmstadt, 1976.

Hadas Moses, Helenistische Kultur, Ullstein, Wien, 1981.

Harris H. A, Sport in Greece and Rome, Cornel Uni. Press, New York, 1972.

Hauser Arnold, Sociologija umjetnosti, I‐II, Školska knjiga, Zagreb, 1986.

Hebert Georges, Le sport contre l ' éducation physique, Vuibert, Paris, 1925.

Heidegger Martin, Sein und Zeit, Max Niemeyer Verlag, Tübingen, 1977.

Heidegger Martin, "Über den "Humanismus"", In : Heidegger Martin, Platons Lehre von der
Wahrheit, Francke Verlag, Bern und München, 1975.

Jeger Verner, Paideia, Književna zajednica Novog Sada, 1991.

Jahn Friedrich Ludwig, Die Briefe Fridrich Ludwig Jahns, Paul Eberhardt
Verlag, Leipzig, 1913.

Jahn Friedrich Ludwig, Die Deutsche Turnkunst, Berlin, 1816.

Jakobi Paul, "Theologische Überlegungen zur Menschenwürde im Sport ‐ am
Beispiel der Olympischen Spiele", In : Paul Jakobi / Heinz Egon – Rosch (Hg.),
Sport und Menschenwürde, Matthias‐Grünewald ‐Verlag, Mainz, 1982.

Klein Michael (Hrsg.), Sport und Körper, Rowohlt, Reinbek bei Hamburg, 1984.

Krockow Christian, Sport und Industriegesellschaft, Piper, München, 1972.

Krockow Christian, Eine Soziologie und Philosophie des Leistungsprinzips, Hoffman und
Campe, Hamburg, 1974.

 205

Krüger Arnd, Sport und Politik, Fackelträger Verlag, Hannover, 1975.

Kofler Leo, Beherrscht uns die Technik?, VSA Verlag, Hamburg, 1983.

Kerković Aleksandar, Filozofi o telu i duhu, SX Print Copy, Niš, 2004.

Кокто Жан, Дневник непознатог, "Видици", 3‐4, 1981.

Kant Imanuel, Kritika moći suđenja, BIGZ, Beograd, 1975.

Kant Immanuel, Kritika praktičkog uma, Drugo izdanje, Naprijed, Zagreb.

Kant Immanuel, Pädagogik, Kants Werke, Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, 1968.

Kajoa Rože, Igre i ljudi, Nolit, Beograd, 1979.

Kuhnl Reinhard, Der deutsche Faschismus in Quellen und Dokumenten, Pahl
Rugenstein, Zweite Auflage, Köln, 1977.

Kangrga Milan, Praksa, vrijeme, svijet, Nolit, Beograd, 1984.

Kejn Dž. E. (priredio), Psihologija i sport, Nolit, Beograd, 1984.

Lenjin V. I, Imperijalizam kao najviši stadij kapitalizma, Moskva, 1946.

Lasch Christopher, The Culture of Narcissism, Warner Books, New York, 1979.

Lenk /Moser/ Beyer (Hrsg.), Philosophie des Sports, K.Hofmann, Schorndorf, 1973.

Lenk Hans, Werte, Ziele, Wirklichkeit der modernen Olympischen Spiele, Karl
Hofmann Verlag, Schorndorf bei Stuttgart, 1964.

Lucas Gerhard, Kritischer Beitrag zur olympischen Idee, Dissertation, Halle, 1950.

Lefebvre Henri, Kritika svakidašnjeg života, Naprijed, Zagreb, 1988.

MacAloon J. John, This Great Symbol, Uni. of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1984.

Mandell Richard, The Nazi Olympics, Souvenir Press, London, 1972.

 206

McIntosh Peter, Physical Education in England since 1800, Bell and Sons, London, 1968.

Malter Rudolf, Der "Olympismus" Pierre de Coubertin's, Hrsg. Carl‐Diem‐Institut, Köln,
1969.

Marks Karl‐Engels Fridrih, Dela, Prosveta, Beograd, 1977.

Maгазиновић Мага, Историја игре, Просвета, Београд, 1951.

Maletić Ana, Pokret i ples, Zagreb, 1983.

Marković Mihailo, Humanizam i dijalektika, Prosveta, Beograd, 1967.

Marković Mihailo, "Rad, praxis, igra", "Theoria", 3, 1983.

Marcuse Herbert, Um i revolucija, Veselin Masleša, Sarajevo, 2.izdanje, 1987.

Markuze Herbert, Kultura i društvo, BIGZ, 1977.

Marcuse Herbert, Čovjek jedne dimenzije, Veselin Masleša, Sarajevo, 1968.

Marcuse Herbert, One‐Dimensional Man, Studies in the Ideology of Advanced Industrial
Society, Beacon Press, Boston, 1964.

Marcuse Herbert, Estetska dimenzija, Školska knjiga, Zagreb, 1981.

Marcuse Herbert, Eros i civilizacija, Naprijed, Zagreb, 1965.

Mangan J. A, Plesaure, Profit, Proselytism, Frank Cass, London, 1988.

Mangan J. A. / Park J.Robert (Ed.), From "Fair Sex" to Feminism, Frank Cass,
London, 1987.

Матвеев Л. П, Основи обшчеи теории спорта и системи подготовки
спортсменов, Олимпийская литература, Киев, 1999.

Mor Tomas, Utopija, Kultura, Beograd, 1964.

