Although we aim to be modern, and to constantly learn to face the challenges of an increasingly globalised world, we have not conjured up our values and philosophy from thin air.

We think that a philosophy should be definitive, complete and well-balanced. Such a philosophy is an expression of the search for values and axioms which can show the way forward in the task of creating an excellent educational institution which meets and responds to the requirements of the time. This process, ideally, is never-ending, as defining values is always an ongoing process. Education and pedagogy are concerned with development, and so it is necessary to produce new proposals in the future which reflect changed circumstances and insights.

Oure International College of Sport has based its philosophy on the culture of fragmentation which coloured the debate about education, pedagogy, sports and culture during the 1960s and 70s. This brought a number of the traditions and stable values of society under critical scrutiny and generated ideas of cultural liberation, the breaking down of traditions, individualisation and the development of an anti-authoritarian view of human nature. One of the results was the development of modern pedagogy, a new approach to education, the critical theory of the institutions of tertiary education and the forward-looking, experimental idea of schooling.

We do not start out from the programme of religious and national awakening laid down in Denmark by Grundtvig and his fellow founder Kold. Nor do we subscribe to the view of physical education which has dominated the popular sports movement. Instead, we see our approach to enlightenment and education as an extension of the five-hundred year old European humanistic tradition. Our starting point is the urban culture of sport and physical training, which we view both with fascination and critical distance.

We start out from the needs and interests of the students, the world as it is today, our own assumptions and visions, and not from traditions and outmoded ideas of culture.
The Eurocentric period is over, globalisation is a reality and a new technological and scientific process is under way. Cultural liberation, typically bringing down traditional society and its values, is a global trend.
Traditional modern industrial society is being replaced with an ultra-modern, high tech and global knowledge society. We cannot know what the future will bring, except that it will be very complex and unpredictable. This means that people in the modern world must be prepared to take part in a process of continuous learning and development. We have to be ready to reflect and change in step with the inconstancy of development itself.
The debate about values will, in the future, focus on globalisation, democratic and social challenges and ecological and scientific issues.
An educational institution which has as its purpose enlightenment and teaching must form a framework around the continual discussion and elucidation of values in regard to the big issues. It should not provide ready-made moralising, but inspire dialogue. Establishing this dialogue is the central parameter in the issue of whether we have the right to consider ourselves a progressive and modern educational institution, or, more prosaically, a prerequisite for our continuing to attract young people. Do we speak a language, both in general and particular, which the young can understand? Does our provision of a college, personal development and education correspond to the challenges that young people face in building their individual life strategies? Are we, both as individuals and an institution, geared up to join in the dialogue where we are ready both to teach and to learn?

In 1993 we produced a “go-card” for the summer courses. It shows four spiritual “fathers” who inspired the culture of our college.
The combination of the socialist Pio, the cultural radical Brandes, the existentialist Kirkegaard and the elderly Grundtvig was a bold provocation to the traditional circles of the high school movement. Although it was not explicitly stated, this “go-card” was one of the reasons for the subsequent “golf war”.

Even though it was deliberately provocative, it is no more than the truth. We trace our philosophy back much further back and much more recently forward than 1844. Education and enlightenment first and foremost concern the individual’s self-perception. Who are we – from a biological, historical, cultural, psychological and existentialist perspective?
Next, education and enlightenment concern an insight into reality. Are we in a position to comprehend reality through our senses and reason with the aid of science, philosophy, art and practical activity?
Finally education and enlightenment concern personal competence, so that we can live, act and be members of a free society where we take responsibility for ourselves and need to manage our lives in a community.
So education and enlightenment also involve individuals’ self-knowledge and perceptions of reality as the basis for action. Take responsibility for your own life, be able to interact mentally and physically with your surroundings, and so become master of your own destiny.
Yet, if we choose to perceive education and enlightenment as the basis for people’s ability and capacity to make free choices and act accordingly, then we also need to address a central and fundamental question – that of man’s place in the universe. Who are we, and why are we here? Is man at the centre, responsible for the Earth and the survival of the race?
This is an anthropocentric world-view.

Or else, is there a divine being at the centre, as we are told by the major religions? Is it God who is ultimate master of life and destiny – and is man and life itself actually just a divine experiment in which man’s true freedom of action is limited?
This is a theocentric world-view.

We have chosen to consider man as the centre and so construct our philosophy of education on an anthropocentric, secular and humanistic tradition. Yet we are not starting from scratch. Values are not just invented. A philosophy cannot merely be snatched out of thin air. It must attempt to position itself in tradition and history, and a perception of the development of human civilisation.

We have taken four, closely related views of enlightenment and ideals of education as our foundation.
The most prevalent is that of European Humanism – the classical and modern project which grew over several hundred years and was inspired by the cultures of ancient Greece and Rome.
This project included the formation of the modern ideas of the body, sport and pedagogy. This view is universal and cosmopolitan. Thus it can form the background for multiethnic and multicultural co-operation, as it has no narrow national, traditional or religious boundaries.
On the basis of this philosophy, we treat sport as a universal vehicle for education. Next we incorporate modern, critical, global ideas of education and ethics of communication, inspired by modern sociology.
The existential and individual aspects are set in the context of concepts regarding physique and the living body.
Finally modern systems theory provides important insights into the nature of the existence of living systems, human awareness, communication and theories of learning.

