271

Journal of the Philosophy of Sport, 2010, 37, 271-291© 2010 Human Kinetics, Inc.

The author <pawlenka@web.de> is with the Dept. of Philosophy, Heinrich Heine-University Duesseldorf, Duesseldorf, Germany.

Philosophy of Sport in Germany: An Overview of its History  and Academic Research

Claudia Pawlenka

In Germany, philosophy of sport is still a young discipline which developed in the 20th century as a result of the growing significance of sport in society. Whereas the academic discussion in Germany which took place in the founding phase of the disci-pline in the early 1970s had much in common with that conducted in the Anglo-American academic community thanks to such integrative figures as Hans Lenk and Gunter Gebauer, who hosted the international conferences held in Germany by the Philosophic Society for the Study of Sport (PSSS)1 in the early 1980s and the 1990s, the transnational dialogue abated almost completely in the following years.2 As a consequence, philosophy of sport in Germany underwent a development of its own and acquired its own profile. The specific characteristics of German philosophy of sport are not rooted so much in any cultural particularities of sport practice, as is the case for bicycling in the Netherlands or hunting and cricket in England, for example, but rather in regional philosophical traditions established by such philosophers as Wittgenstein, Plessner, Nietzsche, Kant and Hegel.3

In order to give the reader an overview of the historical development and current status of research in philosophy of sport in Germany, relevant exemplary publications will be presented in the following and treated firstly in terms of their genesis, sec-ondly in the context of current trends and tendencies, thirdly from the perspective of differences and commonalities between the German and the Anglo-American aca-demic discussion, and fourthly concerning status and degree of institutionalization. Lastly an outlook on future developments will be given.

1. Origin and History of Philosophy of Sport in 20th-Century Germany

It is difficult to date the beginnings of sport-philosophical thought in Germany; it depends on one’s understanding of the term ‘philosophy of sport.’4 In a wide sense of the word, isolated contributions to the field were made in the early 20th century by renowned German philosophers like Theodor W. Adorno, Karl Jaspers, Ernst Bloch, Max Scheler and Helmuth Plessner (14). In a narrower sense of the word,

272    Pawlenka

German philosophy of sport developed in the 1960s when a monograph by Hans Lenk entitled Values, Goals and the Reality of Modern Olympic Games (Werte, Ziele, Wirklichkeit der modernen olympischen Spiele) (64) was published. It is viewed as the “inaugural text of German philosophy of sport” (16: p. 71). Philoso-phy of sport was not institutionalized until twelve years later, with the founding of the Division of Philosophy of Sport (Sektion Sportphilosophie; 1976) under the umbrella of the German Association of Sports Science (Deutsche Vereinigung für Sportwissenschaft; DVS). Having published the first two volumes of articles on philosophy of sport, Philosophy of Sport (Philosophie des Sports) (65) and Cur-rent Problems of Philosophy of Sport (Aktuelle Probleme der Sportphilosophie) (67), Hans Lenk is viewed—like Paul Weiss with his monograph Sport: A Philo-sophic Inquiry (103) for the Anglo-American world—as the founder of German philosophy of sport in the sense of an explicit and systematically pursued disci-pline. After these publications came out, further standard works on the topic and “milestones” in the development of German philosophy of sport appeared, the volume of essays by Gunter Gebauer entitled The Topicality of Philosophy of Sport (Die Aktualität der Sportphilosophie) (36), Jürgen Court’s Sport in Focus—Philosophical Analyses (Sport im Brennpunkt—philosophische Analysen) (21), Herbert Haag’s Philosophy of Sport: a Handbook (Sportphilosophie. Ein Handbuch) (56) and Volker Caysa’s Philosophy of Sport (Sportphilosophie) (14).

In the almost 40-year history of German philosophy of sport in the 20th cen-tury, almost all aspects which determine the discussion today were formulated. These include movement, game and performance, sport as art and culture, moral-ity and fairness, the definition of sport5, corporeality and bodily experience, theory of sport science, symbols and language as well as Olympism6. Parallel to the for-mulation of such aspects, the classic subdisciplines of philosophy of sport emerged: sport ethics, sport anthropology, sport aesthetics and theory of sport science7.

From the very beginning, sport ethics held a dominant position in German philosophy of sport. Its religious ideological roots reach back into the 19th cen-tury and are associated with such figures as Pierre de Coubertin and Carl Diem. Sport ethics did not experience a revival until the 1990s, however.8 During this time a succession of monographs appeared within a short period of time: Eckhard Meinberg’s Morality in Sport: Foundations of a New Sport Ethics (Die Moral im Sport. Bausteine einer neuen Sportethik) (73), Jürgen Court’s Critique of Ethical Models of High-Performance Sport (Kritik ethischer Modelle des Leistungss-ports) (19) and Moth Stygermeer’s Sport and Its Ethics: Founding a Dogmatics of Sport (Der Sport und seine Ethik. Zur Grundlegung einer Dogmatik des Sports) (96). The interdisciplinary volume edited by Volker Gerhardt and Manfred Lämmer entitled Fairness and Fair Play (Fairneß und Fair Play) (45) with contri-butions from the areas of sport science and philosophy continues to play a signifi-cant role for the sport-ethical debate. The important status of ethics is illustrated by the Lexicon of Ethics in Sport (Lexikon der Ethik im Sport) (50) edited by Ommo Grupe and Dietmar Mieth in the late 1990s.

From a methodological perspective, the sport-ethical discussion is character-ized by the rejection of a mere application of ethical theories to sport (a “top-down” approach) in favor of a sport ethics which takes the implicit norms of sport practice (a “bottom-up” approach) as its point of departure, thus orienting itself

Philosophy of Sport in Germany    273

toward a particularized ethics of sport (cf. 26, 97). In this context emphasis should be placed on representatives of the so-called “mediatory-functional” approach (58; 44; 19). The representatives of German philosophy of sport who stand in the tradi-tion of Immanuel Kant and play a decisive role for the functional approach, Jürgen Court and Volker Gerhardt, aim to “obtain the maxims of moral action inherently from the logic of sport” (24: p. 429). Kantian functionality“ is premised on the thesis that moral problems of sport ensue from an identity crisis of sport and sport-speople. Volker Gerhardt considers the morality of sport to be founded – as it were, immanently – in the self-ascertainment of sport’s functional conditions, i.e., in the rules of sport and the agonality of (sporting) contest and the self-determined adop-tion of the role of the genuine sportsperson which results from this.

The functions of the game and the contest imply a canon of moral principles upon which sports relies completely. Where there is genuine sport, these prin-ciples must also be, and where they are not, there can be no sport (44: p. 141)

On this basis, Gerhardt follows Kant’s Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals (Grundlegung der Metaphysik der Sitten) in developing a sport-related categorical imperative as an expression of the voluntary acknowledgment of the constitutive conditions of sport.

The categorical imperative underlying the morality of sport could simply be formulated as follows: “Only act in accordance with the maxim which every-one else could be willing to follow when entering into a contest against you (44: p. 140)9

For sport ethics as well as for philosophy of sport, theories on discourse ethics and philosophy of language put forth by Karl-Otto Apel, John R. Searle and Ludwig Wittgenstein continue to play an important role. Discussions as to whether following rules constitutes a moral action and whether morality in the world of games and real life is comparable, for example, are illustrative of the linguistic turn in sport ethics. Frans de Wachter’s article Rules of the Game and Ethical Problematics (Spielregeln und ethische Problematik) (25)10 as well as contribu-tions by Hans-Otto Apel, The Ethical Significance of Sport From the Perspective of a Universalistic Discourse Ethics (Die ethische Bedeutung des Sports in der Sicht einer universalistischen Diskursethik) (4) and Hans-Jürgen Heringer’s Rules and Fairness: Where Does Sports Get Its Morals From? (Regeln und Fairneß. Woher bezieht der Sport seine Moral?) (58) address such issues.

The orientation toward linguistic analysis which is to be found in the early phase of German philosophy of sport took its lead from the article by Hans Lenk, Paths to an Analytic Philosophy of Sport (Auf dem Wege zu einer analytischen Sportphilosophie) (66). Language-philosophical texts which proved important for promoting an understanding of sport and sport science in the following years are the volume edited by Bernhard Boschert and Gunter Gebauer entitled Texts and Games: Language Games of Sport (Texte und Spiele: Sprachspiele des Sports) (10) and Gunnar Drexel, Philosophy of Language and Sport (Sprachphilosophie und Sport) (27).11 In particular as concerns the question of how to define the con-cept of sport, German philosophy of sport stands in the tradition of Ludwig Witt-genstein’s philosophy (cf. 3).

