quest, the role of cultural studies and social€¦ · the role of cultural studies and social...

Quest, 1984.36.66-79

The Role of Cultural Studies and Social Criticism in the Sociological Study of Sport

Robert G. Hollands

It has often been asserted that the sociological study of sport is confronted by a theoretical and methodological malaise (Beamish, 1981; Ingham, 1979). In the spirit of this type of inquiry, it is argued that the developing field of cultural studies can provide some provocative frames of reference for understanding the multidimen- sional nature of sport in society. The first section of the paper briefly traces and critiques some of the major theoretical and methodological developments in North American sport study. The midsection of the essay introduces the related field of cultural studies, and suggests a number of ways in which it might aid our understanding of the relationship between sport, culture, and society. It is asserted that cultural studies can provide an effective critique of elitist definitions of culture, in addition to making available the conceptual tools necessary to link the production of cultural forms (such as sport), to broader social and political questions. The final section of the paper attempts to sketch out a plausible framework for integrating cultural anaylsis and sociocultural criticism into professional schools of sport science. Such an objective ultimately involves reinterpreting and analyzing the scientific basis (and bias) of contemporary physical education departments, while demonstrating the necessity for a criticallhistorical/interpretive component of sport study.

Some Early Developments scholarly attention. The institutionalization in North American Sport Study of sociology of sport as a subdiscipline in-

Except for a select number of classical works on sports and leisure written in the 19th and 20th centuries, specifically Johan Huzinga's Homo Ludens (1955) and Thors- tein Veblen's The Theory of the Leisure Class (1899), it has only been since the mid- 1960s that sport has received any serious

volved, according to some early resear- chers, four related processes: (a) frequent calls by physical educators and social scientists for such a subdiscipline, (b) the emergence of national and international or- ganizations devoted to the field, (c) a prolif- eration of research and writing on the social significance of sports, and (d) the organization of courses and departments of sport

About the Author study within the universities and colleges Robert G. Hollands is with the school of (Lay & Kenyon, 1969, p. 5). Two major

Physical Education at Queen's University in developments in this regard were (a) the Kingston, Ontario. outgrowth of a committee from the Interna-

ROLE OF CULTURAL STUDIES 67

tional Council for Sport and Physical Edu- cation interested in promoting the social aspects of sport study in 1964, and (b) the subsequent publication of the journal Inter- nationaI Review of Sport Sociology begin- ning in 1966.

Absolutely central in this process was the compilation of the first comprehensive reader in the sociology of sport, John Loy and Gerald Kenyon's (Eds.) Sport, Culture and Society (1969). This book represented a turning point in the development of the field, for it was clearly one of the first attempts to map out theoretical and methodological frames of reference, clarify definitions and concepts, and suggest fruit- ful areas of future study in the sociology of sport. In short, it sought to define the scope and task of the emerging field of sport sociology. Its shortcomings, whatever they may have been, looking back on it now, must be tempered by its ground-breaking character and the broader sociohistorical context in which it was written.

Although Sport, Culture and Society contained a number of seminal writings on the nature of play, games, and sports, one of the key papers is Kenyon and Loy's own article entitled "Toward a Sociology of Sport." This essay will focus on that particular paper, not because it is believed that the sociological study of sport should move backward in time, but rather to use the piece as a precis for developing alternative argu- ments and comments on the current state of the field. While much has been written in response to some of Kenyon and Loy's early formulations (Gruneau, 1976; Mel- nick, 1975; Scott, 1972), it is clear that there is still a need to evaluate their contribution in the context of recent developments within the sociology of sport. Much of what was said in "Toward a Sociology of Sport" remains influential in contouring the theoretical assumptions and methodological approaches pursued in sport study. It should perhaps be noted here that the following comments and criticisms are not so much directed against Kenyon and Loy them-

selves, as they are towards those individuals who currently subscribe to their early formulations. While Loy and Kenyon's later research interests and eclectic theoretical frameworks remain somewhat uncommitted (i.e., all theories appear to be equally explanatory) both theorists have moved a considerable distance from Sport, Culture and Society (Loy, 1978; Loy, McPherson, & Kenyon, 1978).

To begin, Kenyon and Loy (1969) jus- tified their "break" with physical education by contrasting the "value-laden" character of education, with (in their own terms), "the goals of science" and the adoption of a "social science tradition" (pp. 38, 42). They argued that while the physical educator started from the "a priori" as- sumption that physical activity was inherently good, the social scientist was to approach her or his subject matter from a neutral, objective stance. In Kenyon and Loy's (1969) words:

Sport sociology as we view it, is a value- free social science. . . . The sport sociologist is neither a spreader of gospel nor an evangelist for exercise. His function is not to shape attitudes and values but rather de- scribe and explain them. (p. 38)

In addition to the very problematic notion of a value-free approach, which of course has been broadly debated in both sociology (Bernstein, 1978; Fay, 1975; Giddens, 1977; Keat and Uny, 1975) and the sociology of sport, there are two basic points that should be addressed here. The first point, which has very rarely been made against Kenyon and Loy's scheme, revolves around limiting the social study of sport by placing it within the confines of sociology proper. In fact, the main purpose of this paper is to argue that innovative work in the sociology of sport has recently benefited from a wealth of theory and methodology emanating out of cultural studies, history, literary and communication studies, and social and political analysis. The end result of this con-

68 HOLLANDS

finement of sport study to sociology (and social psychology) has tended to limit interdisciplinary analysis, especially with re- spect to the humanities. Kenyon and Loy (1969) also selected a very specific definition of what sociology is-in their words, "the study of social order" (p. 36)-and then proceeded to define the sociology of sport as the study of human behavior and social order in a sports context. By includ- ing social psychology into the realm of sport study, they were implicitly assuming that the subdiscipline should be modelled after the natural science tradition. While this is a point that will be taken up shortly, suffice it to say that the methods and style of cultural criticism and political analysis are quite distinct from the positivistic models of science usually adopted within psychology. In other words, while a social psychologist may be "critical" within the realm of the natural science model, the logic, content, and purposes of cultural criticism are based on a completely different set of assumptions and premises.