The European Enlightenment

European Enlightenment thinking is centred in a liberating, optimistic, anthropocentric and secular world-view. The goal was to develop a philosophy relevant to modern society which would create a balance between the autonomous and powerful individual and the interests of the community. The ideas about democracy and human rights, that all men are born free and equal, irrespective of race, religion or gender came into conflict with the views of the church and the authorities. The theological culture of the church, built on a theocentric and authoritarian perception of the world expressed a world order which had been dominant for over a thousand years. Under the dominance of the Catholic Church, classical culture was suppressed, and very interestingly, so too were the Olympic Games. The Greeks considered that education should include music, intellect, politics and sport. The Romans too included sport in education alongside philosophy, science and art.

During the Renaissance, these ancient ideas once more came to the fore, and the secular perception of culture came into conflict with the religious world view. This conflict has even today not been resolved. The Enlightenment grew out of the Renaissance partly under the impact of Isaac Newton’s (1642-1727) revolutionary scientific discoveries and his inductive method. John Locke (1632-1704) propagated equally revolutionary ideas in the areas of social science and pedagogy. The basis of ideas of human rights and democracy was born. Education played a crucial role in creating a modern, free and dynamic society. Adam Smith (1723-1790) extended these ideas into the field of economics.

For Locke, there was no doubt that physical activity was central to education, in developing free and independent human beings with free will and developed personalities. In Locke’s philosophy, the identity of a man depends on the identity of his body.

In France and Germany the philosophy of rationalism was developed. Kant made a distinction between ethics, driven by reason, and science and empiricism. Man can decide what is ethical on the basis of his reason. Kant’s ethic of duty is created by the categorical imperative: “act only on the maxims which you wish to become universal values”. This allowed for the establishment of values and ethics without the interference of the church. Kant held the optimistic view that enlightenment and education could create responsible world citizens. His view was universal and cosmopolitan rather than nationalistic. He considered religion to be a private matter and assumed tolerance of other people to be natural. World society, he thought, was to be based on universal and secular values. He also considered that physical activity was an integrated part of education.

Of course, it is quite natural that in an educational institution such as ours we would align ourselves with traditions which regard sport and physical activity as an essential tool of education. We start out from the view of the body and the intellect – or the soul if you prefer – formulated by the central philosopher of the Enlightenment, Jean-Jacques Rousseau. He tried to establish the unity of the rational and the emotional. In his social thinking he developed the ideas of freedom, equality and brotherhood which became the slogans of the French Revolution. Through a social contract, free and equal citizens would unite the individual with society. Like Kant, he emphasised the importance of tolerance and freedom of religion. Rousseau devised a modern pedagogy based on the idea of experience and the organic development and fulfilment of the individual in tune with nature. The ideal was an independent, self-aware and responsible citizen, able to operate within society by exercising his or her own conscience.

Rousseau states we need to exercise, as perception comes through the use of the body. Thus, naturally, sport is a natural part of the educational process. Rousseau brought a pedagogical insight to the modern oppositions between nature and culture, the individual and society and emotion and reason.

The creator of the modern Olympic Games, Pierre de Coubertin (1863-1937) saw sport as a central element of modern education, as universal tool which could operate across national, social and cultural boundaries. The ideal product of such an education was a humanistic and democratic world citizen. He considered that through sport, such qualities as self-mastery, courage and decisiveness could be developed, and that sport encouraged young people to be democratic, tolerant and to respect others. An extra benefit is physical and mental health and joie de vivre for people who have been liberated from the discipline of tradition and the church.

The classical ideal of mens sana in corpore sano – a healthy mind in a healthy body – which had been rediscovered by the British philosopher Locke, became widely popular through the efforts of Coubertin, who saw sport as the best tool for the democratic education of modern man. He thought it had an essential role in modern democracy, developing the self-control of the individual and removing the need for authorities to impose and govern. A physically based education would develop the body, the intellect the character and the conscience as well as conscientiousness, tolerance and humanity. In many ways Coubertin himself was reactionary, and the balance between freedom and authority which sport represented was particularly attractive to him as a social ideal. Sport involves a combination of mutual assistance and competition. It requires learning both to win and to lose. In a society where perspectives of society and the nature of humanity are no longer defined by religious dogma, sport is a perfect vehicle for producing modern citizens. Coubertin saw it as the only way to keep social cohesion. He never saw it as an end in itself, but as a programme for civilisation. He wrote “The most important thing in life is not the victory, but the struggle, and not to win, but to have tried”. He saw sport as a modern drama, an art form, which could replace the role of religion and the monarchy in uniting modern society. In sport, scientists, humanists, architects, artists, writers and sportsmen have to work together, just as in modern urban society in general.

