QUEST, 1997,49,339-349
O 1997 American Academy of Kinesiology and Physical Education
Surviving and Thriving in a
Technological Age:
To Cybernetize or Decybernetize?
Earle F. Zeigler
Look not mournfully to the past-it comes not back again; wisely improve the present-it is thine; go forth to meet the shadowy future
without fear, and with a manly heart. (Longfellow)
With apologies for the unwitting chauvinism that characterized Longfellow's
era, I do believe nevertheless that he has expressed the best possible approach to
surviving and thriving in a rapidly expanding technological age. "Hang in there
bravely," says he, "and do the best you can to make it all compute." This is exactly
the opposite, of course, of what the early 19th century English Luddites did. They
took matters in their own hands, seeking to destroy the effort of factory owners to
mechanize their establishments.
The underlying question that remains, however, is how does a "boomer"
Academy member-and ultimately all other physical education/kinesiologistsdecide which brass rings to reach for while his or her horse ascends and descends
(or perhaps expires!) on today's speeding merry-go-round? Today, an updated version of Shakespeare's immortal soliloquy might go something like this: To
cybernetize or not to cybernetize: That is the question!
To answer that question for myself, I decided to attempt to follow
Longfellow's advice-i.e., "go forward toward the future with a stout heart." What
choices did I have? I was too old and creaky-jointed to become strenuously violent
as the Luddites were. Then along came someone recently predicting the end of
history-"a bit farfetched, says I." Finally, I was really taken aback when Leslie
(1996) predicted the end of the world! How will this happen? His answer: It will
undoubtedly happen because of a potpourri of technological and natural villains,
such as various types of recognized and unrecognized risks that humankind is
taking day after day.
"Oh well," I reasoned, believing that I had a good idea of what science is,
"our scientists will somehow pull us through, and our leaders will be smart enough
to act on their recommendations." And then what happened? Along came Horgan
(1996) arguing that the great and exciting discoveries of the scientific age are in
the past. "Golly gee," I thought, "maybe then I had best refresh my memory about
science's purported relationship with technology, a subject that is definitely continuing apace even in sport." Consider, for instance, the "high-tech Olympics"
Earle F. Zeigler is professor emeritus with the Faculty of Physical Education at The
University of Western Ontario, London, ON, N6A 3K7.
340
ZEIGLER
technological adaptations in track and field alone that were invoked for the 1996
Games. One example of this advancement was Christie's disqualification for moving "too fastw-that is, within a tenth of a second afer the gun (Gleick, 1996).
Anyhow, a straightforward definition of technology is that it is "the sum of
the ways in which social groups provide themselves with the material objects of
their civilization." A more precise definition would be: "The branch of knowledge
that deals with the creation and use of technical means and their interrelation with
life, society, and the environment, drawing upon such subjects as industrial arts,
engineering, applied science, and pure science" (Random House Dictionary of the
English Language, 1987).
Being thusly fortified, I next wondered why I-for even a moment-raised
the question of decybernetizing to myself. Why should I at any given moment be
making a conscious decision not to avail myself of, say, selected results of onrushing technology? Further, why should society as a whole make a decision not to
take immediate advantage of some new discovery by implementing the appropriate technology to put such knowledge to work? The answer to such questions
comes from Tenner (1996) who explains in an original fashion "why things bite
back." He critiques advancing technology most cogently, explaining that we must
be extremely careful as we attempt to manipulate the earth. Why? Simply because
the unintended consequences are very apt to bite back ferociously. For example,
after a technology advancement permitted the settling of the flood plains in
Bangladesh in 1970, a subsequent hurricane wiped out 500,000 people. Woe is us.
Malthus has spoken again.
What Happened to Leisure and "The Good Life?"
Despite the above, it wasn't very long ago-how many remember exactly
when?-that, largely because of technology, the "good life" did appear to be beckoning to us all. We were urged to prepare for the coming age of leisure in North
America (Zeigler, 1967). And now we are so uncertain about that prediction that I
can't conceive of such nonsense being suggested for the immediate future today.
So, here we are thinking about the coming of the year 2000,50-plus years after the
devastation of World War I1 and the continuing destruction of other hot, cold, and
lukewarm wars, some of which are still going on today.