274    Pawlenka

In addition to sport ethics, anthropology and aesthetics constitute core areas of German philosophy of sport. As concerns sport anthropology, one can distin-guish a pedagogically oriented approach and a philosophical one. The pedagogi-cal study by the nestor of German sport science Ommo Grupe entitled Movement, Game and Performance in Sport: Basic Themes of Sport Anthropology (Bewe-gung, Spiel und Leistung im Sport. Grundthemen der Sportanthropologie) (48), played an important role for the emergence of German sport anthropology.12 In the work of Grupe, the anthropological approach of the German philosopher Helmuth Plessner with his distinction between “being our body” and “having a body” play an important role. The body-phenomenological study by Jörg Thiele entitled Experience and Corporeality: Foundations of a Skeptical Sport Pedagogy (Erfahrung und Leiblichkeit. Bausteine einer skeptischen Sportpädagogik) (98) as well as Jürgen Seewald’s overview entitled Philosophical Anthropology—Corpo-reality/Bodiliness of the Human Being (Erfahrung und Leiblichkeit. Bausteine einer skeptischen Sportpädagogik) (94) have a more or less sport-pedagogical orientation.

During the initial stage of a philosophical anthropology of sport, the anthro-pological work of Hans Lenk as laid out in Self-Performance: Plea for a Positive Culture of Performance (Eigenleistung. Plädoyer für eine positive Leistungskul-tur) (68) proved seminal. In the late 1980s, the cultural-critical volume of texts by Gerd Hortleder and Gunter Gebauer entitled Sport—Eros—Death (Sport—Eros—Tod) (59) as well as the Foucault-oriented study by Eugen König, Body—Knowl-edge—Power (Körper—Wissen—Macht) (62), were published. The appearance of the volume Aspects of a Future Anthropology of Sport (Aspekte einer zukünftigen Anthropologie des Sports) (2) by Thomas Alkemeyer et al. marked the “historic-anthropological turn” (16: p. 72) after which philosophy of sport increasingly adopted an openness for the symbolic meaning of the body and its images, thus developing into a semiotics of sport to a more pronounced degree (cf. ibid.). The “renewal” of German philosophy of sport through an “anthropological,” “cul-tural” and “pictorial turn” (cf. 16: p. 71ff.) was particularly significant for its fur-ther development in the 21st century (cf. 2.).

By the end of the 20th century, a number of publications on the aesthetics of sport also appeared which advocated, in part, completely different goals and posi-tions. An aesthetic-semiotic interpretation of sport was inaugurated by Elk Fran-ke’s seminal 1978 study Theory and Meaning of Sports Actions (Theorie und Bedeutung sportlicher Handlungen) (31). Adopting I. Kant’s Critique of Judg-ment (Kritik der Urteilskraft) and the Kantian formula “purposiveness without purpose” coupled with modern reception aesthetics as his point of departure, Franke interpreted the aesthetic structure of sports actions within the framework of their (re)construction and exploitation. In contrast, in his 1996 study Sports and aesthetics (Sport und Ästhetik) (88), Peter Röthig championed a traditional aes-thetics of beauty. The distinction between sport and art forms the focus of several other studies concerned with sport aesthetics, among them the investigation by Hans Lenk entitled The Eighth Art: High-Performance Sport—Mass Sport (Die Achte Kunst. Leistungssport—Breitensport) (70) as well as Sven Güldenpfennig’s monograph Sport: Art or Life? Sport Sociology as Cultural Science (Sport: Kunst oder Leben? Sportsoziologie als Kulturwissenschaft) (51).13 The growing impor-

Philosophy of Sport in Germany    275

tance of sport aesthetics and its interpretation is ultimately illustrated by the phi-losopher Martin Seel in his essay A Celebration of Incapacity (Die Zelebration des Unvermögens) (92) and the volume of essays by Volker Gerhardt and Bernd Wirkus entitled Sport and Aesthetics (Sport und Ästhetik) (45).

The almost 40-year history of 20th-century German sport philosophy, which comprises its inauguration and the formative years, is characterized by a differen-tiation between individual sport-philosophical disciplines and, in the last decade of the century, a growing number of publications. All in all, a decrease in the internationality and interdisciplinarity which shaped German philosophy of sport initially is striking. Experts in the field communicate with one another almost exclusively in sport science journals. Although crucial pioneers of philosophy of sport like Hans Lenk and Gunter Gebauer are rooted in general philosophy and are at home in this area, the dialogic forum and the institutional ties of German philosophy of sport lie primarily within the framework of sport science. Here philosophy of sport has developed in an isolated fashion and for the most part without any connection to general philosophy (see 4).14 This also holds true for the increasing withdrawal of German philosophy of sport from international dis-course. Jürgen Court’s reception of Anglo-American literature constitutes an exception. Emphasis should be put on how Court introduced the controversy over the logical (and moral) incompatibility between winning and cheating carried out during the 1980s in the Journal of the Philosophy of Sport into the German discus-sion (cf. 19, 20) (see 3).

All in all, German philosophy of sport can be seen as having undergone a developmental process in the 1980s and 1990s. This is shown among other things by the fact that the term “philosophy of sport” (69: p. 282) as cited in the Lexicon of Sport Science (Sportwissenschaftliches Lexikon) was changed to the currently used term “sport philosophy” (23: p. 528). The joining of two distinct terms—“sport” and “philosophy”—to form a discrete unit signifies the expression of a new self-image cultivated by philosophy of sport. Philosophy of sport should no longer act as a mere “importeur” of philosophical theories but rather, in the form of a “path backwards,” (99: p. 28) make its own contribution to philosophical theory formation,—so the vision goes. This marks the beginning of a develop-mental process undergone by German philosophy of sport in the direction of an “emancipated sport philosophy” (99: p. 27), which has prevailed in the 21st century.15

2. The Current State of Research: German Philosophy of Sport in the 21st Century

The most recent development of German philosophy of sport at the outset of the 21st century is characterized by attention to new thematic fields.16 Current sport-philosophical discussions focus for one on issues of naturalness, doping and tech-nologization of the body and on the other hand they concern themselves with such topics as presentation of the body, style communities and event culture. Parallel to such interests, attention is paid to traditional topics such as movement, game and performance, definitions of sport and rules (see 3), theoretical sport science, bodily cognition, fairness and the Olympic idea.

276    Pawlenka

In particular, the new thematic fields associated with the main orientations “technologization” and “presentation of the body” (16: p. 72) bring their own new aspects to “classic” sport-philosophical disciplines such as sport ethics, sport anthropology and sport aesthetics by expanding the horizon of sport to encompass current societal problems, leading in this way to an expansion of the field itself. In sport ethics this results in a bioethical turn, in sport anthropology and the context of epistemology to a cultural turn and in aesthetics to a semiotic or pictorial turn (16). The extension of the subject matter of sport to embrace general sociopoliti-cal issues has triggered a discussion on the identity and self-understanding of philosophy of sport (see 5).17

All in all, during the first decade of the 21st century one can distinguish between a more or less analytical and a culturalistic orientation of philosophy of sport.

In the area of sport ethics, a series of monographs and volumes of essays appeared at the very beginning of the new millenium which continued to examine the role of sport ethics. In the year 2002 a sport-ethical discussion was inaugu-rated by the publication of three monographs with differing focuses: Hans Lenk’s Success or Fairness: High-Performance Sports—Ethics and Technology Erfolg oder Fairneß. Leistungssport zwischen Ethik und Technik) (71), Michael Segets’ Ecological Aspects of Sport Ethics: Concerning the Development of an Environ-mentally-Related Fairness Ethics in Sport (Ökologische Aspekte der Sportethik. Zur Entwicklung einer umweltbezogenen Fairneßethik im Sport) (93) and Claudia Pawlenka’s Utilitarianism and Sport Ethics (Utilitarismus und Sportethik) (80).18

Whereas Lenk’s monograph constructively addresses issues of technology and technologization in sports, Segets’ work is the first to raise issues of animal and environmental ethics (see 3.). With its plea for a utilitarian ethics, Pawlenka’s work stands in the Anglo-American tradition, counterbalancing in this way the Kantian imprint of the German-speaking discourse. Pawlenka is also influenced by Bernard Suits’s analysis of the concept of sport and by the Anglo-American discussion of rules as conducted by J.R. Searle, B.J. Diggs und J. Rawls.19 Edited volumes on sport ethics include the interdisciplinary volume of essays edited by Pawlenka entitled Sport Ethics: Rules—Fairness—Doping (Sportethik. Regeln—Fairneß—Doping) (81). Translations of articles by Bernard Suits What Is A Game? (Was ist ein Regelspiel?) and Games and Paradox (Regelspiel und Para-dox), Scott Kretchmar Making Sense of Game Rules: Locating Their Sources and Identifying Their Utility (Vom Sinn der Spielregeln: Ihre Quellen und ihr Nutzen), William B. Morgan What Counts as an Ethical Consideration of Sports? (Welche ethische Betrachtungsweise eignet sich für den Sport?) and Frans de Wachter Sport and Human Rights (Sport und Menschenrechte) as well as Doping Rule as a Game Rule? (Dopingregel als Spielregel?) serve to revive attention to the inter-national discussion.20 A second volume of essays edited by Elk Franke, Ethics in Sport (Ethik im Sport) (32), with contributions on Olympism, fairness, doping, aesthetics, ethics of responsibility and scientific ethics is to appear this year; it documents the current state of German sport ethics.

