Sociology of Sport 2016

IS VIOLENCE SOCIALLY CONSTRUCTED?
What does this mean for the sports sociologist?

What do you remember?

• How is violence defined in sociology?
• What are some of the key sociological debates surrounding violence and sport?

Assertive Behaviour

• Legitimate use of physical force where there is no attempt to violate formal rules OR harm somebody
• Playing hard but fair
• Eg?

Aggression

• Physical or verbal behaviour intended to physically or psychologically harm
• Instrumental aggression - means to an end, motivated by rewards ie winning, social approval, money
• Hostile aggression - end in itself, primary intention is to inflict physical or psychological harm
• Egs?

Violence

• Hostile 'physical' aggression
• Goes beyond verbal or psychological abuse or harm and requires a physical element.

BUT - Psychological definitions: based on players' motivations - how would we really know if it was hostile or instrumental?

The World Health Organization: “The intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, that either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment or deprivation”

The point here is that violence is socially constructed. When and where violence is tolerated or even celebrated depends entirely on how we as a society define the situation in which the violence is used. The social definition of violence also changes over time.

TAKE THE 'I' OUT OF IT

• Instead of...."Am I comfortable with violence in sport"
• "Under what circumstances does society (or groups within society) accept violence in sport".

Other sociological questions

• Under what conditions is violence celebrated in sport and what are the possible effects of this?
• What is the societal threshold for violence in sport and how has this changed over time?
• Is violence in sport relate to an increase in violence outside of sport?
• Compose 2 more sociological questions

Explore violence in 2 categories

• Sport in which the main goal is not the intent to harm or injure
• Sports in which the main goal is to harm or injure
• http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2605592-is-mixed-martial-arts-simply-vio...

Applying social theory to violence in sport

Instinct Theory

Instinct theory

• Assumes humans have an 'innate' predisposition for violence
• Sport acts as a 'cartharsis' or safety valve for violent tendencies that would otherwise be expressed in other contexts (cathartic - to cleanse)
• 'its primal', 'he has the killer instict'

Shortcomings of Instinct Theory

• Many people who have no aggressive outlet are not violent
• Some research suggests the opposite i.e. more likely to be violent in society if involved in violence/aggression in sport
• cultures with less contact sport are not less violent
• Instinct theory doesn't account for learning violence through socialisation

Instinct theory is often used to justify violent behaviour and phrases like 'its in his blood' can be used as complimentary rather than critical.

Frustration-Aggression Hypothesis

• All aggression can be traced to frustration
• All frustration inevitably leads to aggression
• When people perceive they are being prevented from achieving their goal it is likely to turn to aggression

Shortcomings of Frustration-Aggression theory

• Not all frustration leads to aggression (if it did we would have a much more violent society)
• While some eg's in sport are a result of frustration, it does not mean that they are inevitable
• Many players are able to ignore intimidation and realise there are other ways of dealing with frustration

Social learning theory

• We learn both formal/informal norms through our observations & experiences
• Dominant cultural values (including violence) which are reinforced and displayed by role models, serve to reinforce what is expected of its members
• If we learn violence, the possibility exists for us to learn alternatives

Still left with an impt question - Why have some sporting contexts become acceptable sites for violent behaviours that are condemned in other areas of social life?

What is the most aggressive act you have ever committed: (a) in a sporting context; (b) outside of sport; (c) how are (a) & (b) different in terms of their causes and consequences?

Moral Reasoning in Sport

How various types of athletes differ with respect to how they reach and rationalise moral decisions

Moral reasoning research (Jackson, 2007)

• athletes & non athletes have similar levels of moral reasoning in everyday contexts
• athletes have lower levels of moral reasoning in sport contexts

Moral reasoning contd

• elite & contact sport athletes have lower levels than non elite and non-contact sports
• male athletes have lower level of moral reasoning than female athletes

How do we explain these findings?

Social learning theory - given its privileged cultural position sport is viewed as a 'separate reality'. eg. Outside of boxing the act is illegal