And what we are finding is that humankind's rapid progress in science and
technology in the 20th century, coupled with the concurrent retrogression or dubious progress at best of human beings in the realm of human development and
related social affairs, is now causing such great concern in many quarters that
intelligent men and women everywhere are looking ahead with some trepidation
and great concern. It looks like we in the sixth and seventh ages of life will make
it through quite satisfactorily-and probably our children too, but not quite so
well. But what about the subsequent generations? Your guess is as good as mine.
It may well be impossible to gain objectivity or true historical perspective
on the rapid change that is taking place. Nevertheless, a seemingly unprecedented
burden has been imposed on people's understanding of themselves and their world.
Along with the rest of us, many world leaders must secretly be wondering whether
the whole affair can be managed. For a moment consider the earthshaking developments of the decades immediately preceding the 1990s. These were delineated
by Naisbitt's technique of survey method research (1982). As you review his projections for the 1980s, reflect on how many of his "10 new directions that are
TO CYBERNETIZEOR DECYBERNETIZE
34 1
transforming our lives" have a direct relationship to, or at least strongly influenced
by, rapidly developing science and technology.
Here I am referring to:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
the concepts of the information society and Internet;
"high techlhigh touch;"
the shift to a world economy;
the need to shift to long-term thinking in regard to ecology;
the move toward organizational decentralization;
the trend toward self-help;
the ongoing discussion of the wisdom of participatory democracy as opposed to representative democracy;
8. a shift toward networking;
9. a reconsideration of the world's "north-south" orientation; and
10. the viewing of decisions as "multiple option" instead of "eitherlor"
Subsequently, Naisbitt's 1982 worldwide assessment of megatrends was followed by a similar evaluation (Megatrends2000) in which he and Aburdene (1990)
spelled out 10 additional megatrends as gateways of the 1990s leading to the 21st
century. Once again, note to what extent these trends have been, or have not been,
influenced by science and technology:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
the booming global economy of the 1990s;
a renaissance in the arts;
the emergence of free-market socialism;
global life-styles and cultural nationalism;
the privatization of the welfare state;
the rise of the Pacific Rim;
the decade of women in leadership;
the age of biology;
the religious revival of the new millennium; and
the triumph of the individual
Finally, with their unique technique of broad descriptive method research,
they assessed as well the specific "megatrends" evident in relation to women's
evolving role in the societal structure (Aburdene & Naisbitt, 1992). Here they
described the ever-increasing, lifelong involvement of women in the workplace,
politics, sports, organized religion, and social activism. Of course, to what extent
we can thank science and technoIogy for this change of affairs is open to question.
Add to all of the above, certain other social occurrences between 1984 and
1994, such as (a) the fall of USSR communism, (b) the environmental crisis and
the green movement, (c) the AIDS epidemic and the gay response, (d) between 30
and 40 continuing wars, (e) increasing religious and racial tension, (f) the everincreasing concerns of Generation X, etc. (Utne Reader, 1994).
Putting all of this together, we can begin to understand that a deeply troubled,
new world order has indeed descended upon us at the dawn of the 21st century.
This "understanding" forces us to ask ourselves a disturbing question. To what
extent, and in what way, can we say that humankind has progressed on Earth?
342
ZEIGLER
Looking Backward Before Going Forward
To answer this question about progress and thereby to understand our subject more fully, we should "look back before going forward." Granting that technology is "in" today, even though there is considerable ambivalence about a number of its manifestations (e.g., advanced medical biomedical technology), this state
of ambivalence has been strengthened also by various "manmade" disasters in
recent decades (e.g., Chernobyl). But these developments are quite recent, and this
concern about technology has a longer history in what may loosely be called the
modem period in world history.
Leo Marx (in Teich, 1990) in his insightful "Does improved technology
mean progress?" explains that,
Our very conception---our chief criterion- of progress has undergone
a subtle but decisive change since the founding of the Republic, and
that change is at once a cause and a reflection of our current disenchantment with technology. (p. 5)
Recalling that the late 18th century was a time of political revolution when
monarchies, aristocracies, and the ecclesiastical structure were being challenged
on a number of fronts, we are reminded also that the factory system was undergoing significant change at that time. Such industrial development, with its greatly
improved machinery, "coincided with the formulation and diffusion of the modem Enlightenment idea of history as a record of progress. . . ." And this "new
scientific knowledge and technological power was expected to make possible a
comprehensive improvement in all of the conditions of life-social, political, moral,
and intellectual as well as material" (Marx, p. 5).
