November 4: The "therapeutic" World Cup in Germany (Yannick)

I would like to use my blog post this week to talk about the 2006 World Cup in Germany for one last time. As I said in class, I really liked reading the article “Constructing Patriotism above Reproach: The Rehabilitation of German National Pride in the 2006 World Cup,” because I completely agree with the author’s main line of argumentation. Like the author, I think that the 2006 World Cup was so tremendously important for the country of Germany because it “finally succeeded in breaking the taboo against the public expression of overt national pride” (“Constructing Patriotism above Reproach,” 2012, p. 1). Even more, in the mega sports event “the past finally ‘went away’, essentially disappearing from discussions of German identity” (“Constructing Patriotism above Reproach,” 2012, p. 10).

However, the World Cup was not only special for my home country because it offered the “ultimate public plebiscite on a massive level, affirming the desire of the nation to unite as a collective” (“Constructing Patriotism above Reproach,” 2012, p. 17). The quasi-religious, therapeutic experience of the World Cup (“Constructing Patriotism above Reproach,” 2012, p. 22) also provided a great opportunity for Germany to present its new self to other nations. The official motto of the tournament was “Die Welt zu Gast bei Freunden.” While this motto was turned into the expression “A time to make friends” for the English-speaking audiences, the literal translation of the German motto is “The world as a guest at a friend’s place.” Here, Germany was framed as a “friend” who was visited by all other nations participating in the tournament. This reflects Germany’s desired self-presentation for the other nations: It was presented as a place where friends (as signified by the participating countries) from all over the world meet. The “new” Germany was herewith constructed as a melting pot that saw all other countries as their “friends.” This was a strong, yet effective contrast to the image of Nazi-Germany that still lingered from the country’s horrific past. To me, the presentation of this new, open-minded, tolerant, and exciting Germany in the global context was equally important in the creation the new national pride.

October 28-Campbell

For this week’s blog entry I wanted to discuss the topic we left off with on Tuesday discussing Cooky, Dycus, and Dworkin’s (2013) article on “What makes a Woman a Woman?”. More recently there have been athletes in the media that are being questioned publically on whether or not they should be participating in female sport. The athlete in particular that I am thinking of is Dutee Chand.

Dutee Chand is an 18-year female from India. Last summer she participated in India’s 100-meter race and proceeded to win the race. After this she was barred from competing against women because people had questions about her gender. Chand has a medical condition called hyperandrogenism, which in a female produces higher levels of testosterone than the typical female. As a response to this condition, Chand is currently not able to compete for her country. The only way that she will be allowed to compete is if she begins hormone-replacement therapy (HRT) and raises her estrogen levels to that of the typical female range. Chand does not want to do this because she is happy and comfortable in the body that she is in. I feel that she has that right and that the rules against her are unfair.

This brings me to where we left off in class, would this gender questioning ever have taken place if Chand had never won that race? I think the answer is no. When you look at pictures of Chand she looks like a typical runner or comparable to her Indian teammates. There is nothing aesthetically that really reads as “male” compared to others around her, so the fact that her gender was not in question until after she won a race raises a red flag.

I think that this is a bigger issue than just focusing on Dutee Chand. As a society, the fact that we gender test, I think is a little embarrassing. The process athletes have to go through has to be traumatizing and in many cases, like Chand, they suffer from a condition that is out of their control. It does not make them any less female. While we know that testosterone does give added benefits to female performance, taking away all of an athlete’s participation or giving them an ultimatum seems unfair. I think athletics at the international level needs to reevaluate gender testing.

