The Sociology of Sport

[mikkifine]

Why do so many people participate in sports either as fans?

Players?


Or as a business?

What do sports answer in terms of human needs?

How can it be explained from a sociological point of view?

[JohnMacnab]

Vicarious combat.

vi·car·i·ous/vīˈkerēəs/Adjective
1. Experienced in the imagination through the feelings or actions of another person


Com-bat, or fighting, is a purposeful violent conflict meant to establish dominance over the opposition.

[K2S0]

Sports are another way people define themselves. It's a competition and a metric used to gauge skills, and it's a business that is lucrative because people are willing to pay to see it.

Sociologically as to why people are fans, it can be many reasons.

It builds a sense of community. Cities cohere around their sports teams. "We won on Sunday," or "We have to make a trade for so-and-so." That "we" speaks of collective self-identification. People find common ground with others that they would otherwise not have because of sports. I have high-fived, hugged, shared tables and beers with complete strangers simply because we root for the same team.

It's an escape. Sports are fun. "Adults" jump just to see how high they can. They play with a giddiness that we usually associate with children. And it's not just about the playing the sport. Fans permit themselves to play. WE are gleeful, pumping arms, faces painted, chanting, screaming, singing, jingling keys telling the other team to go home. There is no comparable reason in public society where adults can collectively be goofballs.

It's inspiring. The number of movies and books that have been written and filmed based on sports is staggering. It's easy to see why. They are filled with drama, action and suspense. So many are based on true stories. They are tales of brilliance, stupidity, heart, passion, hard work, ambition, hope, ferocity, luck, teamwork, wins, losses and everything in between. The characters are varied, full of weaknesses and strengths. They are human and relatable.

[mikkifine]

Excellent responses, gentlemen. Thank you for clarifying.

[mikkifine]

Next questions.


You can look at sports from several theoretical perspectives including conflict, functionalist, interactionist, and feminist.


Which of these is most useful in looking at the sociology of sports?


Why?

[K2S0]

is this a survey for class work? lol

[mikkifine]

deevad--Research for a paper.

[Still Looking]

Mattress Sports... Participant! Guilty as charged. Started in high school with a coed wrestling match. I didn't lose that match but I've lost a few since then

[mikkifine]

@Still looking--Mattress Sports? LOL!

[Eccie Addict]

It's also a form of discipline. Most parents put their children in sports to instill and teach discipline along with keep them out of trouble, sometimes to keep them out of their hair lol. That turns into something that young folks use to have a better life.

[Ansley]

There is a website called http://justanswer.com It's a great place if you need help with homework.

[K2S0]

Originally Posted by mikkifine

Next questions.


You can look at sports from several theoretical perspectives including conflict, functionalist, interactionist, and feminist.


Which of these is most useful in looking at the sociology of sports?


Why?

the perspective of Conflict and Interactionism are most poignant for analyzing the sociology in sports... I understand that they might be considered separate theoretical view points but when dealing with "sports" both need to be factored into any true discussion about the sociology of sports.

Conflict, definitely, is obvious when talking about sports. At the heart of any sport is a competition and the struggles that inherently come with that competition. Conflict Theory in sociological terms of course draws attention to power differentials. Normally that involves class conflict, but in sports it is just as evident. The haves and the have nots also exist in sports. There are sports dynasties with storied histories, and legions of fans that have ridiculous revenue. There are middling franchises that are neither great or bad. And of course there are perennial failures that struggle year in and year out. There are underdogs and David Vs Goliath stories. But no matter who they are or what team they play for they struggle to be better, they all fight and compete to reach the top. It's the competition; the conflict that drives them to be better. This doesn't apply simply to the athlete and the organization but the fan as well. Conflict drives the fan just as much as his love for his team. (ie Rivalries.)

Interactionism, or social interaction, is a face-to-face process consisting of actions, reactions, and mutual adaptation between people. It's about communication. Conflict breeds interaction, but so does teamwork and working towards a common goal. This is evident in sports: the inspiring speech the head coach gives to his players, the quarterback recognizing a shift in the defensive formation and then switches to an audible, the hand signals a catcher shows his pitcher, the X's and O's on the chalkboard. The sport itself and the interactions from it breed social bonds, camaraderie, and mutual trust. And again this is not limited simply to the athlete. The fan engages in social interaction because of sports just as much if not more. Wearing team colors, buying merchandise, throwing up Hook'em Horns, doing the wave, throwing social events all because of sports.

I list Conflict over Interactionism because competition is inherent to all sports. The interaction between competitors could be considred "interactionist" but it's more a product of the conflict. Interactionism is reflected better in team oriented sports.

woulda replied earlier but i went out for dinner

[Still Looking]

Originally Posted by deevad

the perspective of Conflict and Interactionism are most poignant for analyzing the sociology in sports... I understand that they might be considered separate theoretical view points but when dealing with "sports" both need to be factored into any true discussion about the sociology of sports.

Conflict, definitely, is obvious when talking about sports. At the heart of any sport is a competition and the struggles that inherently come with that competition. Conflict Theory in sociological terms of course draws attention to power differentials. Normally that involves class conflict, but in sports it is just as evident. The haves and the have nots also exist in sports. There are sports dynasties with storied histories, and legions of fans that have ridiculous revenue. There are middling franchises that are neither great or bad. And of course there are perennial failures that struggle year in and year out. There are underdogs and David Vs Goliath stories. But no matter who they are or what team they play for they struggle to be better, they all fight and compete to reach the top. It's the competition; the conflict that drives them to be better. This doesn't apply simply to the athlete and the organization but the fan as well. Conflict drives the fan just as much as his love for his team. (ie Rivalries.)

Interactionism, or social interaction, is a face-to-face process consisting of actions, reactions, and mutual adaptation between people. It's about communication. Conflict breeds interaction, but so does teamwork and working towards a common goal. This is evident in sports: the inspiring speech the head coach gives to his players, the quarterback recognizing a shift in the defensive formation and then switches to an audible, the hand signals a catcher shows his pitcher, the X's and O's on the chalkboard. The sport itself and the interactions from it breed social bonds, camaraderie, and mutual trust. And again this is not limited simply to the athlete. The fan engages in social interaction because of sports just as much if not more. Wearing team colors, buying merchandise, throwing up Hook'em Horns, doing the wave, throwing social events all because of sports.

I list Conflict over Interactionism because competition is inherent to all sports. The interaction between competitors could be considred "interactionist" but it's more a product of the conflict. Interactionism is reflected better in team oriented sports.

woulda replied earlier but i went out for dinner

Well there you have it!

Note to Self: Never get into a battle of wits with deevad