The issue of doping is currently a main focus of concern for philosophy of sport. Two ethically oriented monographs, one by Eckhard Meinberg—Doping Sport in Ethical Focus (Dopingsport im Brennpunkt der Ethik) (74)—and one by Hans Lenk—“Dopium for the People?” Values of Sport at Risk (“Dopium

Philosophy of Sport in Germany    277

fürs Volk?“ Werte des Sports in Gefahr) (72) – approach this topic from different perspectives. Whereas Meinberg’s study, adopting the perspective of a co-existen-tial sport ethic, focuses on moral issues involving sportspeople who engage in doping and individual-ethical aspects, Hans Lenk’s monograph takes an institu-tional-ethical perspective, illuminating to a larger extent systematic pressures exerted on high-performance sport. The sociological study by Karl-Heinrich Bette and Uwe Schimank, Doping in High-Performance Sport (Doping im Hochleis-tungssport) (6), which appeared in its second edition in 2006, analyses the struc-tures of the doping issue as a “constellational phenomenon” and casts a critical light on the criterion of ‘naturalness’ applied to define doping as an artificial form of performance enhancement.

The topic naturalness and artificiality constitutes one of the new main focuses in the sport-philosophical discussion. The volumes of essays published by Bar-bara Ränsch-Trill—Naturalness and Artificiality: Philosophical Foundations for Discussing the Problem of Staging the Body (Natürlichkeit und Künstlichkeit. Phi-losophische Diskussionsgrundlagen zum Problem de Körperinszenierung) (84)—and by Barbara Ränsch-Trill and Manfred Lämmer—The ‘Artificial’ Human Being—a Sport-Scientific Perspective (Der “künstliche“ Mensch – eine sportwissen-schaftliche Perspektive) (87) – open up the discussion on what has become the questionable naturalness of human beings and they place the issue of doping into the expanded context of technologization of the body.

The topics ‘naturalness’ and ‘the nature’ of humankind are taken up by Gunter Gebauer and Claudia Pawlenka in regard to the issue of doping. In both his articles, Which Source of Legitimation in the Fight against Doping (38)? and Doping’s Attack on the Traditional Notion of Sport: Reflections on its Defense as Written Down in Japan (Der Angriff des Dopings auf die traditionelle Sportauf-fassung. Überlegungen zu ihrer Verteidigung in Japan niedergeschrieben) (39), Gebauer develops an “imperative of self-performance” as an expression of “the act of artificially limiting sport to the body’s own means“ (38: p. 92f) based on a conceptual demarcation of nature from technology. On the other hand he formu-lates the anthropological argument of the common body, which “[has], as its refer-ence, the human being with its ordinary body: that which is given to him by the coincidence of nature” (39: p. 127). Pawlenka’s book Ethics, Nature and Doping (Ethik, Natur und Doping) (83) also explores thoroughly the question of human naturalness and attempts, drawing on Aristoteles and autonomous processes of growth, to develop her own “biogenetic approach” toward demarcating the natural and the artificial and defending the natural as a special ethical norm for the area of sports. Pawlenka places the sport-ethical discussion on doping as it concerns aes-thetic questions deriving from the area of environmental ethics (“faking nature”) and anthropological questions deriving from the area of ethics for the human race (57) into the superordinate framework of the bioethical discourse on human enhancement and the question of ‘improving on’ human nature.

In the area of sport anthropology the anthropological and body-ecological work of Volker Caysa, which is primarily oriented toward Nietzsche, Kant and Foucault, plays an important role. It also concerns itself with problems concern-ing technologization of the body and the idea of the “rights of the body.” In his monograph entitled Body Utopias: a Philosophical Anthropology of Sport (Kör-perutopien. Eine philosophische Anthropologie des Sports) (17) Caysa puts sport,

278    Pawlenka

alongside sexuality and health, in the expanded context of modern body culture. Caysa critically opposes the principle of naturalness, applying the idea of the common body culturalistically as the “culturally affirmable body (...), as the trans-body whose technological treatment should effectively be endorsed by everyone” (2003: 68). The philosopher Volker Caysa proves to be an important integrative figure and one who gives impulses to German philosophy of sports, intensifying considerations of the identity and self-understanding of philosophy of sport already raised in the 1990s.

Following the paradigm of the cultural turn, sport aesthetics and the theory of science relating to it are also developing currently within an expanded framework with greater cultural-scientific orientation. Gebauer’s monograph Sport in the Society of Spectacles (Sport in der Gesellschaft des Spektakels) (40) positions itself at the interface of anthropology and aesthetics. In this volume of seminal texts by Gunter Gebauer, the focus is on the role of sport in society, the body and its narrations, anthropological aspects of game and problems regarding the enhancement of human nature. According to Volker Caysa, philosophy of sport reached “conceptional autonomy” with the publication of Gebauer’s work

so that now, after the turn from anthropology of sport to a general anthropol-ogy of the body, it can appear as an independent paradigm among the other established philosophical subdisciplines which is capable of synthesizing anthropological and pragmatic as well as semiotic theories (16: p. 78)

The volume edited by Manfred Lämmer and Tim Nebelung, Dimensions of Aesthetics. Festschrift for Barbara Ränsch-Trill (Dimensionen der Ästhetik. Fest-schrift für Barbara Ränsch-Trill) (63) also offers a wide scope of cultural-anthro-pological, epistemological and scientifico-theoretical contributions.21 The study by the literary scholar Hans Ulrich Gumbrecht, Praise of Sports (Lob des Sports) (55), translated from English, should be mentioned as an important monograph on the aesthetics of sport now readable in German.

Semiotic-aesthetic-anthropological interpretations of sport as a culture of performance and the performative form a second new focus currently adopted by philosophy of sport. Taking the theory of Ernst Cassirer as its point of departure, the volume published by Franz Bockrath and Elk Franke entitled From Sensual Impression to Symbolic Expression—in Sport (Vom sinnlichen Eindruck zum sym-bolischen Ausdruck—im Sport;) (8) puts forth a symbol-theoretical interpretation of stagings of the body in sport.22 In contrast, the monograph by Gunter Gebauer and Christoph Wulf entitled Mimetic Portals to the World: Social Action—Rituals and Games—Aesthetic Productions (Mimetische Weltzugänge. Soziales Han-deln—Rituale und Spiele—ästhetische Produktionen) (41) explores the anthropo-logical meaning of mimesis as well as—in regard to the social world and games—the formation of community in performative processes and the interpretation of games as language games (Wittgenstein). In another book by Gunter Gebauer et al. entitled Faithfulness to Style: the Staged Society (Treue zum Stil. Die aufgefüh-rte Gesellschaft) (41) the transformation of traditional sport in the direction of new games and performative practices as well as the societal changes it effects are subjected to empirical and theoretical analysis using the example of new urban life styles.

Philosophy of Sport in Germany    279

The interdisciplinary volume edited by Volker Schürmann, Human Bodies in Movement: Philosophical Models and Concepts of Sport Science (Menschliche Körper in Bewegung. Philosophische Modelle und Konzepte der Sportwissen-schaft) (89), also looks at sport from a culturalistic perspective. It treats funda-mental questions concerning the relationship between philosophy and sport sci-ence as well as the view of sport science as a cultural science in connection with concrete topics. These include technologization of the body, human movement, body and corporeality as well as methodological aspects. The perspective on sport science qua cultural science is taken up once again by Monika Fikus and Volker Schürmann in The Language of Motion (Die Sprache in Bewegung) (29). On the basis of a sign-theoretical or ethnographic interpretation of movements in sport, Fikus and Schürmann make a metatheoretical attempt to position sport science within the area of cultural studies, their intention being to achieve, in this way, an “engaging determination of the relationship between the ‘nature’ and ‘culture’ of human movements” and to focus the science of sport on “human bodily move-ment (and not, for example, moved bodies)” (29: p. 9).

The volume edited by Franz Bockrath, Bernhard Boschert and Elk Franke, Bodily Cognition: Forms of Reflexive Experience (Körperliche Erkenntnis. Formen reflexiver Erfahrung) (9), is also to be read in the context of the cultural turn. Taking the “praxeological approach” of the French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu as their point of departure, these contributions deal with the “double function of bodily cognition processes” which “grasps the body as the subject and object of such processes alike” (9: p. 10). This interdisciplinary volume addresses fundamental questions concerning bodily cognition and empractical body memory as well as social body practices and the interpretation of the body in light of vari-ous types of disciplining techniques.

This overview of developments in German philosophy of sport over the past decade shows that beyond all differences in substance, an overarching perspective and openness for other disciplines are paradigmatic for the 21st century. The incorporation of sport into superordinate societal issues which deal with the acceptance of modern bodily techniques, lifestyles and forms of movement allow for connections to be made in many directions. Thus philosophy of sport is now faced with the task of requestioning its identity and its self-understanding anew (see 5).