Here is a link to the article about Dutee Chand and her response to the sanctions placed against her.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/07/sports/sprinter-dutee-chand-fights-ban-over-her-testosterone-level.html?_r=1

October 28: Sport and "the Nation" (Yannick)

As we started to read sport critically in class these past few weeks, we have been focusing on many aspects that are wrong with sport and its reflection of and contribution to society. For instance, we have criticized how sports oftentimes reinforce traditional gender roles or how sports can be an arena which is rather exclusive of individuals who do not fit the hegemonic norms (e.g. female or transsexual athletes). The main reason why I liked reading Steenveld and Strelitz’s “The 1995 Rugby World Cup and the Politics of Nation-Building in South Africa” this week is that the article pointed out the positive power that sports can have as well. In the article, Steenveld and Strelitz (1998) argue that the 1995 Rugby World Cup “with its focus on national teams and national pride [...] provided an ideal vehicle for the discursive construction of a united South African collectivity” (p. 610). It seems to be in the realm of “the nation” that sports can be a great force to unity people from multiple, diverse backgrounds. As such, the 1995 Rugby World Cup series in South Africa was a great example of how sport can act as “the unifier of the nation” (Steenveld & Strelitz, 1998, p. 613).

That sport has the potential to create a feeling of national unity cannot only be seen in the example of the Rugby World Cup in South Africa in 1995. I have pointed out many times that I am convinced that the 2006 FIFA World Cup in Germany had a similar effect on the German people. The World Cup united Germans as a nation, and created a sense of national identity for individuals who lived in a country that has not experienced a national identity due to its horrific past. Many scholars have argued that although the Berlin Wall came down in 1989, an “inner wall” has remained in the minds of East and West Germans to this day. The World Cup, as other major sports events, certainly tore down this inner wall to a certain extent (even though this state might have been temporary rather than definite), and created a feeling of national pride and national unity.

I think that one of the biggest events that unites the U.S. as a nation is the annual Super Bowl. Many Americans watch this major event every year, no matter what their gender, class, racial, or sexual background is. Even further, the Super Bowl is constructed as the American sports event. It is the final match of the two most successful American Football teams that face each other to find the best team in America’s favorite sport. By doing so, it celebrates core American values such as competition, strength, beauty, athleticism, and wealth. As such, the Super Bowl unites all viewers and creates a sense of national U.S. identity – it constructs the United States as an “imagined community.”

These instances reveal that “the nation” and national identities are cultural and social constructs – just like gender, race, or sexuality are. It remains important to carefully examine these constructions of nationhood in and through sports to gain more insight into how individuals participating in, observing, or experiencing sport make meaning of their lived experiences as members of certain nations in different social and cultural settings.

Sinclair

America's Sweetheart and Czech-mate was a very interesting article to me. I think that women should be represented in the media way more than they are today and in the past. Women make up a substantial amount of success in sport and I think a lot of it goes unnoticed, hiding in the presence of a male. In another grad class of mine, we talked about Pat Summitt and the huge impact she had on women's basketball, and just women in society period. i think it is extremely important for the media to put special spotlight and emphasis on these women because they open the doors for many other women athletes who go unnoticed. Pat Summit was extremely special because is the most winningest coach in NCAA basketball and she is, nonetheless, a female. The article talked about masculinity and femininity in the world of tennis. I think that this can be related to many other sports as well. basketball for instance is viewed as a masculine sport. females who play are often looked at as masculine. i think this generation of women basketball players have done a better job at defeating the stereotype. Granted, there are a plethora of gay, or masculine female basketball players but not all. One specifically who has done a good job at breaking the stereotype is Skylar Diggins. She has shown that female basketball players can still uphold their femininity and invest it into things off the court such as modelling and being an inspiration to other female athletes. In tying this all back to the article, I think that women in the media should be portrayed more. The article also mentioned the friendly rivalry between the two tennis players. I personally think that a male rivalry would have gained much more media attention, but it still brought a spark to the sport of women's tennis.

October 21 - America's Sweetheart and Czech-Mate

After reading the article "America's Sweetheart and Czech-Mate" by Dr. Nancy Spencer (2003), I came away with several outstanding pieces of information that I could not shake from my mind. The first, during Dr. Spencer's description of the ESPN documentary series of the 50 most prominent athletes of the 20th Century, was small but indicative of the time-period. Of the 50 most prominent athletes during the 20th century, 8% were women and 3% were horses (Spencer, 2003, p. 20). That, to me, came as a shock and almost seemed like a joke. How closed-minded must those evaluators have been to only come up with 4 women on a list of 50?

