Dodgeball: Is the unintended outcome of Dodgeball teaching the five faces of oppression?

A long-standing connection is made in the public imaginary between the practice of sport and the practice of ethical behaviours. We pursue this in our presentation as we consider the potential of games education as a means of... [ view full abstract ]

A long-standing connection is made in the public imaginary between the practice of sport and the practice of ethical behaviours. We pursue this in our presentation as we consider the potential of games education as a means of education about the spirit of friendship and fair play, and, sadly, sometimes animosity and divisiveness. Varela (1999) has suggested that ethical decisions are usually made in the moment in real life situations and that these day-to-day choices accrue over the years to develop what he calls “ethical know-how” and Aristotle (1999) called phronesis, or mindful wisdom. In this presentation, we argue that physical education provides a context in which such know-how is constantly being developed. Despite the fact that many physical educators understand their vital role in helping students develop robust, equal, productive relationships and critical awareness, their practices on the ground do not always reflect this agenda. We suggest that this tension becomes sharply visible in the common practice of allowing students to play dodgeball. We further argue that the lessons learned in playing dodgeball are antithetical to anti-oppressive education. Our argument is situated in three ethical perspectives – Nodding’s (1984; 2010; 2012) ethic of care, Young’s (1990) consideration of the five faces of oppression and Aristotle’s (1999) reflections on the nature of virtue. As we consider the potential of physical education to empower students by engaging them in critical and democratic practices, we conclude that the hidden curriculum offered by dodgeball is antithetical to this project, even when it reflects the choices of the strongest and most agile students.