3. German and Anglo-American Philosophy of Sport: Commonalities and Differences

If one compares Anglo-American and German-speaking research in the area of philosophy of sport, one discovers a number of common denominators and points of connection, whether it be in the form of mutual conferences in the formative years and parallels in regard to history of development or in the form of philosophi-cal reflection on common topics beginning with the relationship between sport, play, rules and morals, the many facets of fairness, questions concerning bodiliness and corporeality, performance enhancement through doping, technologization and presentation of the body and aesthetics of the body. Thus the differences and the particularities of philosophy of sport in Germany are more interesting, and these

280    Pawlenka

have in fact intensified with the decline in transnational dialogue after the initial formation of the discipline. Such differences evidence themselves most promi-nently in terms of differing intellectual currents and philosophical traditions (see 1 and 2).

All in all, the German-speaking discussion would seem to lag behind the Anglo-American one; this evidences itself in any case in the four-year delay in institutionalization (see 4). Thus the discussion concerning the incompatibility of winning and cheating, for example, which was conducted in the Anglo-American tradition during the 1980s, and the ethics boom (75: p. vii), which began during the same time frame did not evidence themselves in German philosophy of sport until the 1990s. Furthermore, the Anglo-American discussion is more diverse and differentiated when it comes to formulating and reflecting upon individual groups of themes.23 Apart from being attributable to the advantageous possibilities for communication in the English-speaking scientific community, this also has struc-tural reasons which lie in a higher form of organization and institutionalization. The semiannual Journal of the Philosophy of Sport and the conferences of the International Association for the Philosophy of Sport which have taken place annually ever since its foundation in 1972 allow for more systematic and intense exchange than what is possible in a comparatively small circle of German philoso-phers of sport (see 4). The more intensive engagement of philosophy of sport in the Anglo-American realm might also be explained by the more important role played by sport in North America and England as its country of origin.

The German-speaking and the Anglo-American discussions also evidence some interesting differences in content. It is striking, for example, that the ethical consideration given to animals in sport by those engaged in the German-speaking discussion plays a considerably smaller role than it does in the Anglo-American realm, in which hunting has a major traditional significance.24 Moreover, ethical questions from the areas of gender research and feminist ethics in connection with sport have yet to be addressed in the German-speaking discussion. In contrast, epistemological questions concerning the theoretical orientation and self-under-standing of sport science and, more recently, philosophy of sport, play a compara-tively large role in Germany (see 5).

In particular as concerns the definition of its subject, i.e., sport, clear differ-ences between the German-speaking and the Anglo-American discussion make themselves apparent. In regard to this question, German philosophy of sport stands in the tradition of Ludwig Wittgenstein and his theory of “family resem-blance” with “blurred edges” (66: p. 423). This characterizes—as opposed to the Anglo-American discussion and the investigations carried out by Bernard Suits concerning the definition of sport—what remains today to be a predominantly skeptical approach to definitions and a dislike for culturally independent, timeless definitions of its nature (105: p. 524; 91: p. 262).25 With few exceptions, almost no attention is paid to the highly differentiated discussion regarding “sport, “game” and “play” which is conducted in the Anglo-American academic community.26

Over the past ten years the situation has changed and today a number of quite different approaches to the issue of definitions exist. One might emphasize in particular Stygermeer’s considerations of the “nature of sport” as “representation of corporeal individuality” (97: p. 75) as well as the recently published rule-theo-retical work by Manfred Franz entitled On the Quality of Sports Rules: Rule-

Philosophy of Sport in Germany    281

Theoretical Prerequisites for Defining Sport (Zur Qualität sportlicher Regeln. Regeltheoretische Voraussetzungen für eine Bestimmung des Sports) (33). Operat-ing from a “holistic perspective” which goes beyond mere functionality to illumi-nate the complex relations between rules, Franz supplements the quantitative con-sideration of “sport legislation” with a qualitative aspect (33: p. 9f.). Here the quality of rules is determined, for example, by the “degree of reality” which the “results of the competition” possess (33: p. 35). The distinction which is made between the “level of activity and appearance“ (33: p. 14) as well as critical scru-tiny of the defining features of sport, i.e., its primary and secondary features, and lastly engagement with “types of rules” and their practice-related systematization and problems concerning how rules are formulated and changed are all character-istic of the rule-theoretical approach.

Other investigations concerned with the concept of sport are Güldenpfennig’s investigations of the relationship between sport and art (51; 52) and the literary approach taken by Jürgen Court in his monograph What is Sport? Types of Sport in Literature (Was ist Sport? Sportarten in der Literatur) (22). In part, the episte-mological question concerning the self-understanding of philosophy and sport science is being raised more urgently again as well, as is shown by the discussion in Schürmann’s essay The Peculiar Logic of the Peculiar Subject of Sport (Die eigentümliche Logik des eigentümlichen Gegenstandes Sport) (91) with its “pre-liminary” process-ontological “considerations.”

4. The Status of Philosophy of Sport in Germany and its Degree of Institutionalization

Philosophy of sport in Germany is now going into its third generation. Neverthe-less, the circle of those who pursue it is small. It is estimated that no more than a dozen people are currently working in the area of philosophy of sport in Germany. To date, its institutional ties and the academic discourse conducted by chaired professorships, seminars, conferences and publications—not taking into account such exceptional philosophers as Hans Lenk and Gunter Gebauer—have been mainly rooted in the framework of the German Association of Sport Science (Deutschen Vereinigung für Sportwissenschaft; DVS), which is to say, the division of Philosophy of Sport (Sektion Sportphilosophie) founded in 1976 along with its most important journals and publishers. These include Sportwissenschaft (Sport Science) and the Leipziger Sportwissenschaftliche Schriften (Leipzig Sport-Scien-tific Writings) as well as two publishing companies, Hofmann und Academia. No German-speaking journal for philosophy of sport exists.

Very recently, however, philosophy of sport has sought a dialogue with phi-losophy and neighboring disciplines from the area of cultural studies due to the societal relevance of topics concerning the human body and its technologization. This is evidenced by a clear increase in interdisciplinary contributions to be found in recent volumes on philosophy of sport and the growing number of publications in journals and publishing companies specialized in cultural studies and philoso-phy such as Transcript, Campus and Mentis. In turn, due to the topicality which the issue of “corporeality” has for sport, general philosophy is paying increased attention to this area, with sport-philosophical considerations finding their way—

282    Pawlenka

albeit only occasionally—into philosophical publications and seminars.27 The most recent example of this type of cooperation is the newly released contribution Bread and games in the journal Zeitschrift für Kulturphilosophie (Journal of Cul-tural Philosophy (16), ) featuring contributions by prominent representatives of philosophy of sport and general philosophy.

Regarding the institutionalization of philosophy of sport, the chair of philoso-phy at the Deutsche Sporthochschule Köln has special status. This is the only chair of philosophy in Germany directly associated with sport science; it is currently held by the philosopher Volker Schürmann.28 In contrast, the majority of academ-ics working in the area of philosophy of sport currently hold chairs for sport peda-gogy or sport sociology. In this sport-scientific framework, more or less explicitly sport-philosophical courses are offered. Sport-philosophical education can take place at the elementary and advanced levels of undergraduate studies as well as at the postgraduate, i.e., doctoral and postdoctoral level. Very recently, institutions of philosophical research and teaching and interdisciplinary graduate programs have shown isolated openness to sport-philosophical and in particular sport-ethical issues. Although philosophy of sport constituted an institutional component of sport science from the very start and is insofar a “classical” discipline, it was long ago outdistanced by younger disciplines like sport economy (99: p. 25). Philoso-phy of sport carves out an “outsider existence” (99: p. 26) or a “shadowy exis-tence” (90: p. 12). Due to its—in part historically determined—interdisciplinarity, German philosophy of sport is a marginal phenomenon in sport science as well as in philosophy. It is also hampered by the currently difficult financial situation of German institutions of higher education, which has led to a general “shrinkage” of departments and which makes it difficult for small academic disciplines viewed as largely irrelevant, like philosophy of sport, to survive.

The discipline’s marginal institutionalization contrasts with a pronounced interest in sport in the present. This might open up opportunities for philosophy of sport to overcome its marginalization some day.

5. Outlook: in Search of its Identity— Philosophy of Sport or Cultural Philosophy?

What is new about the current development of philosophy of sport is the expan-sion of its sport-related perspective to include questions pertinent to a larger gen-eral public. Attention to such topics as doping, naturalness, technologization and staging of the body as well as striving for perfection has acquired a pan-societal as well as a sport-related dimension. In particular the debate on human enhance-ment puts sport in the center of general public interest, for doping is no longer a practice limited to the area of sport. Due to its transparency and the worldwide limitations placed on artificial performance enhancement through the ban on doping, sport has become a symbol for questions about attempts to perfect the human being and the striving for “higher” performance.29 One hopes it will help in the search for generally valid answers. The increasing disposability of the human body is accompanied by an increased interest in “corporeality” and “body culture” in sport as well as in society at large.