The second point concerns the question of what "social scientific tradition" Ken- yon and Loy were referring to in "Toward a Sociology of Sport." It is clear that they were referring to a specific tradition of inquiry anchored in North American structural functionalist and positivistic models of social science. Kenyon and Loy's reference to such well-known American functionalist theorists as Talcott Parsons and Neil Smel- ser in their section on social theory, testi- fied to their limited choice of theoretical models. Since this time functionalist theory has been widely debated and has fallen out of favor in both Western Europe and even North American sociology (Giddens, 1977). Yet, as every student of sociology knows, there has always been a plethora of competing perspectives in sociological theory most of which were completely ab- sent in Kenyon and Loy's discussion. In setting the agenda for the social study of sport and culture, the "classical" tradition in sociology-the work of Marx, Dur-

kheim, and Weber-was conspicuously ab- sent in their analysis. This absence, however, was not a phenomenon peculiar to the work of Kenyon and Loy. In his recent book, Class, Sports and Social Develop- ment Richard Gruneau locates this movement away from the classical tradition in much of American sociology in the late 1950s and early 1960s. Despite this general trend there were a host of debates and competing theories of culture and society going on in Britain, Germany, and France, not to mention the work of the Frankfurt School in North America (Adorno & Horkheimer, 1972; Jay, 1973; Marcuse, 1964) which Ke- nyon and Loy could have drawn upon, or at least referenced.

The reasons for these silences in Kenyon and Loy's work are complex and varied. In part, it might be argued that they can be linked to the underdeveloped state of theory in early sport study. On a broader level, however, others have suggested that these oversights have much to do with the egocen- tric character of North American social scientific traditions (Hargreaves, 1982a, p. 4). What Kenyon and Loy were promoting then, and what still characterizes much of the work currently undertaken in the sociology of sport, is the study of social phenomenon through a natural science model. That is, research should be based on the collection of quantifiable, "hard" data, with the ultimate aims being explanation, predic- tion, and control of variables. The logic is that when enough data and facts are col- lected, the object of study will mysteriously make itself known to the researcher. Exam- ples abound in Kenyon and Loy's article which clearly delimit alternative modes of understanding the nature and meaning of play, games, and sport. While Kenyon and Loy realized that theory actually works to circumscribe and indeed limit our knowledge of social and cultural phenomena, they failed to see that empiricist and positivistic models of social reality were in that sense "theoretical" (not to mention ideological). The collection of so called "social facts"


tells us little about the nature and meaning of the sports experience, its historical development or its cultural production and reproduction in to different forms. Nor does it say anything about the connection between sport and broader ideological, political, and economical systems (Cantelon & Gruneau, 1982; Hargreaves, 1982b).

The major difficulties faced by advocates of a "value free" sociology and those individuals engaged in the collection of social facts has been purposely avoided so far. The primary intention has been to draw attention to the lack of interdisciplinary study promoted by Kenyon and Loy's initial formulations. The major difficulty with the nonnormative approach however is that the natural scientific model itself is heavily "value laden." Tha t is, such a position makes a number of questionable assumptions about human nature, theories of knowledge, the fact/value distinction, and the historical and social process (cf. Giddens, 1976). Yet there has been m u c h written on this problem in both sociology (Bernstein, 1978; Fay, 1975; Mills, 1975; Willer and Willer, 1973) and in sociology of sport (Beamish, Gruneau, 1976; 1978; Melnick, 1975). While this remains a central issue, the remainder of this subsection wi l l be devoted to a discussion of a body of work which in many ways arose in opposition to the central themes of the nonnormative sociology promoted by the early Kenyon and Loy. This diverse tradition of critical writings on sport is com- monly known as the "jockraker literature."

There are really two levels of analysis in the jockraker literature--one rooted in a social problems perspective, and a slightly more sophisticated strand is anchored in re- worked versions of traditional social and political theory. The first variant, which will simply be referred to as the "social problems perspective," grew out of a concern by various individuals over the excesses and injustices of various aspects of the North American sporting scene in the late 1960s and early 1970s. The movement involved a number of athletes, ex-athletes, sports-

writers, and scholars who began to voice their opinions on such issues at athletes' rights, the plight of the black athlete, the crass commercialism of professional sport, and the dehumanizing environment of col- lege and professional football. Examples of this literature would include Jack Scott's The Athletic Revolution, Harry Edwards' The Revolt of the Black Athlete, Dave Meg- gysey's Out of Their League, Gary Shaw's Meat on the Hoof and Lenard Schecter's The Jocks. In many ways the cultural critic of today is indebted to these early works which, despite their many shortcomings, at least began the task of identifying problem areas in the cozy realm of sports. Yet, although the bulk of this literature had politi- can overtones, it lacked a sufficiently strong theoretical framework of sport and society to back up its "experiential" claims. In other words, while it was adequately polemi cal, it was analytically weak.

