Section From Uni Essay Which Received 85%/ High First

Dixon, (2007, p.97) describes trash talking as "verbal barbs directed at opponents during a sporting event in order to gain a competitive edge". Summers (2007) explains further that trash talking is virtually condemned, universally, as unsportsmanlike and is therefore a corrupt action to take part in. The concept of trash talking has many issues and is viewed in various ways by different people. Furthermore, an example of the different views is portrayed between Summers and Dixon. Moreover, Dixon, (2008) explains how Summers defends sledging and views it as acceptable, whereas Dixon believes it is unethical. Dixon explains how Summers refers to trash talking as 'sledging', which is the term that is current in cricket (Dixon, 2008). Other issues which must be discussed are, is sledging in sport considered fair play, and what fair play actually is. Furthermore, Sheridan (2003) suggests how the term fair play has still not got a precise definition and that although it's very important; it is unclear what fair play actually is. It has been suggested that there are various types of fair play, such as 'fair play as a virtue' however, conceptualizing fair play is extremely difficult as it is subjective and could mean different things to different people (Sheridan, 2003). Loland and McNamee (2000, p.65) suggest that fair play comprises of two dimensions; formal and informal, and that it is more about the "spirit" of the game, rather than the rules.

The upshot is that people view sledging and trash talking differently; some view it as acceptable whereas others view it as a form of cheating or remain ambivalent. Many theorists, such as, McIntosh, Leaman and Keating have tried to define the term cheating. According to Luschen (cited in Sheridan 2003, p.165), cheating in sport is "the act through which the manifestly or latently agreed upon conditions for winning such a contest are changed in favour of one side." McIntosh (1979, p.100-101) stated that "cheating need be no more than breaking the rules with the intention of not being found.cheating, however, implies an intention to beat the system, even though the penalty, if the offender is found, may still be acceptable". This suggestion implies that some may only view cheating as a negative concept, if found out. Therefore these two definitions express the huge dilemma that arises; who has the authority to define what cheating is? Cheating is different to everyone, and although some rules are specific, cheaters aren't always caught, and therefore, unknowingly, the cheat has been allowed to break the rules. However, although this definition may be true, it doesn't suggest that sledging or trash talking is considered as cheating, as there is no rule which states that a player cannot talk to their opposition, even if it is in a detrimental context. Sheridan (2003) argues that although imperfect, the understanding of fair play as the ethos of a game is preferable compared to other, broad understandings of the term 'fair play'. Eitzen (1999) suggests that sport can help to promote fair play and that a product of sport may be good sportsmanship, but so can also lead to bad sportsmanship. Eitzen (1999, p.43) distinguishes between both views of trash talking in sport and states how "sport inspired as it fosters the admirable traits of courage, determination, hard work, fairness, respect, sacrifice and loyalty. But also promotes rule breaking, selfishness, greed, contempt for opponents, and violence on the field as well as off the field." This emphasises the key issue within the ethics of sport, is sledging disrespecting the values of fair play? In this essay I will be discussing views from both sides of the trash talking argument, establishing differences between theories and the issues they have. I will then conclude with an opinion based on all the knowledge I have discussed.

Identify and describe the key arguments put forward by Dixon (and his supporters). Theories etc AGAINST Dixon (2007, p.96) argues that although widely accepted by the athletic community, trash talking and sledging are disrespectful, unfair and "morally indefensible". Respect has been described as the willingness to show appreciation or consideration as well as the state of being regarded with honour, (The American Heritage Dictionary., 2009). Dixon (2007) believes that it is wrong to insult people on and off the pitch, and that just because it is a sporting situation, it still should not merit acceptance. He argues that shouting a disrespectful remark to someone on the street is exactly the same as doing it during a football match. "Neither the ethos of sport nor the concept of athletic excellence nor the alleged moral immunity of sport gives good reasons for tolerating trash talking." (Dixon, 2007, p. 98). Dixon (2007, p. 99) emphasises this point by adding "Outside sport we consider such verbal assaults to be demeaning, insulting and morally reprehensible". Again, Dixon is arguing his case and emphasising the evidence he has that outside of a sporting situation, trash talking would never be acceptable and that it's outrageous that in sport it is morally acceptable. He believes there is no difference, no matter what circumstance, trash talking or any other form of assault is morally unacceptable. Dixon (2007, p. 98), recognises other views on trash talking, as he expresses the fact that he understands that trash talking isn't always meant to be personal, and the majority of the time is it just to gain a "competitive edge". He comprehends that most athletes disregard the rude comments and views them as ploys to win however; he still believes that in no matter what context, trash talking should not be accepted.

