Handbook of Sports Studies

Handbooks

Edited by: Jay Coakley & Eric Dunning

  • Citations
  • Add to My List
  • Text Size

  • Chapters
  • Front Matter
  • Subject Index
  • Part 1: Major Perspectives in the Sociology of Sport

    Part 2: Cross-Disciplinary Differences and Connections

    Part 3: Key Topics

    Part 4: Sport and Society Research around the Globe

  • Copyright

    View Copyright Page

    Contributors

    Lincoln Allison is Reader in Politics and International Studies and Director of the Warwick Centre for the Study of Sport in Society at the University of Warwick. He was educated at Oxford University. He edited The Politics of Sport (1986), The Changing Politics of Sport (1993) and Taking Sport Seriously (1998), and is the author of other books and articles. His singly authored book Amateurism in Sport has gone to press with the publisher Frank Cass.

    David L. Andrews is an assistant professor of sport and leisure studies at the University of Memphis, and a senior visiting research fellow at De Montfort University. He received a PhD in Kinesiology from the University of Illinois at UrbanaChampaign. He is an assistant editor of the Journal of Sport and Social Issues, as well as being a member of the editorial board of the Sociology of Sport Journal, International Sports Studies and Football Studies.

    Joseph L. Arbena is a Professor of History at Clemson University, where he has taught since 1965. He holds degrees in Latin American history and culture from the George Washington University (1961) and the University of Virginia (1970). He has compiled two annotated bibliographies of sports in Latin America (Greenwood Press, 1989 and 1999), edited a collection of essays on Latin American sports, and published some thirty articles on sports topics. He also served as editor of the Journal of Sport History (19936). Currently his research focuses on sport and national identity in Latin America.

    John Bale is Professor of Sports Geography at Keele University, UK. He received his degrees from the University of London. During the past two decades he has pioneered the geographical study of sports and has lectured in universities in North America, Australia and Europe. His books include Sport, Space and the City (1993), Landscapes of Modern Sport (1994), and Kenyan Running: Movement Culture, Geography and Global Change (1996, co-authored with Joe Sang).

    Susan Birrell is Chair of the Department of Health, Leisure, and Sport Studies at the University of Iowa and is affiliated with both the American Studies Program and the Women's Studies Program. She is also co-editor, with Cheryl Cole, of Women, Sport and Culture (1994). Her latest book, Reading Sport: Critical Essays on Power and Representation, co-edited with Mary McDonald, is to be published by Northeastern University Press (2000). Her current research focuses on the cultural meanings of Mt Everest.

    Kendall Blanchard is President and Professor of Anthropology at Fort Lewis College in Colorado. He received a PhD in anthropology from Southern Methodist University in 1971. He is a past president of the Association for the Study of Play. He has co-authored (with Alyce Cheska) The Anthropology of Sport: An Introduction (1984). He wrote a single-author version of that book that was published in 1995. Other books that have sport and play themes include The Serious Side of Leisure: The Mississippi Choctaws at Play (1981), and The Many Faces of Play (1986).

    Douglas Booth teaches courses in sports history and sports policy at the University of Otago, New Zealand. He is the author of The Race Game: Sport and Politics in South Africa (1998) and serves on the editorial boards of several journals, including Sporting Traditions and the Journal of Sport History.

    Jay Coakley is a Professor of Sociology at the University of Colorado in Colorado Springs. He received his PhD in Sociology from the University of Notre Dame in 1972. He served as editor of the Sociology of Sport Journal (19849) and as President of the North American Society for the Sociology of Sport (1992) and the Sport Sociology Academy of the American Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance (19834). He is author of Sport in Society: Issues and Controversies (2001, 7th edition) and co-editor (with P. Donnelly) of Inside Sports (1999).

    Cheryl Cole is an Associate Professor of Kinesiology, Sociology and Women's Studies at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. She holds PhD degrees in Sport Studies from USC and in the Sociology of Culture/Women's Studies from the University of Iowa. Her research focuses on the relations among sport, the visualization of deviant bodies and national identity in post-war America. She co-edited Women, Sport and Culture with S. Birrell (1994), is co-editor of the State University of New York book series ‘Sport, Culture, and Social Relations’ and is editor of the Journal of Sport and Social Issues.

