Hi Everyone
I hope you are all well
This next blog post is from one of my sports studies assignments back when I did my undergraduate degree in Applied Sport Science. I co - wrote this work with my good friend Callum Wilkinson.
Enjoy and please comment below what you think about it :) lets get to it!!!
Introduction
Theories,
such as structural functionalism and Marxism, also known as conflict theory,
endeavour to understand the social and cultural contexts in which sport exists.
They provide a way of understanding how sports in society promote social
justice, expose and challenge the exploitive use of power, and empower people
so that they might resist and transform oppressive social conditions. (Coakley,
2007). The two theories discussed can provide an understanding and different
perspective between the relationship of sport and society, when applied to a
certain context.
Structural
functionalism, based on the work of Emile Durkheim and Talcott Parsons, is a
theory that views society as a complex system that has independent parts, such
as economy, legal system and health care, all of which need to work together to
promote solidarity and stability in society (Macionis, Gerber, 2010). A good analogy by Herbert Spencer presents these
independent parts of society as ‘organs’ that have to operate toward the proper
functioning of the ‘body’ which provides a stable system (Urry, 2000). One of the key characteristics of structural
functionalism is that it views society as constantly striving to be at a state
of equilibrium, which suggests there is an inherent drive within human
societies to cohere or stick together (Gingrich, 1999). This indicates that if
one institution of society changes, then other institutions will strive to
adapt and accommodate that change in an effort to maintain this equilibrium.
 |
| http://slideplayer.com/slide/778215/3/images/16/Structural-Functionalism.jpg |
The
Marxism theory, based on the work of Karl Marx, focuses on the ways that sports
and society are shaped by economic forces and used by economically powerful
people to increase their wealth and influence (Coakley, 2007). Marx viewed
society as having two main classes, with the wealthy part of society
(Bourgeoisie) owning the means of production, and having the power to
manipulate the working class (Proletariat). This inequality would
have to be accepted as a natural part of social life. The main goal of conflict
theory is similar to that of functionalism; it strives to develop a general
theory that explains the organization and operation of all societies (Coakley,
2007)
Strengths
and Weaknesses of the two theories
There
are a number of strengths with the structural functionalism theory; one of
these is that if one area of society was to change or potentially breakdown
then another will adjust for this. These social systems are characterized by
self-equilibrating mechanisms, which work towards the maintenance of social
stability (Malcolm 2008). As a result of this societies can be seen to be
highly interconnected and be viewed on as having a functional unity. From a
functionalist viewpoint, sport is seen to help maintain individual and social
balance, the opportunity for individual self-expression, or for national and
cultural preference. Sport is seen as an important social institution, which
reflects the many complex relationships and interactions in wider society (Bell,
2009). However, from a Marxist point of view, sport would be used as a
political tool, whereby the athletes would not have been political activists,
but the state they represented would have been (Bell, 2009). These governments used
their athletes to propel their ideologies and to make political statements. A
prime example of this is the East German program during the 1980’s of
systematically doping their athletes. This was in the pursuit of gaining top
medal table positions within international competition, and to be noticed as a
new and powerful nation.
Although
this is clearly not an ethical way to go about winning, it has proven to be an
effective tool in propelling countries political motives to the world. It is
always a small section of society whom holds the power and can be seen when we
review how sport was used by various governments to make political statements.
Functionalism
views sport in a much more optimistic light. It is based around self-equilibrating
mechanisms which help to bring individuals, from varying backgrounds, together
to work towards a common goal and provide opportunities to develop social
cohesion (Hak, 2007). For example, an aspiring NFL (National football league)
player from a poor background can feel he can be part of a team as he will
share a common goal amongst other players within the sport. He does not need to
feel ‘out of place’ or any different from other players on the team. As a
result of this it will teach necessary qualities for modern day society, such
as, teamwork, sportsmanship, honesty and integrity which are essential for the
maintenance of social order. This is why competitive sports prefer the
functionalist viewpoint as it emphasizes the functions of sports, and supports
the conclusions that sports are a source of inspiration for individuals and
societies (Coakley, 2007). From this theory, it can be argued that an
individual from a low economic background can be provided with the opportunity
to rise to the top of social hierarchy.
