Huizinga (1950) argued for a conceptual overlap between sport, games, and play. Others, like McIntyre (1981), contended that sport was a socially established cooperative activity. Still others maintained that the definitiveness of sport lies in the exemplification of specific criteria, such as competitiveness (Krein, 2014; 2015). No one has asked non-specialists about their views despite that they may have strong, considered views. In this paper, we report results of an experiment we conducted where we asked 879 participants to rate 36 activities on a sport-likeness scale. We hypothesised that participants would rate activities governed by constitutive rules (overcoming unnecessary obstacles to achieve a goal (Suits 1978), e.g., golf’s aim is to get the ball in the hole) more highly sport-like than those activities that are governed by facilitative rules (rules that facilitate an activity, e.g., the goal of sprinting is to run a short distance as fast as possible). We also hypothesised that activities with predominantly gross motor demands, such as rugby or American football, would be rated more highly sport-like than those activities that relied primarily on fine motor skill, like snooker or archery. While some results were surprising, our hypotheses were borne out by the data we collected.
Metaphysical freedom, experienced as a state of lucidity, can allow for balanced change in our understanding of ecology as it creates opportunities for individuals to develop a dynamic moral mindset in line with our ever-changing relationship with nature and empower them to enact intentional change. Entering a state of lucidity, a state where we recognise our responsibility in creating our own meaning, will give us a position from which to birth creative solutions in the face of loss. Processing eco-grief and moral injury, in our current state of global climate-crisis, provides opportunities to reflect on our appeals to futility or authority, and other approaches to nature that are frequented as means to exonerate us from our responsibility to nature. I argue that environmental disseminators and organisations have the more difficult job of empowering individuals to reflect on their moral injury, than corporations and institutions who wish to offer exoneration to the individual from their moral injury for continued capital gain. How we act in response to our moral injury and eco-grief comes to shape our world.