    Chris Collins is a Senior Fellow at Massey University, New Zealand, and undertook his undergraduate and postgraduate studies at Otago and Victoria Universities in New Zealand. At the time of writing he was Director of Sport and Recreation at Massey University and headed the university's academic programme in Sport Management and Coaching, delivered from the Department of Management Systems. His teaching responsibilites lie primarily in the area of sport in society and, to a lesser extent, sport management. His research interests are related to sport and religion, sport and politics and sport and social mobility. He is co-editor of Sport Management in New Zealand (1994), and Sport Business Management in New Zealand (1999) and is editor of Sport in New Zealand Society (2000). He has recently moved into a senior management role in the University.

    Jacques DeFrance was born in Paris in 1948 and prepared his ‘Doctorat’ (PhD) on ‘The Genesis of Modern Physical Education in France (17701914)’ under the supervision of Pierre Bourdieu at the Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes, Paris. He has studied alcohol and drug use, environmental conflicts and comparative water policies in England, France and Germany. He is currently Professeur des Universités at the University of Paris X-Nanterre in the Department of Sports Sciences and director of the Laboratory on Sport and Culture. He has published on the social history of gymnastics and sports, the divisions among organizations in athletics in the 1980s, the role of the state in sports since the 1930s (with Jean Harvey and Rob Beamish), and on the use of the sociologies of Pierre Bourdieu and Norbert Elias in sports studies.

    Peter Donnelly is a Professor in the Faculty of Physical Education and Health at the University of Toronto. He received his PhD in Sport Studies from the University of Massachusetts in 1980. He has served in various offices for professional organizations in the sociology of sport, and is currently Director of the Centre for Sport Policy Studies at the University of Toronto. He edited the Sociology of Sport Journal from 1990 to 1994, is co-editor (with N. Theberge) of Sport and the Sociological Imagination, editor of Taking Sport Seriously, and co-editor (with J. Coakley) of Inside Sports.

    Eric Dunning is Emeritus Professor of Sociology at the University of Leicester and Visiting Professor of Sociology at University College Dublin. He studied sociology under Norbert Elias as an undergraduate and as a postgraduate student, later coming to write two books and several articles with him. His main research interest is in sport and violence, and his latest book, Sport Matters: Sociological Studies of Sport, Violence and Civilization, was published by Routledge (1999).

    Mary Duquin is an Associate Professor at the University of Pittsburgh. She received a PhD in Education from Stanford University in 1975. She has served as Chair of the Sport Sociology Academy and as President of the North American Society for the Sociology of Sport. Her research interests include the psychosocial and philosophical aspects of sport, health and the body in culture. She has written numerous articles on the importance of implementing an ethic of care in sport.

    D. Stanley Eitzen is Professor Emeritus of Sociology at Colorado State University. He has an AB from Bethel College, an MS in social science from Emporia State University, and an MA and PhD in sociology from the University of Kansas. He is the author or editor of 16 books, including three on sport: Sociology of North American Sport (6th edition) with G. H. Sage, Sport in Contemporary Society (5th edition), and Fair and Foul: Beyond the Myths and Paradoxes of Sport. He is a former president of the North American Society for the Sociology of Sport, former editor of the Social Science Journal, and was recipient of the John N. Stern Distinguished Professorship at Colorado State University.

    Kari Fasting is a professor at the Department of Social Science of the Norwegian University of Sport and Physical Education in Oslo, Norway. She lectures in sociology of sport, feminist theory of science and research methods. Her area of research is sociological and social psychological aspects of gender and sport. She has held many administrative positions, nationally and internationally. She was the first rector (president/vice-chancellor) of her university from 1989 to 1992, the first president of the Norwegian Society for Sport Research (19839), president of the International Sociology of Sport Association (19925), and is currently the vice-president of the executive board of WomenSport International.

    Gyöngyi S. Földesi is Professor of Sociology at the Hungarian University of Physical Education in Budapest. She received her PhD in Sociology from the University of Physical Education in Warsaw in 1982 and in Physical Education from the University of Physical Education in Budapest in 1983. She served as Vice President of the International Committee for Sociology of Sport (now ISSA) from 1984 to 1992 and as Associate Editor of the International Review for the Sociology of Sport from 1988 to 1996. She has held various offices in Sport Science bodies, and she is the author of five books (1983, 1983, 1984, 1994, 1999) and the editor of three others (1985, 1994, 1996).

