Dr.Hab., PhD A.A. Peredel'skiy
I.B. Kormazeva
Russian State University of Physical Culture, Sport, Youth and Tourism (GTsOLIFK), Moscow

Keywords: dialectics, modern sport, humanistic issues.

 Introduction. Here, we have the book “Social problems of modern sport and the Olympic movement (humanistic and dialectical analysis)” by Professor V.I. Stolyarov, which was published in 2015. The content of this book is of the utmost importance for us, as, first, it is based on a tremendous number of the discipline-related and problem-specific literary and documentary sources; second, it classifies all this somewhat eclectic information, opening it up for the dialectical analysis; third, it provides the analysis pattern, demonstrating and making possible its further systematical development. We cannot but snap at this kind invitation, and in our study of modern sport proceed in the direction, specified by V.I. Stolyarov, certainly, from the perspective of our own academic interest.

Objective of the study was to assess the dialectical and humanistic approaches proposed by V.I. Stolyarov in the context of the analysis of social problems of modern sport and the Olympic movement.

Results and discussion. First of all, it is necessary to clarify the principle of the dialectical method, as well as the essence of the object and subject of this study, in relation to which it is to be employed.

Let us start with the object. At first glance, it seems difficult, consisting of two or even three parts: sport, the Olympic movement, humanistic traditions, foundations and components of modern agonic-sport practice. The last (hidden) constituent of the object becomes visible if we take a close look at the content of the book, Chapter II in particular. “Basic humanistic ideas and ideals”. In fact, we assume V.I. Stolyarov means not sport or Olympism as such, but the sphere or area, where humanism could be implemented, embodied in their name. In other words, the philosopher of sport is interested in the degree of humanization/dehumanization of physical culture and sport and the range of issues raised in this connection. Describing the evolution of the Coubertin's concept of Olympism to its present state, V.I. Stolyarov proves conclusively and practically that the non-Olympic idea of a ​​humanistic pedagogical project transforms into an outpost of modern specialized, professionalized, commercialized elite sport, i.e. into a relatively isolated part of sport rather than physical education. Therefore, the apparent multiplicity, complexity of the object in fact turns out to be its relative unity and relative simplicity.

Speaking exclusively of sport (Chapter I. “Conceptual analysis of sport”), V.I. Stolyarov demonstrates the very same eclecticity that exists and receives wide advertisement in the theory and practice of sport activities, at which, among other things, he levels all the pathos of his dialectical factor analysis (Chapter VI. “Factor analysis of social significance of sport”).

Without getting into the specifics of the mentioned definitions and classifications of sport, let us pay closer attention to some implicit opposition of sport and society (social problems) inherent in the title of the book. It may be assumed that there are also non-social problems of sport. If so, what are they and what do they actually concern? The author partially answers this question himself, referring to the internal and external, inherent in sport activities, subjective and objective factors of humanization/dehumanization of sport. However, may we indirectly oppose them to the social factors, and may we acquire the social significance of sport, though very veiledly, perhaps, unconsciously, creating a precedent for the search of the non-social factors and non-social significance? We think it is impossible.

By contrast with the Coubertin's model of Olympism, sport has never been a project of humanistic oriented pedagogics, and all the more, it has never merged into it, but has grown into the whole area, sphere of public life. This, we hope, is clear to everyone.

So, the object of the research is represented by the humanistic issues of sport, and we consider modern Olympism as its part, that has actually ceased to become an autonomous educational project, capable of improving sport long ago. It has come out just the opposite. It is not Olympism that has provided humanistic transformation of sport. It is commercialized, professionalized, highly specialized sport that has provided customization, sportization of Olympism, having almost eliminated all the aspects of the Coubertin's model. And it is quite logical from the perspective of the dialectic-materialist theory, as sport (like any other social phenomenon) is not a philosophy product, but, first and foremost, the product of the productive-economic and socio-political realia of its specific historical background. And once again, V.I. Stolyarov is content with this.

We are particularly interested in the following: how, why, what for, and to what extent a humanistic idea can and must progress in sport competitive activities as such, as well as in the training, organization and maintenance processes that structure, accompany, and arrange this activity, despite the fact that sport itself is a specific social area or sphere with its social implication, functions, and role.