The second variant of the jockraker literature is slightly harder to characterize, for while it emerged in North America, it claimed to be influenced in a much stronger way by European social and political theory. Paul Hoch's Rip Off the Big Game is proba- bly the most obvious example of this type of work. The immediate difficulty with Hoch is that although he claims to be indebted to the works of Anatonio Gramsci, an Italian Marxist imprisoned in 1929 (see Gramsci, 1978), there is a suspicious absence of Gramscian theory in Rip Off the Big Game (for a discussion of Gramsci's theory of hegemony see Williams, 1977; for a discussion of hegemony and sport see Har- greaves, 1982~). Hoch's book is definitely both polemical and political, but one soon wonders if his sloganeering doesn't override the more important task of using Marx's theoretical and historical insights to com- prehend more fully the complexities and contradictions of modem sport (Beamish, 1982b). And while he goes beyond the social problems perspective which simply described and located many of America's sporting ills, Hoch's attempt to get to the

70 HOLLANDS

"root" of those ills is largely a failure. Ironically, his own approach borders on a Marxist version of functionalist theory which he so rightly condemns. Hoch has little sensitivity to the "constitutive" character of sport as an element of culture, nor does he adequately deal with the class character of play, games and sport (except to say that sports have been manipulated by a nebulous ruling elite). By suggesting that sports are in fact "a mirror reflection" of society, Hoch has constructed a theory of society whereby cultural activity is seen to be completely determined by abstract economic forces.

For those individuals currently engaged in either the practical aspects of physical education or even those with more theoretical concerns, Hoch's portrayal of sport may be largely unrecognizable. Indeed, his analysis is for the most part aimed primarily at high level sports participation such as the Olympics and professional sport, which makes up only a part of the sporting experience of most people (i.e., as spectators). Another problem is that Hoch's descriptions may also be less helpful or objective than many of the critics of the natural science model might hope for. As Gruneau (1976) has put it:

Moral indignation and a committment to progressive change are hardly guarantees of objective reasoning or even factual accuracy, and the victimization of Marxist scholarship by a facile polemic like Paul Hoch's Rip Off the Big Game (1972) testifies to the dangers of committment without content. (p. 28)

The intention has not been to provide an exhaustive account of all the major developments in North American sport sociology here. For example, as John Hargreaves (1982b, p. 39) notes, there has also been a tradition of "interactionist" writings in sociology dealing in a peripheral way with aspects of sport (Geertz, 1972; Goffman, 1972), not to mention a number of efforts within the subdiscipline itself (Ingham &

Loy, 1973; Whitson, 1976). Despite these interventions, much of the work in the sociology of sport remained primarily within the confines of the natural scientific model. In the latter part of the 1970s however, there was a concerted effort by a number of Canadian and American scholars to move beyond Kenyon and Loy's early formulations and Hoch's vulgar use of Mar- xist categories (Gruneau, 1976; 1978; Guttmann, 1978; Hall, 1978; Ingham, 1975; Kidd, 1978). While the successes of these diverse endeavors were varied, they all pro- vided some initial starting points for a more comprehensive theory of sport and society. By delving more deeply into some of the underlying theoretical and methodological issues characterizing the "crisis of western sociology" (Gouldner, 1970), these writers sought to resituate the sociological study of sport in the broader context of political economy, history, theories of class and gender inequality, and the paradoxical categories of freedom and constraint.

Sport and Cultural Studies

This essay has attempted to trace, however briefly, some of the major origins and developments in North American sport sociology. Remnants of the natural science model remain very strong, particulaily in the United States. In addition, "radical" approaches have been transformed by more theoretically sophisticated models of social analyses emanating from Western Europe, particularly France and Germany (Brohm, 1978; Rigauer, 1981). Yet there are aspects of both of these approaches which remain unsatisfactory. The replication of so called scientific studies of sport have done little to enhance either our knowledge or understanding of the nature and meaning of sporting practices. By separating sport from its developmental and social features, the "variables" approach completely ignores the sociohistorical and political dimensions of cultural life. And while the jockraker

ROLE OF CULTURAL STUDIES 7 1

literature has at least drawn our attention to the political and social problems of sport, in most cases even recent Neo-Marxist ac- counts have tended to be reductionist and unexplanatory in some central ways. Are there any alternative traditions for the sociology of sport to build upon? In other words, what are the prospects for sport study in the remainder of the 1980s?

Jenny Hargreaves (1982a), in her article "Theorising Sport: An Introduction," has argued that one such intervention into understanding sport "has been enhanced by the recent growth in another area of research- cultural studies" (p. 4-5). While the evolu- tion of cultural studies has taken place primarily in Britain, some of its general characteristics have been utilized in Cana- dian sociology, media studies, history, and to a limited extent in Canadian sport study (Gruneau, 1983a; Hollands, 1980; 1982). What exactly is cultural studies and how can it help to enhance our understanding of play, games, and sport in contemporary societies?

Despite the fact that there is a long British tradition and history surrounding the term "culture"' it was only in the late 1950s that cultural studies began to emerge. Stuart Hall (1980a) has suggested that its origins can be located in a number of decisive breaks with traditional disciplinary bound- aries, and cites as examples such works as

h he term "cultural studies" may be somewhat unfamiliar to North American academics, and should be clearly distinguished from another particularly British line of inquiry, "social anthropology." Generally, British social anthropology refers to the study of non-British, particularly primitive cultures, while cultural studies originated out of post-war changes in the social and cultural milieu of British society. This is not to say that developments in cultural studies took place outside of anthropological definitions of culture (i.e., see Hall, 1980), but that its origins are more closely tied to British literary theory and working class his- toriography (see Hoggart, 1957; Thompson, 1979; Williams, 1965).