Loland and McNamee (2000), suggest that sport is a similar to communication in that is it a social concept and therefore people need to work within the social norms of the sport. This suggests that Loland and McNamee both agree with Dixon and believe that norms within a social context should be taken into a sporting context as well. The issue which arises is, as sledging isn't technically breaking the rules, should it be banned? D' Agostino's solution (1981), to the formalists challenge was to introduce an ethos. He defined an ethos as a shared group of norms on the interpretation within a game. This implies that the narrow conception of formalism suggests rules are vital but not technically sufficient for understanding games. Loland and McNamee (2000, p.67) agree with D'Agostino's theory and stated that "the idea of an ethos takes seriously the diversity of sports and accounts for different interpretations of one set of game rules in different socio-cultural settings." Furthermore, D'Agostino's ethos includes unwritten rules, expectations, norms and playing conventions (Jones and Fleming, 2010). Eitzen (1999) argues that the practise of trash talking emphasises the lack of mutual respect between competitors. However, it has been acknowledged that it is not only the players who show disrespect, but also the spectators. Eitzen (1999, p.47) suggests how spectators sometimes "cheer an opponent's injury or engage in bloodlust cheers". Furthermore, some competitors and spectators take trash talking to racial extremes and engage in various types of discrimination. Eitzen (1999, p.47) shows an example of this; "when Patrick Ewing played Gerogetown, he was confronted by T-shirts that said 'Ewing Kant Read Dis'." This example proves that trash talking can lead to extremely personal torment and emphasises the need to eradicate trash talking as although most circumstances don't go this far, there is always potential for the situation to get out of hand. Beliefs of Rud and Stoll (1998),are that the schools and education system are partly at fault for why athletes act so disrespectfully towards each other. Furthermore, Rud and Stoll (1998) suggested that although the education system may teach various qualities such as leadership and communication skills which help contribute to teamwork, they question how these taught qualities can help induce sportsmanship. Sportsmanship has been defined as "the ability to value athletic competition as a moral practise" (Beller & Stroll, 1998). Norms have been defined as "standards for behaviour that are expected of members of the groups" (Carron, 1988, p.21). Rainey (2010) supports Dixon's theory and suggests that unfortunately norms are developing among athletes which favour the use of trash talk. Carron (1988) distinguishes between a variety of norms. He explains that prescribed norms are appropriate patterns of behaviour, preference norms are behaviours which are preferred but not required and proscribed norms are behaviours in which the group find inappropriate. This therefore emphasises that certain norms are not compulsory, but they are preferred and expected, just like the norms within a sporting situation may not be that trash talking is against the rules, however it is expected of the athletes not to take part in sledging torments. Speculation about how young athletes learn to trash talk has arisen. Explanations by Phillip (1995), suggest that young athletes mimic professional athletes and their behaviour. Moreover, the professional athletes have a huge influence on the aspiring young athletes who may copy their behaviour; good or bad. This is another valuable argument against the use of trash talking as it can negatively influence young people who may not know right from wrong. Role models can only be role models if they have a positive impact on others surely? However, opposing theories from research CARRIED OUT by Eveslage and Delaney (1998), conclude that opponents and team members have a greater influence for trash talk, rather than professional athletes. Further research also suggested that coaches implemented trash talking as a coaching technique, insulting the players in an attempt to motivate them. Therefore this could suggest that perhaps trash talking isn't necessarily negative on performance as many athletes may have been coached with this technique mildly to actually motivate them to perform better. Although this may be true, different people WORK BETTER with different coaching methods therefore meaning that although some may thrive with this coaching style, others may be negatively impacted. Simons (2003), agrees with Dixon's argument as he believes that trash talking provides barely any competitive advantage and is therefore irrelevant and isn't useful in sport. It is argued that too much attention is placed upon trash talking which in turn, wastes valuable competing time and compromises the sport for the players and competitors. Evidence provided by Dixon portrays that people approve of sledging. Dixon (2007, p. 98) states that "we cannot easily condemn trash talking on the ground of the offence it causes since most athletes do not appear to be offended by it." This suggests that Dixon has clearly researched other views of his argument and has considered them when portraying his theory. Jones and Howe (2005), suggest that the theoretical terrain involves a winner who shows superior ability and athletic excellence. This could therefore be seen to agree with either arguments, depending on which perspective is looked at. Furthermore, Jones' and Howe's argument could be viewed as agreeing with Dixon, in that it's only the physical athletic ability which should be considered. On the other hand, the theoretical terrain provided by Jones and Howe (2005) could also be viewed as supporting Summers' argument in that the superior athletic ability is a physical and mental concept. This could suggest that Jones and Howe are still undecided and haven't committed to backing either side of the argument. A Kantian critique of trash talking expresses statements which could indicate Kant also believed trash-talking to be ethically unacceptable. Furthermore Paton (1948, p.165) suggests that the Kantian Categorical Imperative, "always treat others as ends in themselves and never only as means", would be against the use of trash talking. Kant's theory was that people are ends in themselves, not just as means or an instrument to be used by others. Furthermore, this theory implies that sledging is wrong, no matter in what situation, as it would involve using someone, a human being, as a way of winning, therefore manipulating an individual in order to win. Although this isn't technically cheating, Kantian theory believes this to be immoral, as it would "reduce a person to a thing" (Paton, 1948, p.165). Although this principle is not forced upon us, it is a principle which "ought" to be obliged and used (Paton, 1948, p.165). Another important point made was that as an individual, we owe it to our society to treat each other with respect and not just as a means to an end or as a way of winning. Thus emphasising the fact that the use of trash talking may not be cheating, but it is immoral as it is going against the Kantian Categorical Imperative. Another important aspect of this discussion is that fact that the subject trash talking appears to be very problematic as there is no other counterargument to it being unacceptable other than when used in a sporting context. It could be viewed that Dixon's theory is an idealization of sport, rather than a realisation.

