The facts and fictions of religion: make believe on Avatar Forums

Recent scholars of religion have begun to explore the relationship between religion and fiction. Within this context, Johan Huizinga’s theory of religion as make believe or play has received considerable attention. James Cameron’s film Avatar (2009) has inspired behaviour that can be thought of as religious, despite the film’s clear foundations in fiction. Scholarship on fan communities has debated whether such groups can be considered religions. This article develops Huizinga’s account using Kendall Walton’s theory of make believe. Walton’s theory enables the interpretation of fiction into overlapping games of make believe in fan communities. The conversational threads on Avatar Forums show how norms of discourse that preclude disagreement allow the frames of reality and fiction to blur. These norms of discourse provide a means of understanding the process by which media myths can become the basis of fiction-based value structures within the cultic milieu. However, the theory also presents significant problems for theorists of religion in terms of the structure of religious belief and religious experience.     

Critical evaluation of Guilford's structure-of-intellect theory

The structure-of-intellect (SI) theory is evaluated within a framework of considerations of capitalization on chance. This empirical problem is placed in a larger perspective of concern for the general conceptual value of the theory in the study of human intelligence. The factor analytic support for the theory is found to be lacking in several notable respects. At best the research intended to support the model must be considered exploratory. But the model has provided a useful scheme for test construction and for indicating interesting hypotheses about qualities of intellect. Even in this context, however, there are several problems with the theory. The theory provides only a static taxonomy and thus affords very limited possibilities for understanding developmental issues.     

Sledging in Sport—Playful Banter,or Mean-spirited Insults? A Study of Sledging’s Place in Play

Abstract

Sledging, or ‘trash talk’ or ‘chirping’, as it’s known in other parts of the world, has long been part of competitive sport. However, more recent times have seen the issue of sledging, and its place in sport, debated with many athletes, fans and academics arguing that sledging has moved outside the notion of ‘sportsmanship’ and gone beyond light hearted, good natured banter. They argue it is now characterized as hurtful, insulting, offensive and intimidating – a tactic that has moved beyond fair play and, in many instances, no longer acceptable. This paper seeks to explore this issue in greater depth. In particular, this paper seeks to ask, ‘is sledging part of play, or is it a characteristic of play’s corruption?’ The argument proceeds by adopting a conception of play grounded in the work of Johan Huizinga. Play may be understood as a core component of even professional sport, not least in that play lies at the moral core of the ‘spirit of sport’ in fairplay and respect for one’s opponents. Using examples to illuminate the changing nature of play and sledging, it will be argued that sledging in its modern form leads to the corruption of this ‘spirit of sport’. The insights of sports and philosophy academics and scholars are drawn upon, as are the insights of surveyed sports fans and amateur athletes who highlight their views on sledging and its place in modern sport. By doing so, sledging’s role in sport and its most dominant characteristics, according to those to watch professional sport and play at the community level, become clear, helping to articulate the difference between a form of sledging that is still playful and a part of play, and sledging that is characteristic of play’s corruption.