Philosophy of Sport in Germany    283

Philosophy of sport is responding to this situation by reflecting on its tasks, methods and subject matter. Whereas the discipline viewed itself primarily as just that – as a “philosophy of sport” (105: p. 518) – a decade ago, the trend which can now be observed goes in the direction of taking “a different perspective on phi-losophy of sport as a part of cultural studies and on sport as culture“ (16: p. 75). The expansion of the subject area of philosophy of sport in the direction of general (body-)culture which came with the cultural turn is reflected in the expansion of the anthropology of sport in the direction of a “general anthropology of the body.” The expanded perspective on sport as culture corresponds with the widened con-sciousness of philosophy of sport as cultural philosophy. This no longer sees itself as a mere “area of application for general philosophical/ anthropological con-cepts” but rather as a discipline which makes a “fundamental” contribution to the “architectonics of philosophy“ (90: p. 12) in its own right.

Similarly, sport ethics has recently started to reflect on its status as an inde-pendent area of ethics within the canon of applied ethics. In sport ethics, the ques-tion as to whether and to what degree it is to be understood as a discipline which merely applies general ethical theories or is capable of offering its own contribu-tion to fundamental ethical research has been raised (cf. 83). In contrast to tenden-cies of generalization in sport anthropology which move it in the direction of cultural anthropology, sport ethics evidences an interestingly opposite trend in the direction of a particularized ethics and an emphasis on sport as constituting a special realm. In extreme cases this leads to an understanding of sport ethics as a “separate ethics” (97: p. 11f). This is possibly one reason why philosophy of sport, in its self-understanding as a “general philosophy of body culture,” has dis-sociated itself from sport ethics (16: p. 78).

Making absolute claims is not very productive on either side when it comes to pursuing the mutual goal of shaping a philosophy of sport for the future, which is to make its own contribution to general philosophy and to attain conceptual autonomy. The subdisciplines of philosophy of sport should make mutual efforts to reach this goal and not see themselves as competitors. As important and self-evident as it might be, on the one hand, to emphasize the commonalities between sport and culture and philosophy of sport and cultural philosophy, it is decisive, on the other hand, to see the differences between them if philosophy of sport is to prevent losing its identity. Here in fact lies the special accomplishment of philoso-phers of sport: seeing both sides, the likeness and the particularity.

A philosophy of sport for the future must focus on its strengths and ultimately on sport as its genuine subject of reflection. Only by staking out its subject area can it attain conceptual autonomy, i.e., take the “path forwards” and the “path backwards” (99) and engage in a dialogue with general philosophy. It is well on the way to achieving this already.

Notes

1. The PSSS is the predecessor of the current International Association for the Philosophy of Sport (IAPS).

2. See conference proceedings by Lenk (67) and Gebauer (36).

284    Pawlenka

3. There are scattered contributions on soccer from philosophical and ethical perspectives (59; 40; 79) and on the philosophy of dance (86; 61). The philosophy of the mountain climber Rein-hold Messner can perhaps be seen as a case of culturally determined philosophy of sport (18). A series of publications on high-risk and extreme sport has also appeared (cf. 5, 11, 77, 101).

4. According to investigations by Jürgen Court, “the explicit concept of philosophy of sport is found used for the first time in 1900 in Bertz in the sense of an unbiased evaluation of the cultural possibilities of sport.“ (22: p. 528)

5. See the article by Meinhart Volkamer, On the Definition of the Concept of ‘Sport’ (Zur Definition des Begriffs “Sport“) (102).

6. Contributions on Olympism are made by Thomas Alkemeyer in Body, Culture and Politics: Concerning Pierre de Coubertin’s ‘Muscle Religion’ as a Means of Staging Power at the 1936 Olympic Game (Körper, Kultur und Politik. Von der “Muskelreligion“ Pierre de Coubertins zur Inszenierung von Macht bei den Olympischen Spielen von 1936) (3) and the volume by Gunter Gebauer, Olympic Games – Modernity’s other Utopia: Olympia between the Poles of Cult and Drugs (Olympische Spiele – die andere Utopie der Moderne. Olympia zwischen Kult und Drog) (37). See the recently published monograph by Sven Güldenpfennig, Olympic Games as World Cultural Heritage: a New Foundation of the Olympic Idea (Olympische Spiele als Weltkultur-erbe. Zur Neubegründung der Olympischen Idee) (54).

7. See the early English-speaking article by Klaus Willimczik, A Comparative Analysis of Theories of Sport-science (104). The proceedings edited by Lenk (67) include several other essays by German philosophers of sport translate into English. Also see the contributions by Lenk and Gebauer in the Journal of the Philosophy of Sport from the years 1976, 1982 and 1993–1994.

8. The sport-ethical discussion of the 1980s is represented in the volumes by Cachay/Drexel/Franke, Sport and Ethics (Sport und Ethik) (12) and Ethics in Sports Games (Ethik im Sport-spiel) (13).

9. The position of “Kantian functionality” as developed by Volker Gerhardt, which takes empirical circumstances of action as its point of departure, can also be criticized on the basis of an orthodox interpretation of Kantian ethics (80: p. 290ff.). In particular as regards the justifi-cation (not the application) of moral maxims by means of the categorical imperative, Kant (as opposed to proponents of utilitarian ethics) demands that all empirical circumstances be disre-garded. In this light a connection between Kant’s ethics in the original sense and particularistic positions appears questionable.

10. The article published in German by the Belgian philosopher Frans De Wachter had lasting influence on the sport-ethical debate in Germany.

11. See the article by Gunter Gebauer, How do Sports Rules Regulate Sports Games? (Wie regeln Spielregeln das Spiel?) (35). Concerning a continuation of the linguistic turn cf. the recently published contribution by Gunnar Drexel, On Philosophy, Language Games and Fol-lowing of Rules in the Late Works of Wittgenstein—Clarification Attempts in Regard to Sport (Zu Philosophie, Sprachspiel und Regelfolgen beim späten Wittgenstein—Klärungsversuche im Hinblick auf den Sport) (28).

12. See Grupe’s article Philosophico-Anthropological Foundations of Sport (Philosophisch-anthropologische Grundlagen des Sports) (49).

13. See the cultural- and sociophilosophical considerations by Ommo Grupe in Sport as Cul-ture (Sport als Kultur) (49) and Güldenpfennig in Sport: Sport: Autonomy and Crisis (Autono-mie und Krise) (52) as well as in Sport: Critique and ‘Eigensinn’ (Sport. Kritik und Eigensinn) (53).

14. Exceptions are interdisciplinary editorships and isolated publications in philosophical jour-nals.

Philosophy of Sport in Germany    285

15. Similarly, Jürgen Court grants sports ethics a potential for providing a corrective, verifying and innovative function for general ethics (19: p. 376).

16. New sport-philosophical terrain is entered by Barbara Ränsch-Trill in her volume Time and Tempo: Sportive Experience in Accelerated Processes (Zeit und Geschwindigkeit. Sportliches Erleben in beschleunigten Prozessen) (85).

17. See the discussion prompted by Volker Caysa in Philosophy of Sport as a Critical Anthro-pology of the Body (Sportphilosophie als kritische Anthropologie des Körpers) in Philokles (16).

18. See the 2001 special issue edited by Alfred Teml, Sport Ethics: Fresh, Pious, Perky—Foul? (Sportehik. Frisch, fromm, fröhlich—foul?) (100) as well as K. Fischer/S. Güldenpfennig/D. Kayser, Do Olympic Sports have an Ethics of Their Own? (Gibt es eine eigene Ethik des Olympischen Sports?) (30).

19. The discussion on rules in sport science has been taken up again constructively by Manfred Franz (33) in particular (see 4.).

20. For a detailed summary and critical appraisal of the sport ethics volume edited by Pawlenka (81) in English see the review by Sigmund Loland in Journal of the Philosophy of Sport (2004), Vol. XXXI, 2, p. 250–252.

21. See the monograph by Tim Nebelung on Homo Sportivus entitled Theology and Philoso-phy of Sport (Theologie und Sportphilosophie) (78).

22. See furthermore the volume by G. Friedrich/E. Hildenbrandt/J. Schwier (eds.) Sport and Semiotics (Sport und Semiotik) (34).

23. See special issues on individual topics in Journal of the Philosophy of Sport as for example on Olympic Philosophy (2006/2) and Sport and Technology (2009/2).

24. Exceptions are the aforementioned monograph by Michael Segets, Ecological Aspects of Sport Ethics (Ökologische Aspekte der Sportethik) (93), as well as the contribution by Albrecht Müller, Animals in Sport (Tiere im Sport) (76), in Lexicon of Ethics in Sport (Lexikon der Ethik im Sport).