Another major point made in this article was the masculine/feminine portrayal of the tennis players, Navratilova and Evert. Navratilova was viewed as "foreign.. masculine.. villain" by the media, while Evert was described as "feminine.. heterosexual.. and America's Sweetheart." From my own interpretation of what was read, Navratilova was portrayed negatively by the media because she played a much more aggressive style of tennis than what the norm for female tennis players of that era. She was a dominant athlete, described also as muscular, which meant she was masculine and thus not as attractive and made people feel "uncomfortable"(Spencer, 2003, p. 23). Evert, in comparison, is described in a manner that "men love watching her, women love watching her, and young girls want to be like her," according to Dr. Spencer. That is a significant contrast to what was said about the "intimidating" Navratilova.

I found this article interesting specifically because I don't have a great basis of knowledge in tennis, and especially of women's tennis prior to Venus and Serena Williams. Reading about the rivalry, and friendship, between Navratilova and Evert was an interesting insight in to what the sport was like in the 70's and 80's. Also, seeing the drastic difference in Navratilova being described as a villain because of her muscularity and aggression and what we see now in the uber-aggressive Williams sisters being the faces of the sport for the better part of two decades is eye-opening. Would the Williams sisters be regarded as villains along with Navratilova, or would they have created a new niche of superstars in the sport even in that era?

Joey Durant

October 21-Campbell

I found this weeks article to be very relevant and interesting to my current scholarly interests. As many of you know, I am part of a research group that has studied and looked at how women are represented in the media. Much of the research we conduct is informed by the work of Cooky and Messner. Taking an intersectional approach in research was very new to me and throughout the past year I have become much more comfortable with understanding this research approach.

To help you understand how taking an intersectional approach in research that I have been involved in was helpful, I should probably tell you a little about the research we conducted. Our current study looked at how women would choose to represent themselves in photos if they are given the choice. Many times we see teams or female athletes being told how to pose in magazine, media guides etc. We wanted to gain an understanding of what women would choose if given no rules. Throughout the writing and analyzing process so many different parts would come up, like race, gender, geography, and class. At times we were not even sure which route to analyze or what to focus on. All parts of these athletes were important and that is why an intersectional approach was used to analyze all of the data that we gathered.

I think the current article (Cooky, Wachs, Messner, & Dworkin, 2010) touched upon something that we encountered in our research (research group, paper not yet published). So frequently we see the media focus on one part of a person and all of our focus gets pulled into the one part. When we were interviewing these athletes they unknowingly (because they are human) brought in so many parts of themselves it became impossible to just focus our research one aspect, like gender. We did not want to leave any important piece of them out of the paper. Unlike in the media where normally there is one focal point to a representation. That is why I think intersectional research is important because it gives voice and knowledge to areas that many times are left out of the medias portrayal of individuals.

October 21: Intersectionality & Discrimination (Yannick)

I have been interested in the concept of intersectionality for quite a while now, which is why I really liked reading “It’s Not About the Game: Don Imus, Race, Class, Gender and Sexuality in Contemporary Media” by Cooky, Wachs, Messner, and Dworkin this week. I think that the authors (2010) make a very strong point when they argue that “media representations of female athletes of Color cannot be analyzed outside of a consideration of the simultaneous, interlocking forms of oppression (gender, race, sexuality, class)” (p. 143). By doing a detailed textual as well as content analysis, the authors (2010) found that the media’s coverage of Don Imus’ comments on the 2007 NCAA women’s basketball championship game framed the media event as “predominantly a racial event” (p. 155, emphasis in original source). However, the women’s construction as Others was not only based on their race, but also on their gender, sexual, and class identities.