    Diane L. Gill is a professor and head of the Department of Exercise and Sport Science at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro. She received her PhD from the University of Illinois in 1976 and was on the faculty at the Universities of Waterloo and Iowa before moving to UNCG in 1987. She is a past-president of the North American Society for the Psychology of Sport and Physical Activity, and has served as president of Division 47 (Exercise and Sport Psychology) of the American Psychological Association. She is a past-editor of the Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, author of several research articles and chapters, and is preparing a revised book, Psychological Dynamics of Sport and Exercise.

    Allen Guttmann teaches at Amherst College and is President-Elect of the North American Society for Sport History. Of the dozen books he has written or translated on the history of sports, the best known are From Ritual to Record (1978) and Women's Sports (1991). The most recent titles are Games and Empires (1994) and The Erotic in Sports (1996). He is working on a history of Japanese sports and on a forthcoming International Encyclopedia of Women's Sports.

    Jennifer Hargreaves is Professor of Sport Sociology at Brunel University. She edited Sport, Culture and Ideology (1982), and is the author of Sporting Females: Critical Issues in the History and Sociology of Women's Sports (1994) and Heroines of Sport: The Politics of Differance and Identity (2000). She has worked as a guest professor in Germany and Hong Kong and is on the editorial boards of four international journals.

    Klaus Heinemann is Professor of Sociology at the University of Hamburg, having previously taught at the University of Trier. Besides having published, among other things, studies of youth unemployment, he has researched and written extensively on sports organizations and he is one of the pioneers of the study of the economics of sport. He was Editor-in-Chief of the International Review for the Sociology of Sport from 1988 to 1997 and is a leading figure in the comparative study of sport in Western Europe.

    Denver J. Hendricks was born in Cape Town, South Africa and completed most of his schooling in the Port Elizabeth area of the Eastern Cape Province. He obtained a BA(Honours) degree in Physical Education from Rhodes University, majoring in the Sociology of Sport. He was awarded a Fulbright Scholarship and proceeded to the University of California at Berkeley. He obtained a Masters Degree from Berkeley, focusing on the sociology of sport and issues of race and sport in particular. Upon returning to South Africa, he took up a teaching position at the University of the Western Cape, eventually becoming Professor and Head of the Department of Human Movement Studies there. He was subsequently appointed Deputy Dean in the Faculty of Arts at the University of the Western Cape and later as Dean of Students at the University of Port Elizabeth.

    Ian Henry is Professor of Recreation Management and Director of the Institute of Sport and Leisure Policy at Loughborough University. His research interests focus on the analysis of leisure policy at the urban, national and transnational levels. His publications include The Politics of Leisure Policy (Macmillan) and a series of co-edited books on European Leisure Studies and Policy (Routledge and CAB International) including Leisure Policies in Europe and Leisure Research in Europe: Methods and Traditions.

    Barrie Houlihan is Professor of Sport Policy at Loughborough University. He received his PhD from the University of Salford in 1984. He has written widely on aspects of sport policy and politics and is the author of Sport and International Politics (1994), Sport, Policy and Politics: a Comparative Analysis (1997) and Dying to Win: Doping in Sport and the Development of Anti-Doping Policy (1999). His recent research interests concern sports development activity and the development of policy to counteract doping in sport.

    Grant Jarvie is Professor of Sports Studies at the University of Stirling in Scotland. He received his PhD in Sociology from the University of Leicester in 1988. He is past convenor of the British Sociological Association's Sport Study Group and has served as President of the British Society of Sports History. He is author of Highland Games: the Making of the Myth (1991); co-author (with J. Maguire) of Sport and Leisure in Social Thought (1994); and editor of Scottish Sport in the Making of a Nation (1994), Sport in the Making of Celtic Cultures (1999) and Sport, Scotland and the Scots (2000).

    Koichi Kiku is Associate Professor of Sport Sociology and Sport Pedagogy at the Nara Women's University, Japan. He received his PhD in Pedagogy from the Tsukuba University in 1988. He was Director of the Japanese Society of Sport Sociology from 1995 to 1998. He is the author of The Historical Sociology of Professional Sport in Modern Japan (1993), and the co-author of The Sociology of LifeLong Sport (1997) and Changing Contemporary Society and Sport (1998).