25. See Suits: “For when a terminal Wittgensteinain realizes that you are seriously trying to define something, he exhibits anxiety and melancholy, and then he calls you bad names.” (97: p.17)

26. See 31; 19; 80; 81; 83.

27. Courses on sport ethics are offered here and there at philosophical institutes and interdisci-plinary graduate rograms. The key word ‘sport ethics’ is also included in the journal Information on Philosophy (Information Philosophie) (82). See further the sportethics volume published by Pawlenka (81) in the philosophical series “ethica“. Sport ethics as a type of applied ethics is represented by the contribution by Albrecht (1) for the first time in a volume on applied ethics. The foundation of a separate division for “Sport ethics” or “Philosophy of sport” in the German Philosophical Association (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Philosophie; DGPhil) would be an important step toward establishing philosophy of sport within the area of general philosophy. The article by Volker Caysa, From a philosophy of sport to an anthropology of the body (Von der Philosophie des Sports zur Anthropologie des Körpers) (15), in der General Journal of Philoso-phy (Allgemeinen Zeitschrift für Philosophie) makes a substantial contribution in this direction.

28. Further holders of the chair in Cologne were Volker Gerhardt in th early 1990s and follow-ing him Barbara -Trill.

29. See the monograph by Dieter Birnbacher entitled Naturalness (Natürlichkeit) (7), which deals with the bioethical discussion and the anthropological study by Peter Sloterdijk, You must Change your Life (Du mußt dein Leben ändern) (95).

286    Pawlenka

Acknowledgment

I wish to thank John S. Russell, the editor of the Journal of the Philosophy of Sport and the conceptualizer of this special issue on sport-philosophical research in non-Anglo-American countries, for the invitation to provide this contribution.

References 1. Albrecht, R. “Sportethik (Sport Ethics).” In Einführung in die Angewandte Ethik

(Introduction to Applied Ethics), N. Koepffler, P. Kunzmann, I. Pies, and A. Sieget-sleitner (Eds.). Freiburg, München: Alber, 2006, pp. 223–247.

2. Alkemeyer, Th., Boschert, B., and Gebauer, G. (Eds.). Aspekte einer zukünftigen Anthropologie des Sports (Aspects of a Future Anthropology of Sport). Referate zur wissenschaftlichen Tagung der dvs-Arbeitsgruppe “Sportphilosophie” in Zusammen-arbeit mit dem Forschungszentrum Historische Anthropologie der FU-Berlin vom 3. bis zum 5. Mai 1990. Clausthal-Zellerfeld: dvs, 1992.

3. Thomas Alkemeyer. Körper, Kultur und Politik. Von der “Muskelreligion” Pierre de Coubertins zur Inszenierung von Macht bei den Olympischen Spielen von 1936 (Body, Culture and Politics: Concerning Pierre de Coubertin’s ‘Muscle Religion’ as a Means of Staging Power at the 1936 Olympic Game). Frankfurt, New York: Campus, 1996.

4. Apel, H.-O. “Die ethische Bedeutung des Sports in der Sicht einer universalistischen Diskursethik. (The Ethical Significance of Sport From the Perspective of a Universal-istic Discourse Ethics).” In Ethische Aspekte des Leistungssports, E. Franke (Red.). Clausthal-Zellerfeld: dvs-Protokolle, 1988, pp. 105-143.

5. Aufmuth, U. “Risikosport und Identitätsbegehren. Überlegungen am Beispiel des Extrem-Alpinismus (High-Risk Sport and the Search for Identity. Reflections on the Example of Extreme-Alpinism.” In Sport – Eros – Tod. 1st ed. G. Hortleder and G. Gebauer (Eds.). Frankfurt: M. Suhrkamp, 1986, pp. 188–215.

6. Bette, K.-H., and Schimank, U. Doping im Hochleistungssport (Doping in High-Per-formance Sport). Anpassung durch Abweichung. 2nd. ed. Frankfurt/M: Suhrkamp, 2006.

7. Birnbacher, D. Natürlichkeit (Naturalness). 1st Ed. Berlin, New York: de Gruyter, 2006.

8. Bockrath, F., and Franke, E. (Eds.). Vom sinnlichen Eindruck zum symbolischen Aus-druck – im Sport (From Sensual Impression to Symbolic Expression – in Sport). Ham-burg: Czwalina, 2006.

9. Bockrath, F., Boschert, B., and Franke, E. (Eds.). Körperliche Erkenntnis. Formen reflexiver Erfahrung (Bodily Cognition: Forms of Reflexive Experience). Bielefeld, transcript, 2008.

10. Boschert, B., and Gebauer, G. (Eds.). Texte und Spiele: Sprachspiele des Sports (Texts and Games: Language Games of Sport). St. Augustin: Academia, 2002.

11. Brandauer, Th. “Einige Überlegungen zur Qualität des Augenblicks in Risikospor-tarten (Some Reflections on the Quality of the Moment in High-Risk Types of Sport)”.In “Zeit und Geschwindigkeit.” Sportliches Erleben in bescheunigten Prozessen, Rän-sch-Trill, B. (Ed.). Sankt Augustin: Academia, 2002, pp. 115-123.

12. Cachay, K., Drexel, G., and Franke, E. (Eds.). Sport und Ethik (Sport and Ethics). Clausthal-Zellerfeld: dvs, 1985.

13. Cachay, K., Drexel, G., and Franke, E. (Eds.). Ethik im Sportspiel (Ethics in Sports Games). Clausthal-Zellerfeld: dvs, 1990.

14. Caysa, V. (Ed.). Sportphilosophie (Philosophy of Sport). 1st ed. Leipzig: Reclam, 1997.

Philosophy of Sport in Germany    287

15. Caysa, V. “Von der Philosophie des Sports zur Anthropologie des Körpers (From A Philosophy of Sport to an Anthropology of the Body). Neue Publikationen in der deutschen Sportphilosophie.” Allgemeine Zeitschrift für Philosophie. 2003a, 71-80.

16. Caysa, V. “Sportphilosophie als kritische Anthropologie des Körpers (Philosophy of Sport as a Critical Anthropology of the Body).” Philokles, 1, 2002, 7–19.

17. Caysa, V. Körperutopien. Eine philosophische Anthropologie des Sports (Body Uto-pias: a Philosophical Anthropology of Sport). Frankfurt, New York: Campus, 2003b.

18. Caysa, V., and Schmid, W. (Eds.). Reinhold Messners Philosophie (The Philosophy of Reinhold Messner). Frankfurt/M: Suhrkamp, 2002.

19. Court, J. Kritik ethischer Modelle des Leistungssports (Critique of Ethical Models of High-Performance Sport). 1st ed. Köln: Sport und Buch Strauß GmbH, 1995a.

20. Court, J. “Täuschung oder Gewinn? (Cheating or Winnning?).” In Handeln im Sport in ethischer Verantwortung, A. Hotz (Red.). Magglingen.” Schriftenreihe der ESSM, 62, 1995b, 222–237.

21. Court, J. (Ed.). Sport im Brennpunkt – philosophische Analysen (Sport in Focus – Philosophical Analyses). 1st Ed. Sankt Augustin: Academia, 1996.

22. Court, J. (Ed.). Was ist Sport? Sportarten in der Literatur (What is Sport? Types of Sport in Literature). Schorndorf: Hofmann, 2001.

23. Court, J. “Sportphilosophie (sport philosophy).” In Sportwissenschaftliches Lexikon, P. Röthig and Prohl, J. (Red.). 7th Ed. Schorndorf: Hofmann, 2003, pp. 528-529.

24. Court, J., and Gerhardt, V. “Sportethik (Sportethics).” In Sportwissenschaftliches Lexikon, P. Röthig (Red.). 6th Ed. Schorndorf: Hofmann, 1992, pp. 428-429.

25. De Wachter, F. “Spielregeln und ethische Problematik (Rules of the Game and Ethical Problematics).” In Aktuelle Probleme der Sportphilosophie, H. Lenk (Ed.). Schorn-dorf: Karl Hofmann, 1983, pp. 278-294.

26. Drexel, G. “Sportiver Egoismus – eine Partikular-Ethik wettkampfsportlicher Interak-tion (‘Sportive Egoism’ – a Particular Ethics of Contest-Interaction).” In Soziale Inter-aktionen und Gruppen im Sport: Bericht über die Tagung der Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Sportpsychologie (ASP) vom 25.-27. Mai 1995 in Tübingen, A. Conzelmann (Ed.). 1. Ed. Köln, 1996a, pp. 155-162.

27. Drexel, G. “Sprachphilosophie und Sport (Philosophy of Language and Sport).” In Sportphilosophie. Ein Handbuch, H. Haag (Ed.). Schorndorf: Hofmann, 1996b, pp. 251-288.