Richard Hoggart's The Uses of Literary, Raymond Williams' The Long Revolution, E.P. Thompson's critique of the latter (see Thompson, 1961) and his own The Making of the English Working Class. All three works, despite their vast theoretical and methodological differences, were characterized by a concern with both existing definitions of culture and the "making" of cultural forms. In this postwar period there was a general concern over the changing nature of British culture and community, especially as they are related to the resump- tion of captialist production, the persistance of class conflict, and the growth of a new state structure (Hall, Hobson, Lowe, & Willis, 1980). The institutionalization of cultural studies occured in 1964 with the opening of the Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies at the University of Birmin- gham. Since these early beginnings, cultural studies has grown both in terms of its intellectual trajectory and its influence on many English, media, history, and social science courses in British polytechnics and universities. Its influence is only now being felt in numerous subject areas in Canada and the U.S.

What general subject areas and theoretical propositions have contributed to cultural studies? Perhaps it can best be described as "an area where different disciplines inter- sect in the study of the cultural aspects of society" (Hall et al., 1980, p. 7). At the risk of considerable oversimplification, the field has drawn on elements of sociology, politics, literary and communication studies, philosophy, semiotics, history, and different variants of Marxism for its analysis of cultural forms, practices and in- stitutions. T h e specific contribution of cultural studies h a s been to link up the lived experience of human actors, and cultural meanings, texts and representations (elements of the "culture as interpretation" tradition), with the broader political and economic structures of modem industrial societies (political economy). In other words, the promise of cultural studies has

72 HOLLANDS

been to bridge diverse traditions within the social sciences to equally disparate interpretive traditions in the humanities. Due to its extremely broad-ranging character, this paper will deal with only two aspects of cultural analysis which might possibly aid in our understanding of sport, culture, and society.

The first contribution that cultural studies could make towards sport study is to provide a framework for rethinking the highllow culture distinction (Kando, 1975). This distinction is generally made on the criterion that high culture, such as opera, ballet, or the plays of Shakespeare are qualitatively different in terms of levels of meaning, performance skills, and overall content than forms of low culture. Low culture, on the other hand, is often viewed as possessing a limited range of meanings, lower levels of skill, and is usually characterized by its mass appeal. Individuals writing within the cultural studies tradition have attempted to break down the arbitrary nature of this class- ification in two central ways. First they have argued that the traditional distinction between high and low culture is a socially constructed one, in which the dominant groups and classes of a society have had the necessary "resources" to define what constitutes good (high) from bad (low) culture (Williams, 1965). In other words, what is often described as high culture is only the selection of a tradition by those who stand to gain or at least maintain their privileged position. One example of the arbitrary social character of high culture can be de- monstrated by the changing attitude towards the patrons of Shakespeare's plays. Here is an early account (Fiske & Hartley, 1978) by members of the upper class concerning the types of people attracted to this high form of contemporary culture:

They are the ordinary places for vagrant persons, Maisterles men, thieves, horse stealers, whoremongers, Coozeners, Con- eycatchers, contrivers of treason and other idele and daungerous persons to meet to-

gether.. . .They maintaine idlenes in such persons as haue no vocation & draw apprentices and other seruants from their ordinary workes and all sortes of people from the re- sort vnto sermons and other Christian exer- cises to the great hinderance of traides & pphantion of religion. (pp. 13-14)

A second argument for the deconstruction of the hightlow culture distinction lies within the realm of socially constructed meanings. Many writers have convincingly argued that all popular, social phenomena are inherently meaningful due to their very existence as shared cultural symbols (Bathes, 1973). In this way, the whole con- cept of "levels of meaning" becomes problematic-partially because all cultural forms have layers of symbolic meanings and partially because they are all constructed in the context of delimiting social, political, and economic processes. To put this another way, such popular cultural forms as romance stories, "Dallas," and the production of sports are all imbedded with meanings which are both constituting and constitutive of a particular society. The analysis or "reading" of these cultural forms may tell just as much, if not more about the organization of our society than, say, the "Nutcracker Suite."

The second contribution that cultural studies could make to our understanding of popular culture in general, and sport study in particular, is contained in the two related concepts of "cultural production" and "cultural form" (Barrett, Corrigan, Kuhn, & Wolff, 1979). The utilization of these concepts for understanding the modem sport form are essential. For example, if we can agree on the arbitrary distinction made between high and low culture and link it to the power relations existing in a particular society, we can proceed as follows: (a) delve into the broader conditions and social relations in which a dominant conception of sport is made or produced, (b) examine how the struggles between different groups and classes have resulted in "dominant," "re-


sidual" and "emergent" forms of sporting practices (Gruneau, 1983a; Williams, 1977), and (c) demonstrate how a particular form of sport is consolidated, contested, maintained, or reproduced in the context of the reproduction of the society as a whole.

What types of questions does this approach deem important? In the first instance, the cultural studies approach forces us to look at sport historically. What were the dominant sporting values and practices of past historical periods and what social groups and forces were responsible for their production? Why did the dominant form of sport change in the transition from feudal society to early industrial capitalism and how did it change? What alternative concep- tions of sport and bodily practices were squeezed out or pushed aside in the transfor- mation of sport and society? How were changes in sport and leisure related to changes in the labor process and to technological developments? How and in what ways did underclass groups resist bourgeois definitions of sport and partici- pate in the making of their own leisure activities in the face of differential resources? How does sport articulate with the reproduction of gender? In what way has the state worked to consolidate dominant concep- tions of sport and proper use of the body? All of these questions involve the utilization of the twin ideas of cultural production and cultural form by situating sport within the confines of political power, the sexual divi- sion of labor, and the limits of political economy (Cantelon & Gruneau, 1982; Gru- neau, 1979; 1983; Hall, 1978; Hollands, 1983; Kidd, 1978). Furthermore, all of these questions ultimately place one in the role of a social critic.