Although Dixon produced some valuable points, many of his opponents also have key arguments encouraging trash talking and Sledging. Furthermore, Summers (2007) offers a well-qualified defence of trash talking in sport and argues that trash talking isn't morally unacceptable within sporting situations. Summers argues that trash talking should be accepted within modern elite sport and seen as just another tactic to win a game. This is portrayed when Summers (2007, p.70) suggests that "different strategies, tactics, formations and so on are available to the sides involved in the competition." He explains that it should not be taken personally or disrespectfully but viewed as a mental ability to distract the opposition. Summers (2007, p.68) believes that sports are "tests of athletic skill" and that athletes are required to possess both physical and mental strength when competing. Although Summers qualifies his opinion on trash talking as being valid, he fails to provide evidence that others disagree with his and assumes that trash talking is "universally condemned", but provides no evidence that this is correct (Summers, 2007, p.68). Therefore his whole argument is based on assumptions rather than actual knowledge, which in turn, could lower the validity of his theory. Summers (2007), goes further to state that sports are not only tests of athletic skill but also of the athlete's ability to compete. Thus assuming that if the athlete is prepared to take part, they need to also be prepared for the competition, and what the opposition may throw at them, whether it is physical or mental challenges. This proposes Summers believes that opponents of trash talking have a very narrow and one dimensional conception of elite sport which fails to represent modern sport in the correct way. This also implies that Summers believes that if the athlete's mental state gets disturbed by an opponent trash talking, then they weren't focused in the first place and therefore weren't entirely ready to or worthy of competing. In response to this, Dixon (2008) argues that although psychological qualities are components of great importance of athletic performance, the use of trash talking is still unethical as the ability to overcome trash talking is irrelevant to the qualities that sport has been designed to test. This could be interpreted as that Dixon agrees that the mental capability of an athlete is important, but the use of trash talking doesn't fairly test the mental ability, it just allows for irrelevant comments to be thrown at each other. This again expresses the fact that Dixon will not back down with his theory. Summers (2007, p.70) does not believe trash talking is wrong, he believes it is just a question of whether it "should" be done. He argues that when a game or competition matters, trash talking is permissible. However, he believes that if it were merely a friendly game, where the outcome doesn't matter, it would be "odd" to attempt to undermine the opposition, and therefore in this circumstance it would be wrong. (Summers, 2007, p.70) This argument is key because in some ways, Summers is actually agreeing with Dixon in that the timing of the sledging is important and when used at an inappropriate time, Summers actually agrees with Dixon and believes the use of trash talking is wrong. Summers has shot himself in the foot with this statement. Furthermore, he refers to moral immunity that in a sporting context, if at an appropriate time, sledging is morally acceptable. However, other arguments could state that if sport is off limits and therefore has morally accepted the use of trash talking, then surely it should be deemed as acceptable in any situation, no matter what circumstance. Therefore, Summers almost contradicts himself in that at one time he emphasises the fact that as it is in a sporting context, it is acceptable, no questions asked. However, at another time, he persistently states that it depends on the situation as to when sledging is acceptable and therefore it is a question of when and if it should be done, almost as if querying the moral acceptance. Furthering this argument, who has the authority to state when is an appropriate time to sledge? Just because a football game may be classed as a 'friendly kick about', surely each individual will perceive this term differently, some viewing it as an important competitive environment, whereas others viewing it literally as a social game. This questions Summers' theory as he has not specified or considered who has the authority to decide when sledging is classed as inappropriate. It is very easy to suggest this as a theory, and in an ideal world where nothing is subjective and everything is logical, Summers' theory could work. However, as no one individual has the same thought process, his argument severely lacks a backbone.