    Marc Lavoie is Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa. He received his PhD from the University of Paris-1 (Panthéon-Sorbonne) in 1979. A specialist of growth theory and monetary theory, he has published articles on discrimination and salary determination in sport and two books on ice hockey, Avantage numérique: l'argent et la Ligue Nationale de Hockey (1997) and Désavantage numérique: les francophones dans la LNH (1998).

    Burn-Jang Lim is Professor of Sport Sociology at the Department of Physical Education, College of Education, Seoul National University, Korea. He received a PhD in Educational Sociology from Hanyang University in 1986. He has served as an Executive Board member of the International Sociology of Sport Association (19925), President of the Korean Society for Sociology of Sport (198596), President of the Korean Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance (19978), Executive Board member of the Korean Olympic Committee (19904), and a Board member of the Korean Sport Council (19979). He has edited the Bulletin of ISSA (19929), is the author of Sociology of Sport (1994), Swimming (1979), Advanced Swimming (1982), Gymnastics (1982), and is co-author of Hockey (1982) and Skiing (1998).

    John Loy is Professor of Sport and Leisure Studies at the University of Otago, New Zealand. He is past president of the North American Society for the Sociology of Sport and past vice president of the International Sociology of Sport Association. He is the co-author of 10 books, and has published more than 100 papers, including articles in the American Sociological Review, the British Journal of Sociology, Sociology of Work and Occupations, Urban Life, Quest, Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, and Sport Science Review.

    Günther Lüschen, PhD, HonD, is Professor of Sociology, University of Alabama at Birmingham. He is also Professor Emeritus of the Universities of Düsseldorf and Illinois. In 1981 he edited (with George Sage) the Handbook of Social Science of Sport. His most recent publications include Das Moralische in der Soziologie (1998), Sport and Public Health in America and Europe (1998), Sportpolitik (1996 with A. Rütten) and Health Systems in the European Union (1995).

    Joseph Maguire is Professor of the Sociology of Sport at Loughborough University, England. He received a BEd (Hons) from the University of London (1979) and a PhD in Sociology from Leicester University in 1985. He has served on the editorial boards of the Sociology of Sport Journal and the International Review for the Sociology of Sport, and is co-editor and author of several books including Sport and Leisure in Social Thought (1994, with G. Jarvie) and Global Sport: Identities, Societies and Civilizations (1999). He is currently President of the International Sociology of Sport Association.

    Salomé Marivoet is a Lecturer at the Technical University of Lisbon where she teaches the Sociology of Sport. She graduated in 1985, earned a Masters Degree in Sociology in 1994 at the Technical University of Lisbon and she is currently working on her PhD on ‘Sports Ethics: A Sociological Analysis of Value-Orientations Towards Action in Portugal (19742000)’ under the supervision of Eric Dunning. Her research has been on violence, performance and sports habits. In addition to journal articles and reviews, she has published Aspectos Sociológicos do Desporto (1998; Sociological Aspects of Sport).

    Ian McDonald is based in the Chelsea School at the University of Brighton, where he lectures and researches in sport and policy. He is co-author of Anyone for Cricket? Equal Opportunities and Changing Cricket Cultures in Essex and East London (1998), co-editor of The Production and Consumption of Sport Cultures (1999) and Sport, Race and British Society (2000). He also studies the politics of sporting nationalism in South Asia with particular reference to Hindu nationalism in India.

    Andrew Miracle is professor and chair of the Department of Health Sciences at Cleveland State University. He received a PhD in Anthropology from the University of Florida in 1976. He has served as president of the Association for the Study of Play and of the Southern Anthropological Society. He has published eight books, including Lessons of the Locker Room: the Myth of School Sport (1994, with C. Roger Rees).

    William Morgan is a professor of cultural studies at the University of Tennessee. He received his PhD from the University of Minnesota in 1976. He has been editor of the Journal of the Philosophy of Sport since 1994, and is a long-standing member of its editorial board. He is the author of Leftist Theories of Sport: a Critique and Reconstruction (1994), and co-editor, with Klaus Meier, of Philosophic Inquiry in Sport (1988). He has authored numerous articles in the philosophy and social theory of sport.

    Patrick Murphy graduated from the University of Leicester in 1972. He is currently a Senior Lecturer in Sociology at Leicester and a Director of the University's Centre for Research into Sport and Society. His main research interests are football hooliganism, the management and administration of association football, and sports policy in general. He is co-author of The Roots of Football Hooliganism, Hooligans Abroad and Football on Trial. He is also the editor of the Singer and Friedlander Review.

