The Merits and Demerits of Pleasure in Kinesiology

What role should pleasure play in kinesiology? Although pleasure is an important concept in kinesiology, the strengths, weaknesses, and dangers of this concept have not been properly clarified. Douglas Booth and Richard Pringle have both recently scolded kinesiologists over the issue of pleasure in kinesiology with decidedly mixed results. They insist that the importance of pleasure has been neglected, and that the role that human culture plays in properly understanding pleasure in kinesiology, has been underestimated. Booth (2009) Booth, D. 2009. Pleasure and physical education philosophy. Quest, 61(2): 133–153. Taylor & Francis Online], Web of Science ®] , Google Scholar] argues that “puritanical” prohibitions have made pleasure suspect. Pringle (2010) Pringle, R. 2010. The educative value of positive movement affects. Quest, 62(2): 119–134. Taylor & Francis Online], Web of Science ®] , Google Scholar] argues that kinesiologists must remember that “many students are not currently gaining a love for movement in their physical education] experiences” (p. 130). Each scholar's suspicion of traditional distinctions between “good and bad physical pleasures” (Booth, 2009 Booth, D. 2009. Pleasure and physical education philosophy. Quest, 61(2): 133–153. Taylor & Francis Online], Web of Science ®] , Google Scholar], p. 148) results in an untenable commitment to pleasure as an intrinsic good. In short, their views are hedonistic. Although Booth and Pringle are right that pleasure is good, it is not an end in itself.