One
of the main weaknesses of the functionalism theory is that sport can mirror
society in profound ways, and that it not necessarily has a positive effect and
experience for all. This can be identified through racism, sexism and
homophobia, as well as greed, exploitation and alienation, which are all
persistent problems within sport (Bell 2009). It assumes that integration and
harmony are common through society and that it is a normal state of affairs,
whilst also assuming that the needs of different groups within society are the
same as the needs of society itself (Malcolm 2008). It is evident that this is
not the case as sport organisations, for example, continue to be segregated
along sexual/gender lines. Another point of weaknesses to this theory is that
it does not
acknowledge that sports are social constructions. It over states the positive
consequences of sports and it ignores that sport serves the needs of some
people more than others (Coakley, 2007).
These
examples are evident throughout many sports, especially ones which require
physical power, such as the NFL. It does not help us to understand how women in
society are disadvantaged when sports are organized in ways that legitimize the
use of physical strength (Coakley, 2007). Race is also a major factor within
the NFL. There is a racial divide in the south which is apparent in the
pre-game walks of the players to the stadium.
It is clear to see that the fans are predominantly white, while the
players are often black. While this is not a negative aspect to the sport, as
the players are usually treated as ‘gods’ by the fans, it clearly shows a
divide in race, where the athletes are viewed on as objects with one clear goal
of winning the game for their team. In
contrast to this, it has also been shown that college football, and other team
sports, can help to erase these divides of the rich and poor, whites and
blacks. They are all striving for one goal which creates a community amongst
them.
The
NFL, and college football, reflects the way in which society exists today and
reinforces the Marxism viewpoint. This is evident as it is all about winning,
sometimes at any cost. It is about conquest of opponent’s territory and
opponents themselves, about a strict division of labor and the ‘survival of the
fittest’. Thus the game itself embodies some important elements of the dominant
ideology of our society (Selbo, 2008). Marx’s theory is further exemplified, as
you can interpret that the athletes are treated more like workers, instead of
humans, as they are largely controlled and manipulated by their coach. For
example, the coach will tell them when to eat, when to sleep and have a very
controlling influence over there training. This results in the individual
losing their identity, which means player become slaves that can be bought and
sold to the highest bidder.
Although
much more positive, structural functionalism stresses consensus over conflict;
it has a harmonistic view which unfortunately is unrealistic (Malcolm, 2008).
Within professional NFL, or any team sport, it is clear that not everyone
within the structure will hold the same values, and will not all work for the
same common goal. For example, there will be people within a team competing for
wealth, power and resources, which will inevitably result in creating
disagreement and conflict. Sport, of its
very nature, is divisive and differentiating rather than integrative and
unifying in relation to its own and the wider community (Tomlinson 2007). It is
evident that sport thrives on dividing winners from losers and elite performers
from amateurs. Furthermore, sport creates divisions and conflicts within
communities. Football is a prime example of this, whereby certain communities
will support one team, whilst another community will be fierce rivals to this
team. This divide is so intense that it
creates a passion that fans have for their teams which can go as far as
dividing families (Selbo, 2008). This rivalry creates a ‘us’ and ‘them’
mentality, which results in young fans growing up hating the other side but not
knowing why as they are being led on by the older generation. Even though the
sport of NFL can bring people together under certain conditions, it has
unfortunately been shown that sport has come to pit race against race, men
against women, city against city, class against class and coach against player.
(Deford, 1998).
The
conflict theory will support this notion that there is a clear divide between
winners and losers, race and gender, but also a clear divide in social
structure. This can be seen throughout stadiums as they are very much
structured along the lines of economic class and social status (Selbo, 2008). For
example, the lower level seats will obviously be much more expensive than those
in the upper deck, and only accessible to those who are considered the upper
class. There is also a division in class by the simple fact that some people
can afford tickets to a football game, but many cannot.
