McDonald and Birrell’s reading was definitely one of the more challenging ones so far. I liked that McDonald and Birrell point out the importance of the study of sport when examining the power relations in a society. Even further, both authors “advocate focusing on a particular incident or celebrity as the site for exploring the complex interrelated and fluid character of power relations as they are constituted along the axes of ability, class, gender, and nationality” (1999, p. 284). I agree with McDonald and Birrell that sport is an are(n)a in which power structures can be identified, negotiated, challenged, or reinforced. I also think that the authors make a great point when arguing that cultural studies of sport scholars need to examine the intersectionality of multiple social identities; McDonald and Birrell state that “a focus on one axis [that is, on either gender, sexuality, race, class, ability, nationality, or religion], isolated from the others, is insufficient as a complete analysis” (1999, p. 286).
I found it very interesting that the authors point out that, according to cultural studies scholar Stuart Hall, “ideologies, identities and meanings are never fixed in time and place, but are forged (articulated) and remade (rearticulated) to take on fresh meanings in particular moments and locations” (McDonald and Birrell, 1999, p. 294). While the authors refer to the example of O.J. Simpson in this context, the more recent case of handicapped South-African runner Oscar Pistorius came to my mind. Like that of O.J. Simpson, Pistorius’ cultural meaning was rearticulated after he was charged with the murder of his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp. Similarly, the cultural meaning of athletes Michael Sam and Derrick Gordon surely changed significantly after they came out as homosexual. It is particularly interesting to study these particular cases when examining the power structures that underlie our contemporary society.
I was, however, surprised to find that McDonald and Birrell put a lot of emphasis on the importance to examine actual incidents and celebrities in the sports world, but do not explicitly mention the role of the (sport) media in the construction of (hegemonic) power structures. I would argue that we can – in addition to the study of incidents and celebrities – learn a lot about dominant ideology as well as about hegemonic ideals and forces by looking at how the media portrays individuals and events and by analyzing how (and to what extent) athletes receive coverage in the media. The media, to me, play a crucial part in the embodiment of power as surveillance, and thus need to receive an equal amount of attention by scholars who want to read sport critically.
Yannick,
ReplyDeleteI'm glad you brought up the role of the media because although it was not mentioned in relationship to the O.J. Simpson case, they played an integral role in producing narratives that circulated about him. We will discuss this further in today's class.
Thanks for your observations.
Dr. Spencer
I found your post very interesting, thank you for sharing, Yannick.
ReplyDeleteI must say, I too agree with the authors that “a focus on one axis…is insufficient as a complete analysis.”
For me, this point, and the authors’ discussion of “fresh meanings in particular moments and locations” brought to mind and engendered questions about the ever-changing landscape of human relations.
More to the point, as we continue progressing as a society and collectively further our acceptance of individuals of differing backgrounds (race, gender, sexual orientation and identification, etc.) it will be interesting to see how the media adapts and transitions in their portrayal of various individuals in the realm of sport in any given situation of public interest.
I agree with you Yannick. I find it so interesting to see how the discourses surrounding athletes can change so quickly when something new or controversial comes out about them. When we look at Michael Sam the focus on his athletic ability changed when he came out at homosexual. We never saw him playing football on SportCenter anymore, we only saw him kissing his boyfriend. While I think it is a great change for American sports his athletic ability never changed, but we never talk about it anymore either. The same can be said with Oscar Pistorious. He was a national hero and we saw how quickly that changed. I understand there is a difference between murder and homosexuality, but I just find it so interesting how quickly the discourses can change. The power of the media is incredible in American culture. The media can make or break you. We see that with every new NFL case about domestic violence that keeps coming out.
ReplyDeleteI personally have to agree. I believe that if you wish to think critically, it is insufficient to focus on one axis for a complete analysis, as the authors state. If we only focus on one axis, how would anyone ever see the full picture? Sport is without a doubt (at least in my mind) is an area of power in society, and it certainly has an influence on cultures. While I do not claim to follow any athletes, or teams for that matter, I do know its importance in society. I’ve heard of Ray Rice, Hope Solo, O.J. Simpson, etc. in the past, but I certainly don’t know their history. I would like to believe that the axes (gender, sexuality, race, class, ability, nationality or religion) wouldn’t have an affect for an outcome of any given situation, but we all know that isn’t true. It'll be interesting to see how this evolves in the future, not only for athletes, but for other celebrities and national figures as well.
ReplyDeleteThanks for posting!
Jackie