Social Criticism and Physical Education

The very structure of sport study in North America ironically pairs the social critic with those very individuals in sport science

whose professional ideology reinforces ahistorical and functionalist approaches to the subject. As Jenny Hargreaves (1982a) puts it: "the sport science paradigm has implicitly validated dominant attitudes about the social character and values of sport" (p. 2). Hargreaves is primarily referring to such specialized areas as human biology, exercise physiology, biomechanics, motor learning, and applied psychology as component parts of the sport sciences. How- ever, the double irony is that many sport sociologists working in the spirit of Kenyon and Loy's early formulations fit perfectly into this natural science model. In a word, this conglomeration has a vested interest in a particular definition of sport despite their contentions of objectivity and value neutrality.

This is an essential point and hence it deserves additional consideration. As Bearnish (1982a) so cogently argues, the basic assumptions adopted by the natural science wing of sport study places it directly in the fray of some of the most important political issues in sport today. To demonstrate his case, Beamish examines three related issues: (a) the unacknowledged acceptance of sport as a particular type of activity by natural scientists (b) the implications of this acceptance upon resource allo- cation, and (c) the political implications of the factlvalue distinction in sport science. With regard to the first two issues, it becomes clear that sport scientists, for the most part, completely accept the modem sport form (as characterized by a heteronom- ous structure and the pursuit of the linear record through the use of an elaborate divi- sion of labor) (Beamish, 1982a, p. 9; Brohm, 1978; Guttmann, 1978) and allocate a tremendous amount of their resources ac- cordingly. For example, in his analysis of 131 articles published in the Canadian Jour- nal of Applied Sport Science from 1979 to 1981, Beamish (1982a) found that 73% of the material would directly enhance linear sport (p. 10). With regard to the issue of value neutrality, Beamish clearly shows

.a~%%n~js ia%~e~ q3nm e JO juamala Au!j auo jnq s! sa3uaps vods aql u! jj~qs e q3ns JOJ lie3 v .waasAs [einjIn30!3os pue '1e3!~!1od '~!UJOUO~~ a~laua Jno JO uo!~em

ma13 s! 'sasino3 asaql Bulq3ealjo poqlam aql pue lualuo3 jo Al!sian!p aql alrdsaa .s[ooq3s [auo!ssajoid lsom u! lq%nel sasmo3 II!YS sno!mn aql aq lq%!m as~no3 a3uem -lopad e jo aldurexa piemiojlq%!wls v

.[apom 3yyuaps lueu!m -op (3) PUB 's~seq 13afqns (q) 'sluauodmo3 asmo3 (e) O~U! sa!io%a]e3 asaql %u!p!n!p dq panalq3e s! urnopyeaiq iaqpnj v 'sauo%ale3 asaql jo aiom io auo SSOJ~~ 11-19 Kew sasino3 jo iaqmnu e se 'an!snpxa K[[enlnm se uaas aq IOU lsnm s%u!peaq asaql leql palou aq plnoqs q .(I alqe~aas) a%pa[rnou~ 3!j!lua!3~ (3) pue 'K~![odlan!lmls!u!mpv (q) 'a3uemopad (e) :s%u!peaq %u!rno[loj aql Japun paz!ue%~o 8u!aq se mei%o~d pz~!dKl e May 01 siajard arlua3 aql 'sau!ldps!pqns snouen sl! olu! [ooqr~s ~euo!ssajoid e u~op KuFyeaiq jo pealsuI '(9~861 'neaurug) , ,hroaq~, [e3!1!i3 pue anpa.i&aju~ ~oj ase3 v :sa3uaps pods aql %u!z!1enlda3uo3aa,, papyua mu!mas e u! 'Klrsianrun spaan0 le sa!pnlg a~ns!a~ pue pods JOJ ailua3 aql Kq padolanap uaaq seq yiomamJj an!le[r13ads %u!mol~oj aqL Lop K[lenl3e uo!lempa [E31 -sKqd jo 10oq3s ~euo!ssajo~d e saop leq~

.paz!ue%~o K1pnl3e am daql moq 8u~ -pue)s~apun ioj sIapom angeuralIe a.m aJaql (K%o[o!q 'Ku~oleue 'KBo~o!sKqd 'K%O~OI~OS "a~) sau![dps!p luamd m[n3!pvd punom srue~8oid i!aql paJnl3ruls K[[awioj aneq 03 m!e13 sluampdap uo!le3npa [e3!sKqd )sour q%noqllv xauuem hu!1d!3s!pialu! aJom e u! aIoi i!aql auyapaJ 01 lq%nos aneq eam ~einl~30!30s aql U! s~enp!n!pu[ snow" 'Knnbu! jo sad& paz!le!3ads K~pinsqe olu! ale~aua%ap ue3 a3uelsuF 1se1 aql u! q3!qm 'sau!ld!3s!pqns jo uo!l3aIlo3 e se sa3ua -13s uods aq3 %urma!n ueql JaqleJ 'a~dmexa io5 xanew parqns s!q io iaq 03 d!qsuo!le[ -a1 s,ls!%o~o!~os aql pue sluampvdap uo!~ -empa p!sKqd [euo!ssajo~djo uo!lez!ue%~o aq qloq %u!yu!qla~ stwua emat!p srqL