    Howard L. Nixon II is Professor of Sociology and Chair of the Department of Sociology, Anthropology and Criminal Justice at Towson University. He received his PhD in Sociology from the University of Pittsburgh in 1971. He is the author of a number of articles and three books related to sport: Sport and Social Organization (1976), Sport and the American Dream (1984), and (with James Frey) A Sociology of Sport (1996). He has also taught courses and published in other areas of sociology, including organizations, organizational deviance, small groups, the family, disability and society, and structural analysis.

    Claudia Pinheiro is a Lecturer in the Faculty of Sports Sciences and Physical Education, University of Coimbra where she teaches the Sociology of Sport. She graduated in 1990 from the Faculty of Sports Sciences and Physical Education, University of Porto, earned an MA in the Sociology of Sport at the University of Leicester in 1993, and she is currently working on her PhD. Her main academic interests are in women's sports and gender relations.

    Núria Puig is Professor of the Sociology of Sport at the Institut Nacional d'Educació Fisica de Catalunya (INEF-Catalunya), of the Universitat de Barcelona, in Spain. She earned her degree in Modern History at the Universitat de Barcelona in 1973, her PhD in Sociology at the Université de Paris VII in 1980 and her PhD in the Philosophy and Science of Education at the Universitat de Barcelona in 1993. Her main research areas related to sports are socialization, sports policy, sport organizations and urban problems. Her last two books are Joves i Esport (Youth and Sport; Barcelona, 1996) and Sociología del Deporte (Sociology of Sport, Madrid, 1998; co-edited with M.G. Ferrando and F. Lagardera).

    C. Roger Rees is a professor in the Department of Health Studies, Physical Education and Human Performance Science at Adelphi University on Long Island, NY. He received his PhD in the sociology of sport and physical education from the University of Maryland in 1978. He has published several books including (with A. Miracle) Sport and Social Theory (1986), and Lessons of the Locker Room: the Myth of School Sports (1994), and numerous articles in sociology, sport and physical education journals.

    Bero Rigauer studied Sociology at the Main Institute for Social Research in Frankfurt, Germany, and Sociology and Physical Education at the University of Frankfurt. He is a Professor in the Department of Sportwissenschaft (Sports Sciences) at the University of Oldenburg, Germany, where he teaches courses in the Sociology of Sport, the Social and Cultural History of Sport, the General Theory of Sport, and the Methodology of the Sciences. He is an ‘elder sportsman’ who enjoys skiing, basketball, volleyball and Chinese pa tuan chin.

    Robert Rinehart is with California State University, San Bernardino. He earned his PhD in sport sociology from the University of Illinois. His major research interests are in qualitative methods of enquiry, alternative sport forms and sport as performance. He is the author of the book Players All: Performances in Contemporary Sport (1998), and he has published articles in sport-related journals in history, sociology, philosophy, and cultural studies. His most recent project is as co-editor (with Synthia Sydnor) of To the Extreme: Alternative Sport, Inside and Out (State University of New York Press).

    George Sage is a professor emeritus of Sociology and Kinesiology at the University of Northern Colorado. He received BA and MA degrees from the University of Northern Colorado, and an EdD from UCLA. He has served as President of the North American Society for the Sociology of Sport and Vice President of the Executive Board of the International Sociology of Sport Association. He edited three editions of Sport and American Society, authored two editions of Power and Ideology in American Sport: a Critical Perspective, and co-authored (with D.S. Eitzen) six editions of Sociology of North American Sport.

    Ken Sheard obtained his BA and MPhil degrees from the University of Leicester and his PhD from the Council for National Academic Awards. Having taught at the University of Evansville (English campus) and Anglia Polytechnic University, he is now Lecturer in Sociology at the University of Leicester and a Director of the University's Centre for Research into Sport and Society. His main research areas have been the development of rugby, the development of boxing and the emergence of bird-watching as a sport-like activity.

    Mari-Kristin Sisjord holds a PhD in Sport Sociology from the Norwegian University of Sport and Physical Education. The title of her thesis was ‘Sport and Youth Culture’. She is currently an Associate Professor in Sport Sociology at the same university and a Member of the Executive Board of the International Sociology of Sport Association. Her main research fields are youth sports and gender.