What I find very interesting in this context is the procedure that in events like this, the media focuses on either racism or sexism; the fact that both interact in a complex interplay that contributes to the creation and perpetuation of social inequality is oftentimes overlooked or ignored by the media and/or the public in general (which is one of the observations the authors of the article point out and criticize as well). Equally interesting is the fact that there seems to be a certain “hierarchy” between forms of discrimination. While discrimination based on racial issues tends to get more coverage, issues related to sexism (or heterosexism) receive significantly less attention. While I do not consider this to be a trend that is specifically tied to the sports world, I definitely think that it is very apparent and dominant in sports. Sexism oftentimes goes unnoticed and is either trivialized, extenuated, or belittled. Of course, this is highly problematic and contributes to the immense sexism within the sports world.

Finally, I think that it is very disturbing how “ the mainstream media silenced [the women athlete’s and women coach’s] voices and perspectives” in this example (Cooky, Wachs, Messner & Dworkin, 2010, p. 148). As such, the women are denied access to the hegemonic discourse; they are constructed as subaltern – the Other – by dominant ideology as embodied by the mass media. Again, this phenomenon is not unique to the sports world; it is rather an implication of the position of women in contemporary American culture in general. For instance, news coverage on abortion oftentimes focuses on the political effects of the issue but fails to include the voices of the ones that are the most affected by unwanted pregnancies: the women.

RUIMUS (October 19, 2014: Casey)

The RUIMUS controversy is definitely a controversy on the surface level, but once the surface level is surpassed, the real controversy emerges.  Intersectionality acts as the seed that is the base of the interlocking roots of race, gender, class, and sexuality that serve as the underpinnings causing this controversy.

Cooky, Wachs, Messner, and Dworkin (2010) conduct a study using textual and content analysis of the articles written between April 4, 2007 to April 19, 2007, which reveal the themes of silence and invisibility within their study.  They found “…nearly 90% of the articles mentioned the Rutgers team, in most cases the team was only mentioned once to provide context for the story” (Cooky et al., 2010, p. 148).  Personally, when I first saw this finding, I immediately thought that the “real controversy” was that a wealthy, white male publicly made a racist comment.  If this wasn't the real issue, then the findings would have suggested otherwise. 

Cooky et al. (2010) found that only 8.5% of the players were quoted in the articles, and Imus 15.4%.  The players were publicly humiliated and degraded, but it seems as if their opinions and reactions did not matter.  Imus was even quoted more than Coach Stringer even if it was only by 1%.  Race, class, gender, and sexuality play a clear role in this situation.  This upper-class white male who is heterosexual made a comment that those who are the same class, gender, race, and sexuality might have otherwise laughed with him and thought nothing of it when they heard it.  This is only my opinion, but I feel as if the audience were restricted to those who were described as the above, the controversy would not have been a controversy. 

Today’s society, however, is different.  Media comes in all forms, and nothing appears to go unnoticed, but is portrayed and interpreted how the majority of society wants.  The majority of society takes a stand on racism as a whole, but not sexuality.  The longstanding discrimination based upon gender and class has been a controversy, which despite major strides, is still very much alive.  The politics working behind the media dictate how events, controversies, and other news stories are covered and written. 

The Rutgers women’s basketball team is majority African American, along with their coach, female, and their class honestly does not matter, because it is assumed that these players are of the lower class who dedicated themselves to basketball in hopes to escape poverty.  The players are also subject to the stereotype of homosexuality, since they are female athletes competing in a physical sport.  All of these factors interlock and contribute to the researchers’ findings of silence and invisibility.

Reference:

Cooky, Wachs, Messner, & Dworkin. (2010). It’s not about the game:

            Don Imus, race, class, gender, and sexuality in contemporary 

            media. Sociology of Sport Journal, 27, 139-159.

October 14-Campbell

I thought this weeks reading on Jessica Simpson and Tony Romo was interesting. We frequently see the media focus so much on athlete’s personal lives instead of just their personal lives. In todays society the personal has become the public if you are at the celebrity athlete status. While this article is dated in the sense that Jessica and Tony are not longer together, it is still very relevant.

