Critical reconsideration on the theory of new physical education emphasizing \u22fun\u22 in Japan

Now, new theory of physical education which emphasizes fun based on play theories of Huizinga and Caillois, so called \u22Tanoshii Taiiku\u22 in Japan, is very generalized since the end of 1970\u27s. This theory had great impact on physical education, and it changed the past thoughts of physical education which emphasized fitness and sport skill. In these meanings, though they have important social significances, we think that they have various epistemological and sociological fallacies at the same time. Major fallacies and misunderstandings are as follows: 1) New theory, \u22Tanoshii taiiku\u22 emphasizes sport as a lifelong integrated education in the post-industrial society, and it makes much on play elements in sport. However, this thought has the tendency of adulation to society, and the danger of adaptationalism and social reductionism. In other words, they ignores the universal and general characteristics as a education. 2) Generally speaking, they thinks the end of physical education is acquiring fun and pleasure in sport, and they emphasizes children\u27s needs and view points. However, physical education, play and sport are different in epistemological, valuational and institutional dimensions. In addition, fun and pleasure are the result of subjective valuation on their behaviors and its process, therefore, we should not regard fun and pleasure as the purpose of physical education. 3) New theory attaches importance to not the side of means but the side of end in sport. However, the differences of means and ends are relative in direct-indirect and long term ? short term in dimensions, and one behavior includes the both sides. On the other hand, as the end is a situation in future anticipated by subjects and \u22fun sich\u22 concept, the end is not in sport and sport itself. 4) This theory distinguishes the internal values which are \u22an sich\u22 needs and cathexis, from the external values which are instrumental and utilitarian necessities, and it regards the internal values as functional characteristics in sport. But, values are the result of subjective signification, and they are not in object itself. In addition, the internal and external values are very relative depending on situaitions, and needs are related to personality system, in contrary necessities to organism. However, as these values and needs are interpenerative in empirical level, the above thinkings are reification and materialization in concept