Although this conception, as propounded originally by certain British, French,
and American intellectuals of that period (Priestly, Condorcet, and Franklin, respectively), was viewed by a minority as the basis for a radical transformation of
society, it was not to become a reality overnight. However, the idea did slowly take
hold and eventually "became the fulcrum of the dominant American worldview"
(p. 5). However, with the rapid growth of the United States, especially by 1850,
the idea of progress was already being dissociated from the Enlightenment vision
of political and social liberation. "This dissociation of technological and material
advancement from the larger political vision of progress was an intermediate stage
in the eventual impoverishment of that radical 18th century worldview" (p. 9).
And so, by the turn of the century (1900), "the technocratic idea of progress
[had become] a belief in the sufficiency of scientific and technological innovation
as the basis for general progress." This came to mean, purely and simply, that if
scientific-based technologies were permitted to develop in an unconstrained manner, there would be an automatic improvement in all other aspects of life! What
had happened because of this theory, coupled with onrushing, unbridled capitalism, of course, was that the ideal envisioned by Thomas Jefferson had been turned
upside down. Instead of social progress being guided by such values as justice,
freedom, and self-fulfillment for all, these goals of vital interest in a democracy
were subjugated to a burgeoning society dominated by supposedly more important instrumental values.
Fortunately, the dream of some of the early fathers did not die. It lived on in
a variety of political thrusts such as utopian socialism, the populist revolt, the
element of Progressivism in cities, the single-tax movement, and even Marxism
with its many variants. The end result so evident to us today is "the battle lines
have indeed been drawn" during the 20th century between those encouraging spiraling technological advancements and a minority, including a relatively few intellectuals, who could see inherent dangers of "racehorse" technology most vividly.
"This moral critique of the debased, technocratic version of the progressive
worldview has slowly gained adherence since the mid- 19th century, and by now it
is one of the chief ideological supports of an adversary culture in the United States"
(Mam, p. 12).
Because of the tremendous material progress that occurred in the first half of
the 20th century, however, those people arguing in opposition to rampant technological change have typically been viewed as impractical intellectuals, hopelessly
idealistic, etc. Starting in the 1960s, however, and continuing during the last quarter of the 20th century, there has been a distinct growth of skepticism about the
inherent "goodness" of advancing technology. Consequently, a stronger adversary culture has gained added intellectual respect and is waging an ongoing, consistent struggle against the world's present direction. Therefore, the basic question
appears to be: Are these scientific and technological advancements means to an
end, or simply ends in themselves? If improved technology, evidently the leading
ideological position today, means progress for humankind, the next question is
progress toward what?
Progress?
What makes a question about progress in the quality of life doubly difficult,
of course, is whether present-day humans can be both judge and jury in such a
debate. On what basis, for example, can we decide whether any social progress has
indeed been made such that would permit a definitive resolution of such a concept
as "quality living." There has been progression, of course, but on what basis can
we assume that change is indeed progress? It may be acceptable as a human criterion of progress to say that we &e coming closer to approximating the good and
solid accomplishmentsthat we think humans should achieve both individually and
socially on this Earth.
But who are we to make such an assertion about progress? It is now almost
half a century since noted paleontologist Simpson (1949) pointed out that it was
shortsighted to assume automatically that such is "the only criterion of progress
and that it has a general validity in evolution." He concluded, therefore, that human progress is actually relative and not general, and "does not warrant a choice
of the line of humans' ancestry as the central line of evolution as a whole." Nevertheless, he does concede "that man is, on the whole, but not in every single respect, the pinnacle so far of evolutionary progress" (On This Earth, pp. 240-262).
And so here I am seeking, with my limited knowledge, to answer my opening self-imposed question-that is, to cybernetize or not to cybernetize? In the
process I will subsequently make a few personal and professional recommendations looking to the future. As I began this brief analysis, I was reminded of the
anecdote about the former Archbishop of Canterbury. As the story goes, he was
about to take a train trip one bright day, and this portly gentleman, loaded down
with a suitcase, a package containing his lunch, his morning newspaper, a bulky
coat, and a hat and loosely hanging scarf, climbed on the train leaving London and
eventually found a seat. when the conductor came to collect tickets, the distinguished bishop looked for his ticket in vain.