28. Drexel, G. “Zu Philosophie, Sprachspiel und Regelfolgen beim späten Wittgenstein – Klärungsversuche im Hinblick auf den Sport (On Philosophy, Language Games and Following of Rules in the Late Works of Wittgenstein – Clarification Attempts in Regard to Sport).” In Sportethik. Regeln-Fairneß-Doping, C. Pawlenka (Ed.). Pader-born: Mentis, 2004, pp. 259–267.

29. Fikus, M., and Schürmann, V. Die Sprache der Bewegung (The Language of Motion). Bielefeld: transcript, 2004.

30. Fischer, K., Güldenpfennig, S., and Kayser, D. (Eds.). Gibt es eine eigene Ethik des Olympischen Sports? (Do Olympic Sports have an Ethics of Their Own?). Köln: Sport& Buch Strauß, 2001.

31. Franke, E. Theorie und Bedeutung sportlicher Handlungen (Theory and Meaning of Sports Actions). Schorndorf: Hofmann, 1978.

32. Franke, E. (Ed.). Ethik im Sport (Sport Ethics: Rules – Fairness – Doping). Schorn-dorf: Hofmann, 2010.

33. Franz, M. Zur Qualität sportlicher Regeln. Regeltheoretische Voraussetzungen für eine Bestimmung des Sports (On the Quality of Sports Rules: Rule-Theoretical Pre-requisites for Defining Sport). Bristol, Berlin: Tenea, 2008.

34. Friedrich, G., Hildenbrandt, E., and Schwier, J. (Eds.). Sport und Semiotik (Sport and Semiotics). Sankt Augustin: Academia, 1994.

288    Pawlenka

35. Gunter Gebauer “Wie regeln Spielregeln das Spiel? (How do Sports Rules Regulate Sports Games?).” In Spiele – Spiele – Spielen, Grupe, O. Gabler, H., and Göhner, U. (Eds.). Schorndorf: Hofmann,1983, pp. 151-164.

36. Gebauer, G. (Ed.). Die Aktualität der Sportphilosophie (The Topicality of Philosophy of Sport). Sankt Augustin: Academia, 1993.

37. Gunter Gebauer (Ed.). Olympische Spiele – die andere Utopie der Moderne. Olym-pia zwischen Kult und Droge (Olympic Games – Modernity’s other Utopia: Olympia between the Poles of Cult and Drugs). Frankfurt/M: Suhrkamp, 1996.

38. Gebauer, G. “Ethik und Moral als Legitimationsquellen im Kampf gegen das Doping (Which Source of Legitimation in the Fight against Doping?).” In Doping im Sport: zwischen biochemischer Analytik und sozialem Kontext, D. Kurz and J. Mester (Eds.). Köln: Sport und Buch Strauß, 1997, pp. 67–75.

39. Gebauer, G. “Der Angriff des Dopings gegen die europäische Sportauffassung. Über-legungen zu ihrer Verteidigung.” In Japan niedergeschrieben (Doping’s Attack on the Traditional Notion of Sport: Reflections on its Defense as Written Down in Japan).“ In Doping. Spitzensport als gesellschaftliches Problem, M. Gamper, J. Mühlethaler, and F. Reidhaar (Eds.). Zürich: Verlag NZZ, 2000, pp. 113–129.

40. Gebauer, G. Sport in der Gesellschaft des Spektakels (Sport in the Society of Spec-tacles). 1st Ed. Sankt Augustin: Academia, 2002.

41. Gunter Gebauer und Christoph Wulf über. Mimetische Weltzugänge. Soziales Handeln – Rituale und Spiele – ästhetische Produktionen (Mimetic Portals to the World: Social Action – Rituals and Games – Aesthetic Productions). Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2003.

42. Gebauer, G., Alkemeyer, Th., Boschert, B., Flick, U., and Schmidt, R. Treue zum Stil. Die aufgeführte Gesellschaft (Faithfulness to Style: the Staged Society). Bielefeld: transkript, 2004.

43. Gebauer, G., and Hortleder, G. “Fußball. Die Nachrichten über Brüssel (Soccer. The News on Bruessel).” In Sport – Eros – Tod. 1st ed. G. Hortleder and G. Gebauer (Eds.). Frankfurt: M. Suhrkamp, 1986, pp. 260–270.

44. Gerhardt, V. “Die Moral des Sports (The Morality of Sport).” Sportwissenschaft, 2, 1991, 125–145.

45. Gerhardt, V., and Lämmer, M. (Eds.). Fairneß und Fair Play (Fairness and Fair Play). St Augustin: Academia, 2003

46. Gerhardt, V., and Wirkus, B. (Eds.). Sport und Ästhetik (Sport and Aesthetics). Sankt Augustin: Academia, 1995.

47. Grupe, O. “Philosophisch-anthropologische Grundlagen des Sports (Philosophico-Anthropological Foundations of Sport).” In Philosophie des Sports, Lenk, H. (ed.). Schornndorf: Hofmann, 1973. pp. 185-204.

48. Grupe, O. Bewegung, Spiel und Leistung im Sport. Grundthemen der Sportanthro-pologie (Movement, Game and Performance in Sport: Basic Themes of Sport Anthro-pology). Schorndorf: Hofmann 1982.

49. Grupe, O. Sport als Kultur (Sport as Culture). Osnabrück: Fromm, 1987. 50. Grupe, O., and Mieth, V. (Eds.). Lexikon der Ethik im Sport (Lexicon of Ethics in

Sport). 1st Ed. Schorndorf: Hofmann, 1998. 51. Güldenpfennig, S. Sport: Kunst oder Leben? Sportsoziologie als Kulturwissenschaft

(Sport: Art or Life? Sport Sociology as Cultural Science). Sankt Augustin: Academia, 1996a

52. Güldenpfennig, S. Sport: Autonomie oder Krise (Sport: Autonomy and Crisis). 1st Ed., Sankt Augustin: Academia, 1996b.

53. Güldenpfennig, S. Sport. Kritik und Eigensinn (Critique and ‘Eigensinn’). Sankt Augustin: Academia, 2000.

54. Güldenpfennig, S. Olympische Spiele als Weltkulturerbe. Zur Neubegründung der Olympischen Idee (Olympic Games as World Cultural Heritage: a New Foundation of the Olympic Idea). Sankt Augustin: Academia, 2004.

Philosophy of Sport in Germany    289

55. Gumbrecht, H.-U. Lob des Sports (Praise of Sports). Frankfurt a.M. Suhrkamp, 2005. 56. Haag, H. (Ed.). Sportphilosophie. Ein Handbuch (Philosophy of Sport: a Handbook).

Schorndorf: Hofmann, 1996. 57. Habermas, J. Die Zukunft der menschlichen Natur. Auf dem Wege zu einer liberalen

Eugenik (The Future of Human Nature. Paths to a Liberal Eugenic), Frankfurt/M: Suhrkamp, 2001.

58. Heringer, H.J. “Regeln und Fairneß. Woher bezieht der Sport seine Moral? (Rules and Fairness: Where Does Sports Get Its Morals From?).” In Kulturgut oder Körperkult? Sport und Sportwissenschaft im Wandel, O. Grupe (Ed.). Tübingen: Attempto, 1990, pp. 157–171.

59. Hortleder, G., and Gebauer, G. (Eds.). Sport – Eros – Tod (Sport – Eros – Death). 1st ed.). Frankfurt: M. Suhrkamp, 1986.

60. Konersmann, R., Krois, J.M., and Westermann, D. Brot und Spiele (Bread and games). Zeitschrift für Kulturphilosophie, 2010, pp. 1.

61. Huschka, S. “Intelligente Körper. Bewegung entwerfen – Bewegung entnehmen – Bewegung denken (Intelligent Bodies. Designing Motion – Learning Motion – Con-ceptionalizing Motion).” In Körperliche Erkenntnis. Formen reflexiver Erfahrung, Bockrath, F., Boschert, B., and Franke, E. (Eds.). Bielefeld, transcript, 2008. pp. 135-156.

62. König, E. Körper – Wissen – Macht. Studien zur historischen Anthropologie des Kör-pers (Body – Knowledge – Power. Studies on an Historical Anthropology of the Body). Berlin: Reimer, 1989.

63. Lämmer, M., and Nebelung, T. (Eds.). Dimensionen der Ästhetik. Festschrift für Bar-bara Ränsch-Trill (Dimensions of Aesthetics. Festschrift for Barbara Ränsch-Trill). Sankt Augustin: Academia, 2005

64. Lenk, H. Werte, Ziele, Wirklichkeit der modernen olympischen Spiele (Values, Goals and the Reality of Modern Olympic Games). Schorndorf: Hofmann, 1964.

65. Lenk, H. (Ed.). Philosophie des Sports (Philosophy of Sport). Schorndorf: Hofmann, 1973.

66. Lenk, H. “Auf dem Wege zu einer analytischen Sportphilosophie (Paths to an Analytic Philosophy of Sport).” Sportwissenschaft, 10, 1980, 417–436.

67. Lenk, H. (Ed.). Aktuelle Probleme der Sportphilosophie (Current Problems of Phi-losophy of Sport). Schorndorf: Hofmann, 1983a.