Just two weeks ago on ESPN2 the commentators on First Take were discussing quarterback Aaron Rodgers poor performances and the correlation to his new girlfriend Olivia Munn. Rodgers has really never been in a relationship during his career that was with another celebrity. Not only were the commentators wondering if she was a distraction but the fans in Green Bay were also placing some of the blame on the new girlfriend. We still see even today the media placing blame where blame should not be placed.

I would be interested in looking into if the media is portraying Olivia Munn in a similar fashion like how Jessica Simpson was treated in Dallas. I do not know enough about the current situation to say whether or not she is being seen as a jinx or distraction. However, it could be interesting to see what the media is saying.

I also thought the comparison of Jessica and Tony to Victoria and David Beckham was interesting. The idea that dating Tony Romo kept Jessica Simpson relevant had never really crossed my mind. That also could be due to the fact that Jessica Simpson has never really been on my radar. Nonetheless, the idea that she was submerged into his identity is an interesting idea. That makes me wonder, how did she get her identity back when they broke up? If she was now seen as the supportive girlfriend how was she able to still remain relevant after the split, and what does that say about our society and how we brand people.

October 14 – Sport & Traditional Gender Roles (Yannick)

The one thing that stood out to me the most in the author’s textual analysis of the sport-celebrity relationship between Tony Romo and Jessica Simpson was the media’s constant reinforcement of the two as adhering to traditional gender roles. This is rather problematic, as “the media representations of Jessica Simpson and Tony Romo were aligned with traditional, even outdated, social values, which upheld patriarchal ideologies framing the male as superior to the female” (Eliopulos and Johnson, 2012, p. 225). I agree with the author’s classification of these social values as outdated, yet I find it very interesting that these outdated values seem nowhere in our culture and society to be as persistent as in the realm of sports. On television and in film and music, we nowadays have a more diverse (re)presentation of different forms of masculinities and femininities. How come, then, that in sports time seems to have stood still when it comes to the representation of forms of masculinity and femininity that deviate from the hegemonic ideal? What are the aspects and facets about sport that encourage the construction, perpetuation, and validation of traditional gender ideals?

I think that Eliopulos’ and Johnson’s analysis of Simpson and Romo is very accurate as well as representative of the pattern of how gender is constructed in contemporary sports. Whereas Romo was constructed as expressive of the hegemonic form of masculinity, the macho alpha male, by the media (Eliopulos and Johnson, 2012, p. 223), Eliopulos and Johnson (2012) found that Simpson “became akin to the sporting wife, exuding characteristics of femininity, such as ‘nurturance,’ ‘dependence,’ and ‘passivity’ (Bouthilier & SanGiovanni, 1983, p. 100), and became simple in her general representation” (p. 220). The male (sport) part of the sport-celebrity relationship is herewith shown to have control over the inferior female party of the relationship (celebrity). Even more interestingly, both are constructed in a dichotomous way; it is assumed that if one of them is powerful and dominant (usually the male), the counterpart necessarily has to be powerless and submissive (usually the female). I think that these dichotomous constructions are very problematic, but I do not think that this is going to change in the realm of sports in the close future. American culture (as most Western cultures) is a culture that thinks (and is constructed) in binaries – this is particularly obvious when looking at the formation of gender in sport but can be easily transferred to other social identity markers in sport like race, sexuality, nationality, disability, or religion.

October 7-Campbell Query

For this week’s blog post I wanted to discuss the article we read about Michael Jordan as a representation of positive Black masculinity. Michael Jordan changed the way Black athletes were represented in America. He was able to be represented in so many ways and it changed marketing and advertising in sports forever.

The article stated that Black men embody an “already read texts” (McDonald, 1996, p. 345) from violence to promiscuity. Black American athletes were still being portrayed in this previously determined representation from Wilt Chamberlin to Mike Tyson. Michael Jordan was the breakthrough Black athlete that was able to represent himself in a different manner and had a say in how he wanted to be represented. Michael Jordan is the only athlete that I know of that has been repeatedly protected by the media. Something that is completely unheard of in today’s sport society. He was, at the time, able to create an image that challenged the racial stereotypes of being violent, hypersexual, and promiscuous.