344
ZEIGLER
The good conductor, recognizing the well-known bishop and sensing his
embarrassment, finally said, "Don't wony about a ticket, your Grace, I know that
you indeed have already purchased a ticket. Everything will be fine even if you
don't find it." "Yes, yes, thank you," replied the obviously upset bishop, "but
that's not the only problem, I don't know where I am going!" Well, that's exactly
why I repeated this little story. I believe that this is indeed the same problem that
we are all facing to a degree personally, but most definitely professionally today.
We give strong indications that we do not knowpersonally orprofessionally where
we are going! Basically, the crisis in philosophy and religion on all fronts, including conflicting theories about human nature, challenges dogmatic assertions as to
what the purpose of life is. In our profession we haven't truly reached consensus
on a farsighted definition of our mission and, as a result, we don't know what to
call our field even though we may have been highly successful individually and as
a group doing it.
You see, I knew what I was getting into 55 years ago when I began to abandon a proposed career as a language teacher and sport coach in a New England
preparatory school. To learn something about the field, I first got a position as a
junior secretarylphysical director in a YMCA. Soon after, I was invited by Bob
Kiphuth to join the physical education staff at Yale University and really got great
in-service training. One development led to another; needed undergraduate and
graduate courses were taken; and the next thing I knew (in 1949) I was teaching,
coaching, and administering a department of physical, health, and recreation education (another variation of title for us!) at The University of Western Ontario in
Canada. I had made up my mind: My mission was to prepare physical educators
and coaches in educational sport. Oh happy day. . . .
The Ages of an Earthling
I won't burden you with additional autobiographical data, but I did want to
make the point-and give you the opportunity to personally reminisce-that in a
relatively early stage of my life (Early Adult Stage, 18-30 yrs.), my wife and I
quite soon decided (a) where we were going, and (b) how we were presumably
going to get there during the Prime of Life Stage from 30-42 yrs. (Sears & Feldman,
1973). We had spelled out a personal hierarchy of values in which we believed
strongly and which we intended to pursue vigorously in our subsequent life stages
come what may.
Will Shakespeare showed his understanding of these various stages of a
person's development when he summed up the life of a human succinctly:
All the world's a stage,
And all of the men and women merely players.
They have their exits and their entrances,
And one man in his time plays many parts,
His acts being SEVEN [my emphasis] ages . . .
(As You Like It, Act 11, Scene VII).
As Academy member No. 184, and one who is making a somewhat tardy exit from
the stage after having played a variety of roles, it seems that I, and all too soon
most of you too, may well have the opportunity to be involved with an eighth age
as well-over above the seven that Shakespeare and others have delineated.
For example, Sears and Feldman (1973), in their The Seven Ages of Man,
agreed with the great playwright as to how many ages we are permitted on Earth.
For discussion purposes they divided each of our installments on life's stage into
three definitive parts: (a) the anatomical and physiological characteristics of a person in that particular age span and the changes that occur during it; (b) the similarities and variations in personality, feelings, motives, and emotional problems characterizing an age span; and (c) the changes in abilities associated with that particular
part of the life cycle and how these affect a person's social, educational, and occupational roles and problems.
Despite the above delineation, I suggest that both Shakespeare and Sears
and Feldman have now been outdated by the outcomes derived from onrushing
science and accompanying technology. Whereas Sears and Feldman describe old
age in Part Seven as "Old Age: Beyond 60 Years," I believe a good case can be
made to subdivide old age into Part Seven as "Early Old Age: From 60 to 75
years," and Part Eight as "Later Old Age: From 75 to, say, 90." So, as one who
has, through the benefits made possible by science and technology, managed to
"survive and thrive somewhat7'through what I call "Early Old Age," I am now
faced with the troubling, and hopefully promising, prospect of "Later Old Age."