    Nancy Struna is a professor of American Studies at the University of Maryland, College Park. She has published widely on the social history of sport and leisure in early America, including People of Prowess: Sport, Leisure and Labor in Early Anglo-America (1996). Dr Struna is currently doing research on the social history of taverns and tavern life and on the transformation of ordinary life in the United States during the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. She is also a past-president of the North American Society for Sport History.

    John Sugden is Professor of the Sociology of Sport, Chelsea School Research Centre, University of Brighton, England. He studied politics and sociology for his BA and took MA and PhD degrees in the Sociology of Sport at the University of Connecticut. He has written on sport politics and comparative aspects of sport cultures. His most recent books, both co-authored with A. Tomlinson, are FIFA and the Contest for World Football Who Rules the Peoples' Game (1998) and Great Balls of Fire How Big Money is Hijacking World Football (1999). He also wrote Boxing and Society (1996) and, with Alan Bairner, Sport, Sectarianism and Society in a Divided Ireland (1993).

    Nancy Theberge is a professor at the University of Waterloo in Canada, where she holds a joint appointment in the Departments of Kinesiology and Sociology. She received a PhD in Sociology from the University of Massachusetts at Amherst in 1977. She has served on the editorial board of the Sociology of Sport Journal and has published articles in a variety of journals, including the Sociology of Sport Journal, Gender and Society and Social Problems. She is co-editor (with Peter Donnelly) of Sport and the Sociological Imagination and author of Higher Goals: Women's Ice Hockey and the Politics of Gender.

    Eleni Theodoraki is Lecturer in Sport Management and a member of the Institute of Sport and Leisure Policy at Loughborough University, England. Her publications include chapters on organizational analysis of sport-governing bodies in edited books by K. Heinemann and A. Rütten, and the Greek Association of Sport Managers. Her current research interests focus on managerial rationality and the decision-making process.

    Alan Tomlinson is Professor of Sport and Leisure Studies, Chelsea School Research Centre, University of Brighton, England. He studied Humanities and Sociology for his BA at the University of Kent, and took Masters and Doctoral degrees in Sociological Studies at the University of Sussex. He has written on the social history and sociology of sport, leisure and consumption. His most recent books include (both co-authored with J. Sugden) FIFA and the Contest for World Football Who Rules the Peoples' Game (1998) and Great Balls of Fire How Big Money is Hijacking World Football (1999). He wrote The Game's Up Essays in the Cultural Analysis of Sport, Leisure and Popular Culture (1999) and Sport and Leisure Cultures Local and Global Dimensions is due to appear in 2001. He is Editor of the International Review for the Sociology of Sport.

    Ivan Waddington is a Senior Lecturer in Sociology at the University of Leicester and a Director of the University's Centre for Research into Sport and Society. His major research interests concern the relationships between sport and health, and he authored Sport, Health and Drugs (2000). He has also studied the roles of club doctor and club physiotherapist in English professional football (soccer) for the Professional Footballers Association.

    Garry Whannel is Professor of Television Cultures at the University of Luton and was a Co-Director of the Centre for Sport Development Research. He has a BA in Media Studies and a PhD in Cultural Studies. He serves on the editorial boards of Leisure Studies and The Journal of Sport and Social Issues. He is the author of Fields in Vision: Television Sport and Cultural Transformation (1992), Blowing the Whistle: the Politics of Sport (1983) and co-author (with J. Horne and A. Tomlinson) of Understanding Sport (1999).

    Kevin Young is Senior Research Fellow in the Department of Physical Education, Sport Science and Recreation Management at Loughborough University, UK. Kevin has published on a variety of sports-related issues and is the co-editor (with Philip White) of Sport and Gender in Canada (1999). He has served terms on the editorial boards of the Sociology of Sport Journal and Avante, and on the Executive Board of the North American Society for the Sociology of Sport. He is currently Vice President of the International Sociology of Sport Association.

    Preface

    We intend this Handbook to be a ‘user-friendly’ collection that will meet the interests of a diverse set of readers from many countries. We expect that most readers will have a background in sociology but others will have backgrounds primarily in psychology, social and economic history, politics, philosophy, or the geography of sport. The content of the chapters has been aimed at undergraduate and postgraduate students as well as their teachers. We asked the authors to define fully and clearly technical and philosophical terms so as to make their meanings accessible to a diverse readership.

    Although the content of many chapters draws heavily on research done in Western Europe and North America, the authors were careful to avoid ethnocen-trism in their chapters, and they made concerted attempts, when possible, to draw on materials from non-North American and non-West European parts of the world.

