Chapter 9: Violence in Sport Flashcards
What are the distinctions between aggression and violence in the context of sports, and how do sociologists view these concepts?
Aggression in sports refers to any behavior, whether verbal or physical, intended to dominate, control, or cause harm. It emphasizes the intent to harm, and in contact sports, the focus may be on holding ground or pushing back. Violence, a more specific form of aggression, involves behavior intended to injure another person physically. Unlike aggression, violence is characterized by the absence of intention, occurring due to the use of excessive physical force. Sociologists consider intent when discussing aggression and highlight the potential for harm in both concepts.
What is sports crowd violence, and what are some examples of actions by partisan fans that contribute to violence in the sports environment?
Sports crowd violence involves acts of verbal or physical aggression by partisan fans, either at or away from the sports arena.
Examples include verbal abuse, physical altercations, and vandalism. Potential outcomes involve harm to individuals, property, and legal consequences.
What does the term “Sports-Related Violence (SRV)” encompass, and how does it offer a broader view of physical violence in the context of sports?
Sports-Related Violence (SRV) is any aggressive, harmful, or unjust act carried out in the context of sport, threatening or causing injury or damage to persons, animals, or property. It provides a more expansive definition of physical violence in sports, encompassing direct acts of violence within or outside the rules of the game and harmful acts that threaten or violate human rights and civil liberties.
What are the different types of on-the-field violence in sports, and how are they categorized based on characteristics and consequences?
Brutal body contact: Involves physical and forceful contact inherent to the sport, generally accepted as part of the game.
Borderline violence: Somewhat regulated, results in penalties but is accepted with minor consequences.
Quasi-criminal violence: Involves high penalties, risky actions that could cause significant harm, and is not common in regular play.
Criminal violence: Goes beyond sportsmanship norms, involves serious harm, and is considered outside the realm of fair play. Examples are rare and often result from dirty or unusual play.
Instinct Theory - Social Psychology:
Violence is seen as a “natural” form of human behavior rooted in an innate, biological instinct to act aggressively.
Catharsis, the release of pent-up frustration or aggression in a safe environment (e.g., physical sports).
What is Catharsis? (instinct theory)
Catharsis, the release of pent-up frustration or aggression in a safe environment (e.g., physical sports).
Frustration & Aggression theory: Sports Setting and Frustration Release:
Individuals act aggressively in response to frustration, discharged safely through catharsis.
Sports environments act as a “safety valve,” providing a controlled outlet for aggression influenced by the environment.
Social Learning Theory - Learned Behavior:
Violence is a product of observation and interaction, learned through socialization and cultural understandings.
Approval and reward from parents, teammates, coaches, and media contribute to the acceptance of violence.
Institutionalization of Violence in Sport Theory:
Parents, teammates, commercialization, and media can unintentionally encourage or tolerate aggression.
Profit ties to the entertainment value of sports create challenges in curbing aggressive behavior.
Why does violence occur in sports, and what are the key theories explaining it?
Various theories, including instinct, frustration, social learning, and institutionalization, explain violence in sports. These theories consider biological, environmental, and learned factors influencing aggressive behavior.
How is violence in sports linked to historical notions of masculinity, and what role does institutionalization play in affirming traditional masculinity?
Historical masculinity ideals, emphasizing toughness, shaped the acceptance of violence in sports. The institutionalization of violence in hockey, for example, became a means to affirm manliness.
What are the three main forms of violence that male athletes can engage in, and how are these behaviors linked to everyday dynamics and culture within male athletic groups?
Male athletes can engage in violence against women, other men, and their own bodies. These behaviors are linked to cultural dynamics within male athletic groups, discouraging empathy and promoting aggression.
According to Michael Messner, what factors contribute to male athlete violence, and how is the culture within athlete peer groups related to this behavior?
Factors include a misogynist and homophobic culture, where insults are used to punish non-conforming members. The culture within athlete peer groups stifles empathy, encouraging disrespectful treatment.
What does “rape culture” imply in the context of male college athletes, and how do aspects of the sports culture contribute to an environment where sexual assault is not adequately condemned?
Rape culture refers to an environment normalizing sexual assault. In sports, entitlement, power imbalances, and lack of accountability contribute to an atmosphere where sexual assault is not adequately condemned or prevented.
How does the sport ethic contribute to the normalization of injuries, and what role does the metaphor of the “body as a machine” play in athletes’ attitudes toward injuries?
The sport ethic normalizes injuries, expecting athletes to push through pain. The metaphor of the “body as a machine” contributes to viewing injuries as malfunctions to be overcome, potentially overlooking the importance of proper care.