Most of you hearing these words have either entered, or are within striking
distance of, the Early Old Age period. You are also well aware of your present
bodily, personality, and ability characteristics (the three subdivisions mentioned
immediately above). However, a phenomenon of the late 20th century is that the
present tempo of life gives some evidence of increasing. And, unless you selected
the right parents, live carefully and thoughtfully, and also are very lucky, the next
20 to 30 years will hold some surprises for you in one or more of the three categories (i.e., characteristics of body, personality, and ability).
Interestingly, and this statement holds obvious significancefor kinesiologists
and physical educators involved with health science, the present worship of Hygeia
by the populace offers solid future hope for our field. A good case can be made that
so-called physical health represents the highest value for most people in our culture. Instead of giving 10 percent of one's gross income to the church, that percentage and more seems to be going to the almighty medical establishment.Although
philosophy should offer a vision of the world, according to the late philosopher
A.N. Whitehead, that role now appears to have been usurped by the medical doctor. This is so because good health-typically thought to largely be a means to
some end in life-is now conceived as the path to happiness (Morison, in Teich,
1990).
And frankly, if it hadn't been for science and technology, I would quite probably not be here today but would instead probably be sitting somewhere in a wheelchair quite miserable today because I would be (a) definitely crippled with my two
original knees in an almost useless state, and (b) quite deaf without hearing aids. I
report this without going into further detail about science and technology's recent
salutary contribution to my prostate gland and the health of my lower colon. At
any rate, I'm looking forward now to what I am calling "later old age." Whew!
Human Nature and Personal Values
The main reason I was invited to speak at this point in the 1996 Academy
sessions was the hope by President-elect Rainer Martens that I might be able to place
the conference theme in some historic and philosophic perspective. I hope that I
346
ZEIGLER
have been able to challenge to some degree technology's influence on our "personal
and social destination" in life. Obviously, however, there is still great controversy in
the world involving rival theories and beliefs about human nature. These ideas are
embodied typically in the various religious, political, economic, and social systems
extant in the world, not to mention in the multitude of individual approaches to
living. Stevenson (1973) characterized seven leading theories of human nature as
propounded by leading philosophers, scientists, and theologians: (a) Plato: Recommended adopting the rule of the wise; (b) Christianity: Recommends trusting in
God's salvation; (c) Marx: Recommended the Communist revolution; (d) Freud:
Recommended psychoanalysis to achieve freedom and self-direction; (e) Sartre:
Recommended atheistic existentialism that places responsibility directly on the individual; (f) Skinner: Recommended conditioning the behavior of humankind; and (g)
Lorenz: Recommended sublimination of the human's innate aggression.
For example, of these, Christianity and Marxism are two stark opposites, but
the other five theories share certain aspects of their approaches. Whereas Christianity envisions a transcendent God who has ordained a definite purpose for a
human's life, conversely Marx discounted the existence of God while maintaining
all humans are strictly products of their social milieu. We know that denial of
communistic ideology in such societies can bring dire consequences to a person.
However, we can't forget that it was only relatively recently that disbelievers in
Christianity did not suffer some horrible fate. One great obstacle to the acceptance
of either of these belief systems, if strictly held, is that they are so all-encompassing
that the individual and the society are resultantly transformed as social living develops. Of course, the same applies to Islam and certain other Eastern systems.
This is not the place, nor is there time to even outline briefly the seven rival
theories listed above. Further, Stevenson's listing emanates from the Western tradition only, which means that Islamic, African, Indian, Chinese, and Japanese religious traditions are excluded. Nor is the position of the agnostic included in this
theological and philosophical maelstrom. The main reason I have introduced this
topic is simply to show that each of these theories-and they are theories, in some
cases philosophic andlor religious, in others social-scientific!-stresses a variety
of aspects concerning the truth about human nature. Also, in addition to the claims
each makes about human nature, they offer a variety of background of metaphysical andlor methodological assumptions in regard to a theory about the universe
itself. Resultantly, each position cannot escape its own individualistic and group
interface with science and technology. Finally, to make matters even more complex in appraising the difficulty faced by an individual in confronting these sharply
conflicting beliefs and theories about human nature, we are living in a North American culture that is promoting a multiethnic culture of ever-increasing diversity.