-1oJsueJl [v!luelsqns e ai!nbai '13a33a u! 'pInom yooljno pliom inpamod e q3ns 30 uo!ssas -iadns aqL .asino3s!p 3!mapeDe pue ainpa3oid 3!~!jua!3s JO ,,saIni,, aqj augap oj sdnoi8 jsaiaj -u! palsah JO Aj!3ede3 pue ,,sa3~nosai,, 8u!A1 -iapun aqj je sjulq osIe ws!lej!de3 le!qsnpu! JO

asp aqj pue a3uays JO juawdola~ap aqj uaamj -aq suo!l3auuo3iaau! aqL 'llam se ssausno!3s -uo3 ~e~ndod u! jnq 'Aj!unuimo3 Aj!sian!un aq~ u! Lluo IOU jsa~!uem s! lapow a~uaps IeJnjeu aql JO lamod Jaaqs aqL 'au!ld!3s!pqns ,,[a3! -l!i3,, pue ~!js!uemnq aiom e oju! saDua!ss uods aqj JO uo~jeuo~sueij aqj aajueim% jlasj~ Aq [I!M (aiaq pa~sa%%ns auo aqj %u!pnpu!) a8ueq3 mnln3!iin3 Aue leql A~dw! oj jou s! s!q~,

;sa~ua!3s vods aqlol urs!3!1!.13 IeinlIns %u!le[ai jo I(EM

angeuraqe ue s! aiaq papaau K[ma[3 s! leq~ .~s!%o[o!sdqd e 01 aq Lem aqlaqs ueql q3eoid -de ls!3!i!dma w Bu![[olxa S~S!%OIO!~OS pods rnolraj 01 uo!$eluauo u! ~asop ou aq Kem 3!1y3 Ieinqn3 aql ~eql s! xopered aqL 'Lo7 pue uodua~ Kq palomo~d asoql 01 m[!m!s slapour uo Kpm!.xd Kla~ oqm eam IeJnl -[n30!3os ay) u! san%ea[lo3 dq uana '3!j!lua -psun se papm%ais!p ualjo s! ms!3!1!13 [wnl -1113 jo 3!%o[ pue K8o[opoqlam aql '~anarnoq 'pueq Jaqlo aql uo .poqlaur sac~uaps [wn -leu aql jo suo!ldurnsse pue suo!le)!mg aql 01 %u!u!epad uo!leuuoju! ap!no~d ue3 3gu3 p!~os aql 'syl 01 uo!l!ppe UI 'a3113wd u! paleuruIass!p am lapom a3uaps Ieinleu aql jo suo!ldurnsse u!emop aql moq 8u!puels -1apun ioj luawuoqnua leap! ue u! ale uods jo uo!l!ugap e jo uop3npo~d [e.1nl[n3 aql u! palsarnu! a.m O~M SIS!JO~~I asoql 'pueq auo aql uo '[e3!xopemd samo3aq luammdap uope3npa 1e3!sKqd e u! uorl~unj s,3!lu3 aql EM [e~]ua3 ,ban e UI .lunoure~ed am 3!]!~3

1emqn3 aql JOJ s!ql JO suo!le3!ldm! aqL .pe [e3p!1od K~asual

-u! UE S! a3roq3 srql 'lz~ajja UI '%U!MOUY jo SKEM pue a~y3eid K~~poq jo suuq anyeu -iaqe p-10 sazaanbs lo sqnejap K[[e3!lemolne '1! Kpn~s plnoqs auo moq pue 'aq p[noqs pods leq~ jo uotlrugap "e,, %upda33a 's! mrod aqL 'spua le3!l!lod 'an!l3arqns mo~j palemdas aq louue3 (poqam a3ua!3s 1e.1 -weu ay)) swam an!lc~afqo K~papodmd moq

ROLE OF CULTURAL STUDIES

Table 1

The Organization of a Typical Professional Physical Education Department

Admin.1 Soc.lCultural Performance Policy Scientific Criticism

Course Sport skills Organization Physiology of Soc. of sport Components: and admin. exercise Political eco.

(examples) Psych. of of sport sport Sport,

Biomechanics culture Soc. of sport and the

(empiricist media tradition)

Subject Anatomy Soc. psych. Basis: Physiology (small group

Soc. psych. studies) Biomechanics Management

(etc.) studies Human

movement studies

Physiology Anatomy Biology Physics Sociology

(particular variants)

Psychology

Sociology (classic tradition)

Anthropology Political eco. Literary

criticism Media

studies Semiology Philosophy History

Dominant Natural Natural Natural l nterpret ive Scientific (mainstream Historical Model: organizational Critical

theory) theory

Note: From "Reconceptualizing the Sport Sciences: A Case for Critical and Inter- pretive Theory." R. Gruneau, Centre for Sport and Leisure Studies Seminar Series, Kingston, March 19, 1983.

that the mechanics of sport skills are ultimately based upon the natural sciences. Continuing on, a prime example of an administrative/policy course would be "Or- ganization and Administration of Physical Activity." A course of this nature would primarily be based upon small group studies, social psychology, and mainstream organization theory of either a functionalist or empiricist variety. Even the title of such a course hints at a tacit acceptance of a particular type of sport (i.e., highly

and administered (i.e., bureaucratically, and according to the principles of the mar- ketplace).