Merleau‐Ponty Maurice, Fenomenologija percepcije, Veselin Masleša‐
Svjetlost, Sarajevo, 1990.
 207

Malinowski Bronislaw, Freedom and Civilization, Greenwood, Westport, 1976.

Nitobe Inazo, Bušido, Samostalno izd.Borislav Stanić, Beograd, 1986.

Niče Fridrih, Sumrak idola, Grafos, Beograd, 1988.

Niče Fridrih, Volja za moć, Prosveta, Beograd, 1972.

Niče Fridrih, Tako je govorio Zaratustra, Oktoih, Podgorica, 1998.

Plessner Helmuth, "Soziologie des Sports", "Deutsche Universitäts Zeitung",
Nr. 22 / 1952, Nr. 23 / 24/ 1952.

Plessner Helmuth, "Spiel und Sport", In : Sport und Leibeserziehung, Piper,
München, 1967.

Pestalozzi Johann Heinrich, Ausgewählte Schriften, Ullstein, Frankfurt / M, 1983.

Pindar, Ode i fragmenti, Matica hrvatska, Zagreb, 1952.

Plato, The Collected Dialogues of Plato, Princenton Univesity Press,
Seventh Printing, 1973.

Prokop Urlike, Soziologie der Olympischen Spiele, Hanser, München, 1971.

Petrović Sreten, Umetnost i simboličke forme, Veselin Masleša, Sarajevo, 1989.

Rigauer Bero, Sport und Arbeit, LIT, Münster, 1979.

Rigauer Bero, "Leistungssport als Arbeitsleistung", In : Richter Jörg (Hrsg.), Die
vertrimte Nation oder Sport in rechter Gesellschaft, Rowohlt Verlag,
Reinbek bei Hamburg, 1972.

Riordan James, "Marx, Lenin and Physical Culture", "Journal of sport history", vol.3, nr.2,
1976.

Riordan James, Sport in Soviet Society, Cambridge Uni. Press, Cambridge, 1980.

Rebac‐Savić Anica, Helenski vidici, Srpska književna zadruga, Beograd, 1966.
 208

Rebac‐Savić Anica, Predplatonska erotologija, KZ Novog Sada, 1984.

Ruso Žan Žak, Emil ili o vaspitanju, Valjevo‐Beograd, 1989.

Rousseau Jean‐Jacques, Lettres philosophiques, J.Vrin, Paris, 1974.

Ruso Žan‐Žak, Društveni ugovor / O poreklu i osnovama nejednakosti među
ljudima, Prosveta, Beograd, 1949.

Reich Wilhelm, Masovna psihologija fašizma, Drugo izdanje, "Mladost",
Beograd, 1981.

Rasel Bertrand, O vaspitanju i obrazovanju, Klub NT, Beograd, 1996.

Russell Bertrand, Authority and the Individual, Unwin Paperbacks, London, 1977.

Starobinski Žan, Žan‐Žak Ruso : Prozirnost i prepreka, IZ Zorana Stojanovića, Novi Sad,
1991.

Sartr Žan‐Pol, Biće i ništavilo, Izabrana dela, Nolit, Beograd, 1983.

Sartr Žan‐Pol, Kritika dijalektičkog uma, Izabrana dela, Nolit, Beograd, 1983.

Simonović Ljubodrag, Olimpijska podvala „božanskog barona“ – Pjera de Kubertena, Treće
dopunjeno (autorsko) izdanje, Beograd, 1994.

Simonović Ljubodrag, Sport, kapitalizam, destrukcija, "Lorka", Beograd, 1995.

Simonović Ljubodrag, Filozofski aspekti modernog olimpizma, "Lorka", Beograd, 2001.

Simonović Ljubodrag, Philosophy of Olympism, Pub. by the author, Belgrade, 2004.

Симонович Любодраг, Олимпизм и „новьiй мировой порядок“, „Лорка“, Белград,
2000.

Šiler Fridrih, O lepom, Kultura, Beograd, 1967.

Scherer Karl Adolf, 100 Jahre Olympische Spiele, Harenberg, Dortmund, 1995.

 209

Teichler Joachim Hans, "Coubertin und das Dritte Reich", "Sportwissenschaft",

12 / 1, 1982.

Uzelac Milan, Filozofija igre, Književna zajednica Novog Sada, 1987.

Veyne Paul, "Pourquoi Olympie", "Agone", Numero 11, 1993.

Vassort Patrick, "Sport et philosophie critique", "Les Cahiers de l ‘IRSA", no 2,
février 1988, 83‐105.p.

Veblen Thorstein, The Theory of the Leisure Class, The MacMillan Company, New York,
1911.

Vinnai Gerhard, Fussballsport als Ideologie, Europäische Verlagsanstalt,
Frankfurt, 1970.

Vinnai Gerhard, "Leibeserziehung als Ideologie", In : Vinnai Gerhard (Hrsg.), der Sport in
Klassengesellschaft, Fischer Taschenbuch Verlag, Frankfurt a.M. 1972.

Wohl Andrzej, Die gesellschaftlich‐historischen Grundlagen des bürgerlichen
Sports, Pahl‐Rugenstein, Köln, 1973.

Windelband W, Heimsoeth H, Povijest filozofije, I, II, Kultura, Zagreb, 1957.

Zurovac Mirko, "Metafizika tijela", "Theoria", 3, 1983.




x x x