The Stance of Sport

HYLAND:

THE STANCE OF SPORT, Pages 73-78

In Hyland’s chapter he discusses four main components of “play” and why people play. These four ideas are what he calls “responsive openness,” finitude, possibility and freedom. He speaks to what sports offer us as humans, and what parts of ourselves we offer when we play. His main thesis seems to be that we use our “responsive openness” when we play within a combination of finitude and possibility that culminates in a kind of freedom. The anti-thesis to this could be that these dynamics Hyland uses to try to dissect why we play are not unique to sports, but are just different dynamics in life.

Responsive Openness

Hyland explains that there is a certain stance of play that we maintain while we are playing a game. He calls this “responsive openness.” The term is derived from being open but also being responsive. The need to be open and aware when playing a game is so important as games are inherently thematic, says Hyland. It would not be enough, though, to be open to what is going on around because this would allow for passive openness. When one is in their stance of play, they must also be responsive in their openness and be able to react. To engage in play we must be able to respond as well as be open. Hyland says that responsive openness is an essential part of sports and games but he acknowledges that it is not exclusive to them. It is also not his definition of sports or games because this would be far too broad.

Finitude

In life humans are always trying to avoid finitude—the limitations of everything around us, whether it be the finitude of time, space or abilities. Hyland points out that in play, finitude becomes a positive and is brought to the forefront. Sports are completely based on rules and people but these rules are embraced because it is what makes play fun. There are still the temporal, spatial limitations and finitude based on ability but Hyland claims that people acknowledge them as integral to play and not as a hindrance. The meaning of the game is derived from the finitude.

Possibility

The contrary of finitude is possibility. Hyland connects them, however, in that in order for there to be the most possibility in play, there has to be finitude. The openness and responsiveness also has to be focused within the boundaries of the finitude. To play is to have responsive openness within a context. “Humans need focus, which is to say, humans need finitude.” I did not agree with his strong linking of possibility and finitude. What he seemed to be proving was just that finitude gives meaning to play, but not necessarily that this creates possibility.

Freedom

The last argument stems from finitude and possibility when they are put together. When combined, they produce a freedom that is the motivation for why we play. “Strange paradox, that subjecting oneself to constraints more limiting than those of everyday life should be experienced as freedom, the freedom of exhilarating play,” Hyland explains. Using our bodies to their greatest ability within given boundaries or rules or limitations is freedom. When a sort of alternate play world is made, people function within that world in a completely different way than the real world; the possibilities within the limitations of the game are endless. I think of it in terms of playing make-believe, where we are constrained to a world that is not real, but are in the responsive openness stance of play, seemingly able to do anything. Hyland’s last point in this section is that people would just float along bored in a day to day world, in a game “without an end” if it were not for play. We need this other realm with other rules and finitude to truly have freedom.