I would also argue that the media tried to portray Michael Jordan in a way that would appeal to White America. As the article wrote, this was post-Reagan America and people valued what they could see in Michael. He was a natural born athlete, who worked hard after being defeated; he was a family man, and he represented himself differently than other Black athletes of his stature around the same time (think OJ Simpson & Mike Tyson). Michael Jordan was a role model, and the media help to portray this image.

I think this article is interesting when you try to compare it to our current society and how the media portrays athletes. We do not have a Michael Jordan. No person/athlete has protection and we do not have a current representative as the “all-American” athlete. I would argue that recently ESPN has tried to portray Derek Jeter like they have Michael Jordan, but nowhere near the level that Jordan was portrayed.

I think currently we may be digressing. While this article is dated I think we are seeing representations of Black athletes focusing again on more racially stereotyped issues like drugs and alcohol, domestic violence, and sexual harassment. It is a rarity to see a White athlete shown in a negative light. The last I can remember would be Riley Cooper using a racial slur at a concert. In general, I think the way all athletes are represented in the media has changed. We will never see another Michael Jordan and we know this because of how LeBron James was shown during his “decision”. Michael Jordan was a one of a kind athlete and I do not think that we will see an athlete representation in American media like him ever again.

October 7: Textual Analysis (Yannick Kluch)

Because textual analysis is one of the methods I have used the most frequently in my scholarly career so far, I really enjoyed reading Alan McKee’s “A Beginner’s Guide to Textual Analysis” this week. I have to admit that so far I have, like many Cultural Studies scholars, used a rather “intuitive form of textual analysis” (McKee, 2001, p. 144). I have done many textual analyses – from my master’s thesis on the construction of masculinity in Old Spice commercials to an analysis of the sexuality and promiscuity of the character Barney Stinson in the television sitcom How I Met Your Mother. The textual analysis that fits McKee’s guide on how to do a textual analysis the best, however, was a textual analysis I did of the marketing activities (and the actual stores) of the brand Abercrombie & Fitch in Germany. I would like to base my blog post this week on this analysis and put it into the context of McKee’s guide, in hope that it will help everyone to get a better understanding of the method of textual analysis.

McKee (2001) points out that textual analysis is an important method because “if we want to understand the world we live in, then we have to understand how people are making sense of that world” (p. 144). Further, McKee (2001) points out the immense importance of the context a text is put in for the textual analysis of that text; he states that “this context (that is, a series of intertexts, related texts) is what ties down the interpretations of a text” (p. 145). As such, the meaning of texts vary depending on the context they are being placed in (McKee, 2001, p. 145). My paper on Abercombie & Fitch (A&F), titled “‘Welcome to the Peer’: Americanization, the Abercrombie & Fitch Brand as Imagined Community, and National Identity in Re-Unified Germany,” is a good example of this. The brand – in this case the text to be examined – has a completely different meaning and offers completely different interpretations in Germany’s cultural climate (context 1) than it does in American culture (context 2), or even other European societies (context 3, and so on).

In my analysis, I found that A&F had more stores in Germany than in any other country in Europe, and I wanted to find out why that was the case. By analyzing some of the most popular German media platforms, I found that narratives are dominant in German media that focus on the lack of a inner unity of the German people. I concluded that A&F in Germany – which was framed as a brand that represents a cohesive community of individuals in the context of American culture – is so appealing to the German people because it creates a sense of community that the Germans, more than 20 years after the Berlin Wall came down, still desperately long for and cannot find on a national (identity) level.

Many of the articles we have read in the past two weeks have shown how sport stars can be read as a text within a specific context. For instance, the construction of Micheal Jordan’s masculinity was grounded in the context of discourses about Black sexuality and the nuclear family at that time. I therefore agree with McKee (2001) that “you can do nothing with a text until you establish its context” (p. 146).