Now, let us drop a line about the subject of both the author’s and our analyses. It would seem that the subject of the study, specified in the V.I. Stolyarov's monograph, is the humanistic evaluation of realia and potential of modern sport and the Olympic movement, analysis of the social problems of the latter from the standpoint of humanism, but based on our comment about the part of this book, humanistic issues or humanistic theory of sport cannot possibly be the subject of the research, because they are already its object. Indeed, the monograph itself would not be so important, if it was just a regular (though very fundamental) investigation of humanistic ideas in sport.

In our view, the key value of this work is in its dialectical approach to the above issues, the approach that, generally speaking, makes us recognize a variety of works by other authors, cited by V.I. Stolyarov, as an eclectic assembly of attitudes, positions, points of view. Even though the latter should sometimes claim the status of a dialectical issue.

It is the dialectical analysis, dialectical approach to a "set of problems of the humanistic evaluation of sport", and in extreme case - objective conditions and circumstances enabling to speak about the need and possibility to establish and implement an educational and sport practice of the “humanistic theory of sport” – that is an actual subject of the philosopher’s research, and thereupon, our material.

It should be noted that in the first five (out of six) chapters of the V.I. Stolyarov’s book, there is no clear mentioning or insight into the essence, range of application of the dialectical analysis (despite some references in the text and the title of the eighteenth paragraph).

The key to the author's intention, as we see it, is the content of Chapter VI (the last one), which represents the factor analysis, as interpreted by the author in particular. Based on his understanding of the difference between dialectics and eclecticism, it becomes apparent that the previous contents were not by accident devoted to the presentation of the contradictory views and evidence bases about the five correlated phenomena: sport, humanism, Olympism, individual and society. These phenomena are analyzed by the author in view of their relationship, interdependent development, full of contradictions, conflicts, searching for their resolution. It would seem that everything is clear; however, the implementation of the dialectical analysis brings up some questions, and the subject specificity of our research is being gradually revealed in the discussion.

By the end of Chapter IV of the monograph (“Sport as a factor of personal socialization”), getting acquainted with a large number of statements of various scientists, workers of culture, sport and the Olympic movement, etc., we make certain that, in an almost equal number of incidences, sport as the object of comments, in different contexts particularly, performs a purely passive role of some tank, into which they want to throw all sorts of things. First, though not always on a reasonable basis, according to the social and group hopes, expectations, wishes, they seek to tie sport to the abstract moral norms, art samples and standards, general medical requirements, political and pacifist slogans. Then, having failed to find in sport what was not supposed to be in it, they outrage and blame sport for its would-be negative impact on an individual and society, or, conversely, having found something and interpreted that in their own manner, praise sport for its large (although not yet realized for a number of reasons) humanistic potential. By and large, no one wonders about the actual social nature of sport and in what degree it accepts or rejects the norms and samples of functioning, activities and behavior introduced by the outside, other spheres and areas of public and personal practice. At the same time, as noted above, sport is opposed in an incomprehensible way to the rest of society, as if it was not part of this society, what is more, rather a unique part, with its own origin, internal evolutional patterns, etc. Therefore, the criticism by V.I. Stolyarov against such eclecticity in opinions and assessments seems to us perfectly reasonable.

The author himself sees and explains eclecticity a bit differently. “The eclectic approach to the assessment of the social significance of sport, - he writes – consists in the consideration of the entire of complex of facts - both positive and negative, characterizing the impact of sport on a personality and human relations, but at the same time rest upon the affirmation of the controversial impact of sport, not trying, as required by the dialectical method, to go further to explain the reasons for this inconsistency and find the ways to overcome the negative impact of sport” (V.I. Stolyarov, 2015, p. 378).

