![Sample our Humanities journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5939/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Humanities.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
It is common in contemporary sport to liken the notion of the team to that of the family. That is, the family is used to evoke team life. Portraying the team as a family usually implies a positive evaluation. Despite its prevalence, the team as a family equation has not been analyzed in the sport philosophy literature. Thus, the purpose of this article is twofold. First, it explores whether the team is to be equated with the family. To discuss the nature of the family and the team, I draw together the work of several sport philosophers with that of Laura Wildemann Kane. Second, and considering what characterizes the team, this article investigates whether teammates have special responsibilities to one another by virtue of their relationship and the value attached to it. I propose that the team as a family equation does not align with the constitution of these two social groups and that teammates have special responsibilities to one another, but such responsibilities are different from those observed in the family.
Acknowledgments
The author would like to thank two anonymous reviewers and editor Paul Gaffney for their comments and suggestions to improve this article. The author is also grateful to Francisco Javier López Frías for his observations on an earlier version of this article.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Notes
1. For simplicity’s sake, in this article ‘the team’ refers to ‘the sport team’.
2. For a history of the family see, for example, Maynes and Waltner (Citation2012) and the two volumes of Burguière et al. (Citation1996).
3. For an introduction to the work of Gilbert, see Kane (Citation2021). See also, among her many works, Gilbert (Citation1989).
4. See the entire section of her article entitled ‘Isn’t the Family a Biological Group?’ (74–77).
5. See Torres (Citation2014).
6. See also Helm (Citation2009).
7. One reviewer aptly asked if this kind of expectation is subject to the charge that the team implies an ethically subpar form of relationship. While important, this question is beyond the scope of this article. I presume though that the vast literature critiquing Immanuel Kant’s claim that only actions performed from the motive of duty have moral worth would be relevant to address it.
8. See Torres and Ilundáin-Agurruza (Citation2011) and Torres and López Frías (Citation2023).
9. None of what is argued in this paragraph denies that some families are equally or even more hierarchical than teams. However, the point is that, based on the accounts of the nature of the family and the team explored in this article, the former should not assign more epistemological prominence to one or some of its members if they are to jointly commit to provide care in intimate settings for the mutual flourishing of one another.
10. See also Scheffler (Citation2001).
11. One example, which lists many others, is Brighouse and Swift (Citation2009).
12. As a reviewer pointed out, the special responsibilities that teammates owe one another appear to be related to what is known as ‘role differentiated duties’. For introductory discussions of these duties, see Wasserstrom (Citation1975) and Wendel (Citation2011).