Our Field's Present Situation in Higher Education
Moving very briefly to our field's present situation in higher education as
we make our own adjustment or adaptation to onrushing science and technology,
what do we find? Based on a brief description of our status offered to selected
colleagues for reaction, at present there appears roughly to be four or more overlapping subdivisions: (a) the kinesiology wing; (b) the physical (and health) education wing; (c) the social sciences and humanities wing; and (d) the sport management wing. The "or more" reference above refers to the field of recreation and
to that of health and safety, etc.
TO CYBERNETIZE OR DECYBERNE'IIZE
347
The No. 1, or "kinesiology wing," is largely relatively disinterested in the
health and physical education program of the schools and, accordingly, wants professional preparation for this undertaking separate over in the professional education entity on campus. Also, sport management is anathema to kinesiologists, even
less scholarly than physical and health education. And, for the kinesiologists (including physiologists, biomechanists, motor learning professors, etc.), the social
science and humanities subjects are to be ever more downgraded and eventually
eliminated because they are really only "tangentially related" to kinesiology. Oh
yes, the history of what kinesiologists accomplish should be recorded somehow,
of course, but who ever heard of the philosophy, the sociology, the anthropology,
or the economics of (etc.) of kinesiology?
Interestingly, physical and health education teachers and coaches fundamentally need the knowledge undergirding of kinesiology, but such knowledge to date
has been composed very largely of the results from physiological and psychological studies (i.e., exercise physiology and motor learning). And, really, what is not
being stressed anywhere nearly sufficiently is the ability to comprehend and analyze kinematic and kinetic movement. This is exactly what qualified teachers and
coaches really need along with exercise physiology and motor learning. But, even
though technology in this area has improved greatly, such analysis is very complicated and therefore seemingly unattainable for 99.9% of present-day teachers and
coaches. Even the self-proclaimed "kinesiologists," the ones who stress physiology and/or psychology in their own work, haven't along the way typically developed the competencies needed to analyze movement kinematically, much less kinetically. The name "exercise and sport scientists" would seem to be much more
appropriate for them than kinesiologists.
The No. 2 group, the physical and health educators (i.e., the sport and exercise skills people in a presumably healthy environment), have now come to realize
that sport management professors don't want anything to do with physical education-shades of the health, recreation, and dance people!-so, physical educators
are increasingly turning off on sport management and are attempting to shunt it
elsewhere (perhaps to the recreation field or business administration).Why should
they, the physical educators, allot any FTEs to sport management? And health
educators, of course, also have been quite successful in escaping from physical
education in their zeal to become a separate profession lo these many decades!Yet
health education is still needed by physical education, although admittedly its knowledge content has grown so much that physical educators can't keep up with the
knowledge base. And, in some states, legislators have even had to pass a law to
guarantee 15 minutes of physical activity in a purportedly physical education period!
No. 3, the social science and humanities people in university physical education are truly running scared as they see kinesiology seeking to emerge as a
discipline in colleges and universities (often in conjunction with the health sciences). They comprehend that many of the "new" kinesiologists feel that their
students might be better kinesiologists if they didn't have to take courses in physical education and sport that are sociologically, historically, social psychologically,
and philosophically oriented. Thus, as the people teaching these courses are retiring, and because it is often impossible financially to justify replacement of retirees
in these trying times, many are simply not being replaced (or the positions are
mysteriously somehow converted to basic scientists!).
348
ZEIGLER
The No. 4 group, the sport management group, now has a jointly approved
NASPE/NASSM curriculum spelled out, one that colleges and universities must
follow before acceptance for (voluntary) certificationin the United States. (Canada
is tending to avoid such certification.) So good texts and monographs in this area,
where several hundred professional programs now exist, are being developed in
which the physical education elements are downgraded. In these programs, physical education has become anathema, and courses geared commercial, public, and
private agency competitive sport reign supreme (i.e., sport marketing, sport ethics,
sport finance, etc.).
Concluding Statement
What questions does the preceding discussion raise and what tentative conclusions, if any, may I hesitantly draw from my necessarily delimited analysis?
1. Scientific investigation has made tremendous strides in the 20th century.
Despite doomsayers and critics, it will no doubt continue to expand in the
foreseeable future.
2. To the extent possible and desirable, scientific investigation has remainedand should continue to remain-value free.
3. The technological advancements accompanying the unprecedented growth
of scientific knowledge have proceeded apace in keeping with the production of scientific knowledge.