The
sport of NFL, or sports in general, can be seen as a ‘Religion’ to some
individuals. According to Marx, religion was an ‘opiate to the masses’ (Selbo,
2008). Marx is describing here that the ideology of a culture is not neutral in
regard to the various constituencies in that society (Selbo, 2008). This
Ideology tends to support or justify the unequal distribution of goods and
wealth, it therefore tends to justify the superior position of the ‘haves’ over
the ‘have not’s (Selbo, 2008). In relation to the NFL, it is the individuals in
charge of the distribution of the sport that can exploit the spectators, and
also the players, in order to generate more money for themselves and sponsors.
 |
| https://www.gamblingsites.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/NFL-football-money.png |
Conclusion
These
theories provide a framework that can be used when making decisions within
life, and thinking about sports in society. They both focus on societal needs and how
sports are related to the satisfaction of those needs. The Functionalist theory
is a very optimistic one, which only offers positive explanations for
consequences associated with sports and sport involvement. It is therefore
based around the assumption that there are no conflicts of interest between
groups within society (Coakley, 2007). This theory is favourable to people with
power, as it is based on the assumption that society is organized for the equal
benefit of all people. This discourages any change, as the system operates
effectively, and does not jeopardize the wealthy part of society’s privilege
and influence. The Marxism theory, which
is at the other end of the spectrum, offers up a much more pessimistic, but
realistic view of sport and society. It clearly identifies economic
exploitation in sports and identifies factors related to class relations.
However, this theory overemphasizes social class and economic factors in society
and does not recognise how sport can be used as a tool of resistance against
oppression (Coakley, 2007).
Functionalism
is useful for understanding consensus while conflict theory is appropriate for
understanding conflict and coercion. Both functionalism and conflict theory
share the weakness of being able to explain only portions of social life
(Ritzer & Goodman, 2003). Despite
this, and other negative aspects, social theories are beneficial when exploring
controversies and issues within sport, they provide a way of better
understanding the social world and become more informed in modern day issues
within society.
References
- Bell, B. (2009). Sport Studies. Exeter: Learning Matters Ltd
- Coakley, J. (2007). Sports in society: Issues and Controversies. 9th edition. McGraw-Hill Higher Education.
- Gingrich, P. (1999). Uregina.ca. http://uregina.ca/~gingrich/n2f99.htm (Accessed: 29th October 2013)
- Hak, D. (2007). ‘Stark and Finke or Durkheim on Conversion and (Re-)Affiliation: An Outline of a Structural Functionalist Rebuttal to Stark and Finke’. Social compass. 54 (2), pp. 295-312
- Macionis, J. & Gerber, L. (2010). Sociology. Canada: Pearson Canada Inc
- Malcolm, D. (2008). The SAGE Dictionary of Sports Studies. London: SAGE publications Ltd
- Ritzer, G & Goodman, D. (2003) Sociological theory. New York: McGraw-Hill
- Selbo, B, (2008). Sport as the “Opiate of the Masses”: College Football in the American South. Philosophy & Religion Faculty Publications. Paper 1. Available at: http://digitalcommons.wku.edu/phil_rel_fac_pub/1/. (Accessed: 5th November 2013)
- Tomlinson, A. (2007). The Sports studies reader. Oxon: Routledge
- Urry, J. (2000). Sociology beyond societies. Oxon: Routledge
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for reading
Kind regards
Andrew
Andrew Richardson, Founder of Strength is Never a Weakness Blog
I have a BSc (Hons) in Applied Sport Science and a Merit in my MSc in Sport and Exercise Science and I passed my PGCE at Teesside University.
Now I will be commencing my PhD into "Investigating Sedentary Lifestyles of the Tees Valley" this October 2019.
I am employed by Teesside University Sport and WellBeing Department as a PT/Fitness Instructor.
My long term goal is to become a Sport Science and/or Sport and Exercise Lecturer. I am also keen to contribute to academia via continued research in a quest for new knowledge.
My most recent publications:
My passion is for Sport Science which has led to additional interests incorporating Sports Psychology, Body Dysmorphia, AAS, Doping and Strength and Conditioning.
Within these respective fields, I have a passion for Strength Training, Fitness Testing, Periodisation and Tapering.
I write for numerous websites across the UK and Ireland including my own blog Strength is Never a Weakness.
I had my own business for providing training plans for teams and athletes.
I was one of the Irish National Coaches for Powerlifting, and have attained two 3rd places at the first World University Championships,
in Belarus in July 2016.Feel free to email me or call me as I am always looking for the next challenge.
Contact details below;
Facebook: Andrew Richardson (search for)
Facebook Page: @StrengthisNeveraWeakness
Twitter: @arichie17
Instagram: @arichiepowerlifting
Snapchat: @andypowerlifter
Email: a.s.richardson@tees.ac.uk
Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/andrew-richardson-b0039278
Research Gate: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Andrew_Richardson7
No comments:
Post a Comment