Twentieth century influences

The ideas of the modern English sociologist Anthony Giddens have also had a great impact in sporting circles, particularly in regard to a modern, critical and global enlightenment. Giddens writes of a global citizenship to replace the crumbling spirit of nationalism. The goal is a global democracy built on cosmopolitan awareness and responsibility. He foresees a world parliament and a world court. According to him, this approach is essential to deal with social, democratic and environmental problems. What is necessary, he claims, are global ideals, visions and values. Modern people need several identities and responsibilities: local, national, European and global. Such cosmopolitanism can only be based on a universal and secular world-view, reminiscent of Kant’s categorical imperative.

The German philosopher and sociologist Jürgen Habermas believes that the modern enlightenment project is contradictory. Western civilisation has brought huge results, but liberalism, just like socialism, has given rise to crimes against humanity. He believes reason and science are being used against humanity instead of to its benefit. He still believes in the tradition of European enlightenment and the power of human reason to create a meaningful and humane world. Whereas philosophers such as Kant base their concepts of ethics on individual issues, Habermas sees ethics as resulting from a communicative interaction. He employs terms such as “Discourse ethics” and “Communicative action”, In his view, democratic dialogue requires the development of communicative action. By reflecting both on ourselves and our environment we can decide what is rational. Communicative action also involves abilities to assess and interpret. Thus, for Habermas, education is a process in which the self builds up an independent and critical awareness through communication. Language is the particular hallmark of human beings, and it is through language and self-examination that we become fully responsible members of society. Some critics of his views point out that especially by extending the thinking of Kant, his philosophy does not truly address the postmodern age, with its globalisation, electronic media and other technologies which have changed the nature of communication and dialogue. But what alternative is there?

Existential autogenesis - Kirkegaard

Like Grundtvig, Kirkegaard was a devout Christian, although he disagreed with Grundtvig’s biblical fundamentalism and nationalism. Instead he believed in the individual’s freedom of religious choice, thus pointing the way forward to the anthropocentric modern views of society. Indeed many consider Kirkegaard as the founder of Existentialism. He saw the lot of the modern individual as being freedom and meaninglessness, and while one can try to create meaning through the pursuit of pleasure and diversion, a feeling of absurdity inevitably takes over. We can take responsibility for own lives through our ethical choices, but, for Kirkegaard, the only way to counter absurdity was to make a religious choice. Religion should not and cannot be proved true, as it is outside the scope of reason and rationality. The individual creates him or herself through subjective choices. Kirkegaard’s views have a great deal of importance both in religious and secular thought. The individual’s freedom and cultural liberation regarding values and traditions in modern society impose the responsibility for creating our own existence, identity and ethics. Existentialism is about the subjective, that people are what they do. We are the authors of our own destiny. We create ourselves in response to our environment. The wisdom of doubt is practical reason, and reason is subjective. Kirkegaard chose religion. Today, we can see attempts to revive traditional and religious attitudes. However, most people opt for freedom and personal responsibility. However, the fact we choose our own values and life projects does not mean that nothing is important and that nihilism has won. We have to take responsibility for our choices, and, as social beings, we are committed by the choices we make. Choices are not just about ethics, but also aesthetics.

The body

When the French philosopher Descartes wrote the famous line cogito, ergo sum (I think, therefore I am), he defined man as an intellectual being, and furthered the dualism between body and soul that had existed in Western culture for many centuries. A later French philosopher and sociologist, Maurice Merleau-Ponty, in his ground-breaking philosophy, emphasised the importance of the body in our very nature, and in our perception of the world. According to him, people exist, not in an objective world, but in a “lived through world” in which the body, the “lived body” is a vital part, as the self exists in time and space, and time exists as we live it concurrently with others. We experience the world through our bodies, making our bodies, surroundings, language and awareness a totality. We learn to know our body, and so ourselves, through activity.
Merlau-Ponty was influenced by the German philosopher Edmund Husserl (1859-1938), who started out from the idea that our experience of “myself living in the world” is the fundamental human experience. It is not possible to distinguish between our consciousness and objective reality. Furthermore our awareness is intentional, meaning it is not an end, but always aimed at something else.

We have a double relationship to our body: we have a body and we are our body. From Merlau-Ponty’s work has arisen the twin concepts of “body image” and “body schema” The image of our body is a conscious perception of our bodies, facts, analysis and aesthetic judgements. Yet infants live in their bodies before they become aware that they have them. This suggests that there is a perception of our body which is more fundamental than awareness. An extreme example of how the “body schema” operates is in cases where even though a patient has had a limb amputated, he can still “feel” it.

Luhmann and society

The German sociologist Niklas Luhmann (1927-1998) established a sociological systems theory, in which the core elements of society are systems of communication, each with a distinctive identity that is constantly reproduced in its communication. Borrowing from the world of cognitive biology, Luhmann calls the process through which systems reproduce autopoiesis – meaning self-generation. A part of the process of autopoiesis is reproducing elements previously filtered from an over-complex environment.
We think this process of self-creation is of great relevance to us, as one aspect of it is that the individual is responsible for creating him or herself, is responsible for his or her own learning and knowledge, but that the environment in which we do so can help in determining what we acquire. Although Luhmann’s ideas have not yet spread very widely, we consider his type of systems theory to be a new paradigm, affecting our ideas of both learning, organisations and society.