We have no objections against this critical comment, but we have something to add. Undoubtedly, the dialectical approach requires considering the principle of determinism, disclosing the cause-effect relations that offer causal and target-oriented (teleological) explanation of the existence of a certain phenomenon. But this approach requires also taking into account the principle of integrity and the principle of consistency in order to reveal the dialectic nature of the mentioned contradictions emerging and aggravating in a single social integrity with the maturation and gradual separation, moving apart of the parts of a system-structured integrity, which in turn, turn into subsystems with their specific system-forming factors. The formation of the latter follows the law of transition from the quantitative changes to the qualitative ones (and vice versa), or else the law of negation of the negation, if there have already been two opposite qualitative changes. It is the principle of historism that makes it possible to reveal if there has been a double precedent like that. But that is not all: to see what is going on, we should consider the dialectics of the whole and parts, similarities and differences, form and content, phenomenon and essence, etc. Only then we will be able to gain a more or less complete, comprehensive understanding of the true essence of controversial interaction between sport and other spheres of society.

In our modern age, there is no question or discussion about the objectivity of existence of sport as a social institution, as a special form of social production. This production is based on competitive activity, in the context of the limiting institutional conditions, and the entire package of measures, modeling this activity, is implemented starting from the training process. For sport as a specific sphere of social life, all these are objective circumstances, including the need to achieve sport results - the main product of sport production.

The task of determining the objective standard for the whole humanistic range of sport activities, their organization and maintenance features to be quite specific rather than abstract problem, that can be subject to quite specific intrinsic-system, dialectical analysis, rather than abstract, factor one. And relying on detailed and specified definition of the objective standard of sport humanism one can rightly talk about the potential and actuality of its humanistic aspects, and the main (truly and objectively regulated by sport itself) trends and ways of transformation, transition from a potential into an actual state.

Conclusion. We think that in perspective it will be much more appropriate to address not the humanistic problems of modern sport, but modern sport itself as a single big multi-level, multi-faceted problem, the moment of truth and testing of the humanistic idea.

References

1. Kormazeva I.B. Gumanisticheksie filosofsko-pedagogicheksie osnovaniya podgotovki spetsialistov v sfere edinoborstv: monografiya (Humanistic philosophical and pedagogical grounds of specialist training in martial arts: monograph) / I.B. Kormazeva, A.A. Peredel'skiy. – Moscow: VNIPR, 2010. – 100 p.
2. Matveev L.P. Obshchaya teoriya sporta i ee prikladnye aspekty: uchebnik dlya zavershayushchego urovnya vysshego fizkul'turnogo obrazovaniya: dop. Gos. kom. RF po fiz. kulture, sportu i turizmu (General theory of sport and its applications: textbook for the final level of higher sports education: ext. by State Com. RF for phys. culture, sport and tourism) / L.P. Matveev. – 4th ed., rev. and sup. – St. Petersburg [s.n.]: Lan', 2005. – 378 p.: il., tab.
3. Stolyarov V.I. Sotsial'nye problemy sovremennogo sporta i olimpiyskogo dvizheniya (gumanisticheskiy i dialekticheskiy analiz): monografiya (Social problems of modern sport and Olympic Movement (humanistic and dialectical analyses): monograph) / V.I. Stolyarov. – Bishkek: Maksat, 2015. – 462 p.

Corresponding author: alisa.gorba4eva@yandex.ru

Abstract
The authors try to continue and systematically develop the dialectical and humanistic approaches to the problems of modern sport and the Olympic movement in light of the ideas of Professor V.I. Stolyarov.
The object of the author's research is represented by the humanistic issues of sport, with modern Olympism as its part, that has actually ceased to become an autonomous educational project, capable of improving sport long ago.
The author of the paper considers the task of determining the objective standard for the whole humanistic range of sport activities, their organization and maintenance features to be a quite specific rather than abstract problem, that can be subject to quite specific intrinsic-system, dialectical analysis, rather than abstract, factor one. And relying on detailed and specified definition of the objective standard of sport humanism one can rightly talk about the potential and actuality of its humanistic aspects, and the main (truly and objectively regulated by sport itself) trends and ways of transformation, transition from a potential into an actual state.
The authors believe that later on it will be much more appropriate to address not the humanistic problems of modern sport, but modern sport itself as a single big multi-level, multi-faceted problem, the moment of truth and testing of the humanistic idea.