68. Lenk, H. Eigenleistung. Plädoyer für eine positive Leistungskultur (Self-Performance: Plea for a Positive Culture of Performance). Zürich: Edition Interfrom, 1983.

69. Lenk, H. “Philosophie des Sports (philosophy of sport)“. In Sportwissenschaftliches Lexikon, P. Röthig (Red.). 5th Ed. Schorndorf: Hofmann, 1983c, pp. 282-283.

70. Lenk, H. Die Achte Kunst. Leistungssport – Breitensport (The Eighth Art: High-Per-formance Sport – Mass Sport). Zürich: Edition Interfrom, 1985.

71. Lenk, H. Erfolg oder Fairneß. Leistungssport zwischen Ethik und Technik (Success or Fairness: High-Performance Sports – Ethics and Technology). Münster, Hamburg, London: Lit, 2002.

72. Lenk, H. “Dopium fürs Volk?” Werte des Sports in Gefahr (“Dopium for the People?” Values of Sport at Risk). Hamburg: merus, 2007.

73. Meinberg, E. Die Moral im Sport. Bausteine einer neuen Sportethik (Morality in Sport: Foundations of a New Sport Ethics). Aachen: Meyer & Meyer, 1991.

74. Meinberg, E. Dopingsport im Brennpunkt der Ethik (Doping Sport in Ethical Focus). Hamburg: merus, 2006.

75. Morgan, W.J./Meier, K.V. (Eds.), Philosophic Inquiry in Sport, 2nd. Ed., Champaign: Human Kinetics, 1995.

76. Müller. Al. “Tiere im Sport (Animals in Sport).“ In Lexikon der Ethik im Sport., Grupe, O. and Mieth, V. (Eds.). 1st Ed. Schorndorf: Hofmann, 1998, pp. 562-566.

290    Pawlenka

77. Müller. Ar. Risikosport: Suizid oder Lebenskunst? (Risksports: Suicide or Leben-skunst?) Hamburg: merus, 2008

78. Nebelung, T. Theologie und Sportphilosophie (Theology and Philosophy of Sport). Der homo sportivus aus theologisch-anthropologischer Perspektive. Saarbrücken: VDM Verlag Dr. Müller, 2007.

79. Neupold, D., and Neupold, L. (Eds.). Fußball und mehr... Ethische Aspekte eines Mes-senphänomens (Soccer and More... Ethical Aspects of a Mass-Phenomenon). Inns-bruck: Tyrolia, 2003.

80. Pawlenka, C. Utilitarismus und Sportethik (Utilitarianism and Sport Ethics). Pader-born: Mentis, 2002.

81. Pawlenka, C. (Ed.). Sportethik. Regeln-Fairneß-Doping (Sport Ethics: Rules – Fair-ness – doping). Paderborn: Mentis, 2004.

82. Pawlenka, C. “Sportethik. Das Stichwort. (Sportethics. The Keyword).” Information Philosophie, 5, 2005, 36–38

83. Pawlenka, C. Ethik, Natur und Doping (Ethics, Nature and Doping). Paderborn: Mentis, 2002.

84. Ränsch-Trill, B. (Ed.). Natürlichkeit und Künstlichkeit: philosophische Diskussion-grundlagen zum Problem der Körper-Inszenierung (Naturalness and Artificiality: Philosophical Foundations for Discussing the Problem of Staging the Body). Ham-burg: Czwalina Verlag, 2000.

85. Ränsch-Trill, B. (Ed.). “Zeit und Geschwindigkeit“. Sportliches Erleben in bes-cheunigten Prozessen (Time and Tempo: Sportive Experience in Accelerated Pro-cesses). Sankt Augustin: Academia, 2002.

86. Ränsch-Trill, B. Kult – Sport – Kunst – Symbol. Tanz im kulturellen Gedächtnis (Cult – Sport – Art – Symbol. Dance in the cultural memory). Schornddorf: Hofmann, 2004.

87. Ränsch-Trill, B., and Lämmer, M. (Eds.). Der “künstliche Mensch“ – eine sportwissen-schaftliche Perspektive? (The ‘Artificial’ Human Being – a Sport-Scientific Perspec-tive). Sankt Augustin: Academia, 2003.

88. Röthig, P. “Sport und Ästhetik (Sports and Aesthetics).“ In Sportphilosophie. Ein Handbuch, Haag, H. (Ed.). Schorndorf: Hofmann, 1996, pp. 210-228.

89. Schürmann, V. (Ed.). Menschliche Körper in Bewegung. Philosophische Modelle und Konzepte der Sportwissenschaft (Human Bodies in Movement: Philosophical Models and Concepts of Sport Science). Frankfurt, New York: Campus, 2001a.

90. Schürmann, V. “Die eigentümliche Logik des eigentümlichen Gegenstandes Sport – Vorüberlegungen (The Peculiar Logic of the Peculiar Subject of Sport – preliminary considerations).” In Menschliche Körper in Bewegung. Philosophische Modelle und Konzepte der Sportwissenschaft, V. Schürmann (Ed.)., 2001b, pp. 262–287.

91. Schürmann, V. “Menschliche Körper in Bewegung. Zur Programmatik.” In Menschli-che Körper in Bewegung. Philosophische Modelle und Konzepte der Sportwissen-schaft (Human Bodies in Movement: Philosophical Models and Concepts of Sport Science), V. Schürmann (Ed.), 2001b, pp. 9–40.

92. Seel, M. “Die Zelebration des Unvermögens (A Celebration of Incapacity).” Mercur, 527, 1993, 91–100.

93. Segets, M. Ökologische Aspekte der Sportethik. Zur Entwicklung einer umweltbezo-genen Fairneßethik im Sport (Ecological Aspects of Sport Ethics: Concerning the Development of an Environmentally-Related Fairness Ethics in Sport). Butzbach-Griedel: Afra, 2002.

94. Seewald, J. “Philosophische Anthropologie – Leiblichkeit/Körperlichkeit des Men-schen (Philosophical Anthropology – Corporeality/Bodiliness of the Human Being).” In Sportphilosophie. Ein Handbuch, Haag, H. (Ed.). Schorndorf: Hofmann, 1996, pp. 24-56.

95. Sloterdijk, P. Du mußt dein Leben ändern (You must Change your Life). 1st Ed. Frankfurt/M: Suhrkamp, 2009.

Philosophy of Sport in Germany    291

96. Stygermeer, M. Der Sport und seine Ethik. Zur Grundlegung einer Dogmatik des Sports (Sport and Its Ethics: Founding a Dogmatics of Sport). Berlin: Tenea, 1999.

97. Suits, B. “Words on Play.” In Philosophic Inquiery in Sport, Morgan J.M. 1st ed. K.V. Meier (Ed.). Champaign., 1988, pp. 17–27.

98. Thiele, J. Erfahrung und Leiblichkeit. Bausteine einer skeptischen Sportpädagogik (Experience and Corporeality: Foundations of a Skeptical Sport Pedagogy). Habilita-tionsschrift. Deutsche Sporthochschule Köln, 1995.

99. Thiele, J. 1996 “Mutmaßungen über eine zukünftige Sportphilosophie – z.B.: Phän-omenologie (Conjectures on a Future Philsophy of Sport: Phenomenology). In Sport im Brennpunkt – philosophische Analysen, Court, J. (Ed.). 1st Ed. Sankt Augustin: Academia, 1996, pp. 21-38.

100. Treml, A.K. (Ed.). Sportethik. Frisch, fromm, fröhlich – foul? (Sport Ethics: Fresh, Pious, Perky – Foul? (Sportehik. Frisch, fromm, fröhlich – foul?) Jahrespublikation der Zeitschrift & Unterricht. Seelze: Friedrich Verlag, 2001.

101. Turnes, C. “Extremsport Triathlon und Michel Foucaults Konzept der Formung von Subjektivität (Triathlon the Extreme Sport and Michel Foucault’s Concept of the For-mation of Subjectivity).” In Körperliche Erkenntnis. Formen reflexiver Erfahrung, Bockrath, F., Boschert, B., and Franke, E. (Eds.). Bielefeld, transcript, 2008, pp. 215-228.

102. Volkamer, M. “Zur Definition des Begriffs Sport (On the Definition of the Concept of ‘Sport’).” Sportwissenschaft, 2, 1984, 195–203.

103. Weiss, P. Sport: A Philosophic Inquiery. Southern Illinois University Press, 1969. 104. Willimczik, K. “A Comparative Analysis of Theories of Sport-science.” In Aktuelle

Probleme der Sportphilosophie, Lenk, H. (Ed.). Schorndorf: Hofmann, 1983, pp. 316-328.

105. Wirkus, B. “Sportphilosophie (Sport Philosophy).” In Lexikon der Ethik im Sport, Grupe, O. and Mieth, V. (Eds.). 1st Ed. Schorndorf: Hofmann, 1998, pp. 518-525.