4. Technological advancement, however, contrary to investigation in science,
has been largely value-oriented in keeping with the planned, public and private, social and economic development of society.
5. Humankind must be careful to delineate between the concepts of "progress"
and "progression," while keeping in mind that the concept of progress is
highly subjective at this time.
6. Humankind in democratically oriented societies must monitor these developments carefully. Based on a society's leading values, it may well be increasingly necessary to decybemetize in selected instances.
7. A revised definition of "the good life" appears to be in order as we enter the
21st century. Life today is also characterized by much more uncertainty for
youth than previously. As formerly conceived, the "coming age of leisure"
did not materialize.
8. From time to time, especially as a person enters a new stage of life, he or she
should reevaluate personal values and goals in keeping with his or her beliefs about the prevailing-but ever changing-social system. Such reevaluation should be correlated with the changes that are occumng with the
individual's own traits, characteristics, and abilities at a particular stage of
life.
9. Such personal reevaluation undoubtedly has a reciprocal relationship with
the ongoing development of the hierarchy of values in the overall social
system of one's culture.
10. Kinesiology and physical education, as a field of endeavor in higher education, appears once again to be at a critical stage in its development. As individual professionals we should ask ourselves perennially,
TO. CYBERNETIZE OR DECYBERNETIZE
349
in what way technological change may have altered our personal mission;
whether we individually are part of a move toward division into selfsustaining units that is plaguing our field; and
whether we are personally working sufficiently hard to achieve the necessary consensus within the field that will enable it to keep pace with the
inevitable change forced upon it by the scientific/technologiccommunity.
Finally, looking to the future and, in the process, avoiding my typical "do
this" and "do that" lists (see Zeigler, 1994, pp. 397-400), no one can argue but that
achieving our professional mission will not come easily. It can only come (a) through
the efforts of well-prepared, committed professionals making quality decisions,
(b) through high-level professional marketing designed to motivate people to change
their sedentary life-styles, and (3) through our finest professional assistance in
guiding people as they strive to fulfill such motivation-seekingby employing developmental physical activity beneficially throughout their lives. Our mission in
physical education/kinesiology in the years ahead is to place a quality of excellence in all of our professional endeavors.
References
Aburdene, P., & Naisbitt, J. (1992). Megatrends for women. New York: Villard Books.
Gleick, J. (1996, July 7). High-tech Olympics. The New York Times Magazine, Sec. 6, p. 14.
Horgan, J. (1996). The end of science: Facing the limits of knowledge in the twilight of the
scientz$c age. New York: HelixIAddison-Wesley.
Leslie, J. (1996). The end of the world: The science and ethics of human extinction. New
York: Routledge.
Marx, L. (1990). Does improved technology mean progress? In A.H. Teich (Ed.), Technology and thefuture (5th ed., pp. 3-14). New York: St. Martin's.
Morison, R.S. (1990). Visions. In A.H. Teich (Ed.), Technology and thefuture (5th ed., pp.
15-28). New York: St. Martin's.
Naisbitt, J. (1982). Megatrends. New York: Warner.
Naisbitt, J., & Aburdene, P. (1990). Megatrends 2000. New York: Wm. Morrow.
Random House dictionary of the English language (2nd ed.) (1987). New York: Random
House.
Sears, R.R., & S.S. Feldman. (1973). The seven ages of man. Los Altos, CA: W. Kaufmann.
Simpson, G.G. (1949). The meaning of evolution. New Haven and London, CT: Yale University Press.
Stevenson, L. (1987). Seven theories of human nature (2nd ed.) New York: Oxford.
Tenner, E. (1996). Why things bite back: Technology and the revenge of unintended consequences. New York: Knopf.
Utne Readel: (1994, March-April). Ten events that shook the world between 1984 and 1994,
62, 58-74.
Zeigler, E.F. (1967, December). A riddle for tomorrow's world: How to lead a good life.
CAHPER Journal, 34(2), 3-8.
Zeigler, E.F. (1990). Sport and physical education: Past, present, future. Champaign, IL:
Stipes.
Zeigler, E.F. (Ed.)(1994). Physical education and kinesiology in North America: Professional and scholarly dimensions. Champaign, IL: Stipes.