The third, and most influential category is the scientific component of aprofessional physical education school. The importance of this particular sector of a faculty is re- flected in its high visibility within most graduate programs. For instance, many graduate programs are organized along a trilateral arrangement, consisting of (a) biomechanics or human movement in sport,

rationalized) and how it should be organized (b) exercise physiology, and (c) social/

76 HOLLANDS

psychological aspects of sport. It has generally been recognized that all of these subdis- ciplines arose in conjunction with the in- creased rationalization, professionalization, and bureaucratization of modem sporting practices and graduate training programs. I have tried in a very cursory fashion to give a brief history of some of the developments in North American sociology of sport, with specific reference to its continued adherence to the natural science model. Psychology of sport is even more intimately tied to the domain assumptions of the systematic empiricism. The subject bases of physiology of exercise and biomechanics are of course completely grounded in the scientific model. It is clear that physical education schools have overwhelmingly been limited to a particular type of inquiry, and have for the most part tacitly accepted a particular definition of sport. Until recently, what ap- pears to have been missing is an entire realm of knowledge about sport based on the stan- dards of cultural criticism and grounded in the humanities.

In the right-hand comer of Table 1, sepa- rated by a broken line, is an area of sport study which has been referred to as sociocultural criticism. If sport is to be un- derstood in its entirety, and if it is viewed as a cultural form, then the role of the cultural critic of sport must be seen in exactly the same way as a literary critic relates to English literature. In the same way that En- glish students learn not only the techniques of writing (performance) but the canons of literary criticism, the student of sport must not only learn skills, but come to understand the cultural production of sporting practices in the context of social, political, and economic forces. Examples of such courses might include sociology of sport (situated within the classical tradition of social and political theory), the political economy of sport, and even the construction of new subject areas, for example courses on "Sport, Culture, and the Media." The subject basis of this new component of the program would parallel the interdisciplinary focus of

cultural studies, and the dominant model of inquiry would encompass interpretive, historical, and critical modes of analysis. In conclusion, there are really three related ar- guments that can be put forward in support of such a scheme.

First, the sociocultural/criticism component of a program would provide a well- needed balance in terms of understanding how particular historical definitions of sport and culture become naturalized as the only (or dominant) definitions of physical activity. Second, the unity of such a model is obvious. Just as the art or drama critic needs access to the works of painters and actors, so the cultural critic needs access to the performance and administrative component of contemporary sporting practices. Third, the implementation of a cultural studies approach to sport study has implications for the continued existence of professional schools in the universities. For if physical education faculties are to maintain their status within the university and academic community, they must do far more than transmit purely technical knowledge and skills about sports. Community colleges and technical institutes can perform these function with equal, if not better success.

Yet most of us would agree, I think, that there is much more to play, games, leisure, and sport than technical knowledge and practical skills. As elements of contemporary popular culture, these human activities have far more impact and importance than is readily acknowledged. Not only must students of sport begin to understand the broader context of which these activities are a part, but so too must students of social and political theory study the constitutive features of popular cultural forms. The practical implications of a sociocultural understanding of play, games, and sport are broad and far-reaching. For it is only by coming to terms with the production, reproduction, and representation of cultural forms, and how these processes link up to the broader features of a society, that change becomes possible and alternatives become realities.


References

ADORNO, T., & Horkheimer, M. (1972). The dialectic of enlightenment. Boston: Beacon Press.

BARRETT, M., Corrigan, P., Kuhn, A., & Wolff, J. (Eds.). (1979). Ideology and culturalproduction. London: Croom Helm.

BARTHES , R. (1973). Mythologies. Lon- don: Paladin.

BEAMISH, R. (1980, September). A critical examination of the epistemological limitations of the positivist approach to comparative sport study. Presented at the second international seminar on Compara- tive Physical Education and Sport, Dalhousie University, Halifax, N.S.

BEAMISH, R. (1981). The materialist approach to sport study: An alternative pre- scription to the discipline's methodological malaise. Quest, 33, 55-71.

BEAMISH, R. (1982a, September 6-10). Some neglected political themes in sport study. Presented at the American Sociolog- ical Association Meetings, San Francisco.

BEAMISH, R. (1982b). Sport and the logic of capitalism. In H. Cantelon & R. Gruneau (Eds.), Sport, culture and the modern state. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, pp. 141-197.

BERNSTEIN, R. (1978). The restructuring of social and political theory. Philadelphia:. University of Pennsylvania Press.

BROHM, J. (1978). Sport--aprison of mea- sured time. London: Ink Links.

CANTELON, H., & Gruneau, R. (1982). Sport, culture and the modern s h e . Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

EDWARDS, H. (1969). The revolt of the black athlete. New York: The Free Press.

FAY, B. (1975). Social theory and political practice. Boston: Allan & Unwin.

FISKE, J., & Hartley, J. (1978). Reading television. London: Methuen & Company.

GEERTZ, C. (1972). Deep play: Notes on the Balinese cockfight. Daedalus, 101, 1- 37.

GIDDENS, A. (1976). New rules of sociological method. New York: Basic Books.

GIDDENS, A. (1977). Studies in social and political theory. New York: Basic Books.

GOFFMAN, I. (1972). Interaction ritual. New York: Doubleday.

GOULDNER, A. (1970). The coming crisis of western sociology. New York: Basic Books.

GRAMSCI, A. (1978). Selectionsffom the prison notebooks (Q. Hoare & G. Nowell Smith, Eds. and Trans .). New York: Interna- tional Publishers. GRUNEAU, R. (1975). Sport, social dif- ferentiation, and social inequality. In D. Ball & J. Loy (Eds.), Sport and social order. Reading, MA: Addision-Wesley, pp. 117-184.

GRUNEAU, R. (1976). Sport as an area of sociological study. In R. Gruneau & J. Albinson (Eds.), Canadian sport: Sociolog- ical perspectives. Reading, MA: Addison- Wesley, pp. 8-43.

