But since it is these manly virtues that
are (economically) in need of legitimation, the chain of proof
breaks off where it should begin. In the most general economic
terms, these apologies are an effort to show that, in spite of
the logic of the thing, sports do in fact further what may
broadly be called workmanship. So long as he has not succeeded in
persuading himself or others that this is their effect the
thoughtful apologist for sports will not rest content, and
commonly, it is to be admitted, he does not rest content. His
discontent with his own vindication of the practice in question
is ordinarily shown by his truculent tone and by the eagerness
with which he heaps up asseverations in support of his position.
But why are apologies needed? If there prevails a body of popular
sentient in favor of sports, why is not that fact a sufficient
legitimation? The protracted discipline of prowess to which the
race has been subjected under the predatory and quasi-peaceable
culture has transmitted to the men of today a temperament that
finds gratification in these expressions of ferocity and cunning.
So, why not accept these sports as legitimate expressions of a
normal and wholesome human nature? What other norm is there that
is to be lived up to than that given in the aggregate range of
propensities that express themselves in the sentiments of this
generation, including the hereditary strain of prowess? The
ulterior norm to which appeal is taken is the instinct of
workmanship, which is an instinct more fundamental, of more
ancient prescription, than the propensity to predatory emulation.
Pages:
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348