GRUNEAU, R. (1978). Conflicting stan- dards and problems of personal action in the sociology of sport. Quest, 30, 80-90.

GRUNEAU, R. (1979). Power and play in Canadian social development. Working papers in the sociological study of sports and leisure, Kingston: Centre for Sport and Lei- sure Studies. GRUNEAU, R. (1983a). Class, sports and social development. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press.

GRUNEAU, R. (1983b, March 19). Recon- ceptualizing the sport sciences: A case for critical and interpretive theory. Centre for sport and leisure studies seminar series, Kingston.

GUTTMANN, A. (1978). From ritual to record. New York: Columbia University Press.

78 HOLLANDS

HALL, A. (1978). Sport and gender: A feminist perspective on the sociology of sport. CAPHER sociology of sport monog- raph series.

HALL, S. (1980). Cultural studies: Two paradigms. Media, Culture and Society, 1, 57-72.

HALL, S., Hobson, D., Lowe, A., &Will- is, P. (Eds.). (1980). Culture, media lan- guage. London: Hutchinson.

HARGREAVES, JENNY (1982a). Theoriz- ing sport-an introduction. In J . Hargreaves (Ed.), Sport, culture and ideology. London: Routledge & Kegan Pau!, pp. 1-29.

HARGREAVES, JOHN (1982b). Sport, culture and ideology. In J. Hargreaves (Ed.), Sport, culture and ideology. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, pp. 30-61.

HARGREAVES, JOHN (1982~). Sport and hegemony: Some theoretical problems. In H. Cantelon & R. Gruneau (Eds.), Sport, culture and the modern state. Toronto: Uni- versity of Toronto Press, pp. 103-140.

HOCH, I? (1972). Rip off the big game. New York: Doubleday.

HOGGART, R. (1957). The uses of literary. London: Chatto & Windus.

HOLLANDS, R. (1980, October 16-19). Sport, culture and Marxism. Presented at the first annual meeting of the North Amer- ican Society for the Sociology of Sport, Denver, CO.

HOLLANDS, R. (1982). Canadian sports novels, Marxism, and cultural production. In C. Jenkins & M. Green (Eds.), Sporting pctions. Birmingham: Centre for Contempo- rary Cultural Studies, pp. 344-371.

HOLLANDS, R. (1983, March 25-26). Leisure, work and working class culture: The case of leisure on the shopfloor. Pre- sented at the workshop sponsored by the Centre for Sport and Leisure Studies, Kingston, Ontario.

HUIZINGA, J. (1955). Homo ludens. Bos- ton: Beacon Press.

INGHAM, A. (1 975). Occupational sub- cultures in the work world of sport. In D. Ball & J. Loy (Eds.), Sport and social order. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, pp. 333-389.

INGHAM, A. (1979). Methodology in the sociology of sport: From symptoms of malaise to Weber for a cure. Quest, 31, 187- 215.

INGHAM, A., & Loy, J. (1973). The social system of sport: A humanistic perspective. Quest, 19, 3-24.

JAY, M. (1973). The dialectical imagination. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.

KANDO, T. (1975). Leisure and popular culture in transition. St. Louis: C.V. Mosby

KEAT, R., & Urry, J. (1975). Social theory as science. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

KENYON, G., & Loy, J. (1969). Toward a sociology of sport. In J. Loy & G. Kenyon (Eds.) , Sport, culture and society. Toronto: Macmillan, pp. 36-43.

KIDD, B. (1978). The political economy of sport. CAPHER sociology of sport monog- raph series.

KIDD, B. (1982, August 26-29). We must maintain a balance between propoganda and serious athletics-the workers' sports movement in Canada, 1924-1940. Pre- sented at the 5th Canadian Symposium on the History of Sport and Physical Educa- tion, Toronto, Ontario.

LOY, J. (1978). The cultural system of sport. Quest, 29, 73-102.

LOY, J., & Kenyon, G. (1969). Sport, culture and society. Toronto: Macmillan.

LOY, J., McPherson, B., & Kenyon, G. (1978). Sport and social systems. Reading: Addison-Wesley.

MARCUSE, H. (1 964). One-dimensional man. Boston: Beacon Press.

MEGGYSEY, D. (1971). Out of their league. New York: Paperback Library.


MELNICK, M. (1975). A critical look at the sociology of sport. Quest, 24, 34-47.

MILLS, C.W. (1975) The sociological imagination. New York: Oxford University Press.

RIGAUER, B. (1981). Sport and work (A. Guttmann, Trans.). New York: Columbia University Press. (Originally published, 1969.)

SCHECTER, L. (1969). The jocks. New York: Paperback Library.

SCOTT, J. (1971). The athletic revolution. New York: The Free Press.

SCOTT, J. (1972). Introduction. InP. Hoch, Rip offthe big game. New York: Doubleday.

SHAW, G. (1973). Meat on the hoof. New York: Dell.

THOMPSON, E.P. (1961). The long revolution I. New Left Review, 9 , 24-33.

THOMPSON, E.P. (1979). The Making of the English Working Class. Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Pelican Books. (Originally published, 1963.)

VEBLEN, T. (1953). The theory of the leisure class. New York: Mentor Books. (Orig- inally published, 1899.)

WHITSON, D. (1976). Method in sport sociology: The potential of a phenomeno- logical contribution. International Review of Sport Sociology, 4 , 53-68.

WILLER, D., & Willer, J. (1973). Sys- tematic empiricism. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

WILLIAMS, R. (1965). The long revolution. Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Penguin.

WILLIAMS, R. (1977). Marxism and literature. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

quest, the role of cultural studies and social€¦ · the role of cultural studies and social...

Documents