    We have divided the book into four parts:

    • Major perspectives in the sociology of sport
    • Cross-disciplinary differences and connections
    • Key topics
    • Sport and society research around the globe.

    The chapters in the first section outline key features of seven major theoretical perspectives used in the sociology of sport. The authors pay special attention to the emergence and development of the perspectives, especially in terms of how they have been used in sociological analyses of sport. The authors also include comprehensive bibliographies of general sources and relevant work that provide insights into the perspectives and examples of how they have been used in the sociology of sport.

    The chapters in Part Two provide state-of-the-art summaries of the disciplines in which analyses of sport are most closely related to work in the sociology of sport. The authors outline the major claims about the special value of their fields and then show how their disciplines have linked with, or failed to link with, other disciplines in connection with work on sport and society. The bibliographies presented in the chapters are designed to enable readers to have immediate access to key work in the seven disciplines.

    Part Three contains discussions of theory and research on 18 key topics in the sociology of sport. We selected topics on the basis of three criteria: first, the amount of interest and attention received since the publication of the last (1981) Handbook; secondly, the centrality of the topic in the sociology of sport; and thirdly, our sense that the topic will become increasingly important in future work in the field. Authors outline the major issues and controversies related to the topics, and then provide bibliographies that enable readers to identify the range of research that deals with the topics.

    Finally, the 12 chapters in Part Four provide brief summaries of sport and society research in those countries or regions of the world where sociological work is being done. These chapters are intended as overviews rather than detailed accounts of the history, focus and current status of the field. They are meant to provide a general sense of the global scope of the sociology of sport and the range of scholars, programmes and research that is included in the field. It is also our hope that they may play a small part in reducing the North American and Western European dominance that has characterized sport and society research and writing up to now.

    The overall goal of the Handbook is to enable new as well as experienced scholars to grasp the scope and importance of theory and research on sport and society.

    Acknowledgements

    We thank each of the contributors to this volume. We asked for, received and appreciated their patience as we pulled together this collection of 44 chapters. We also thank the Sociology Department at the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs and the Centre for Research into Sport and Society at the University of Leicester, especially Sue Smith and Lisa Heggs, for their support as we called, faxed, mailed and e-mailed back and forth between Colorado Springs and Leicester. Dominic Malcolm of the CRSS was also very helpful regarding bibliographic matters and even more so in helping Eric Dunning begin to come to grips with computers and information technology.

    Finally, we note that, where possible, our names appear side-by-side to denote equal roles and effort in editing this volume. Although Eric Dunning and Chris Rojek originally conceived and proposed the idea of the Handbook, both editors shaped its table of contents, recruited authors, edited chapter manuscripts, wrote introductions, checked the page proofs word by word, and handled all the other administrative chores associated with such an undertaking. Therefore, we have chosen to have our names appear in alphabetical order to emphasize our shared effort.

    J.C. E.D.

    General Introduction

    At the beginning of the twenty-first century, the study of sport and society in various forms and from various perspectives has become a rapidly expanding field of scholarly endeavour across the world. Our aim in editing this Handbook of Sports Studies is to mark and celebrate that fact. We have done so at this historical moment, the dawning of the third Christian millennium, because we think that the challenge of living in a new time frame creates an apposite moment for taking stock.

    There is, we think, also a need at this moment for a comprehensive, up-to-date and authoritative reference book for scholars working in the broad field of ‘sport and society’ studies. We include under this rubric all those who study sports as social phenomena, namely anthropologists, economists, geographers, historians, philosophers, psychologists, political scientists as well as sociologists. However, because the sociology of sport is the largest and best established of the subdisciplines in this area and because it is the field that we as sociologists know best, the majority of our contributors are sociologists or have written from one or more of the sociological perspectives that are currently on offer. To have attempted at the present juncture to secure greater equality in the representation of the different subdisciplines of sport and society studies would, we feel, have resulted in a distorted representation of the current state of the literature.

    As a stocktaking exercise, it is our hope that this handbook will:

    • Mark any advances of knowledge that have been made in the field during the second half of the twentieth century.
    • Provide a guide to the principal conflicts and difficulties that have arisen in this connection.
    • Alert readers to some of the mistakes that have been made and some of the strategies that have been advocated for avoiding them.
    • Recruit new scholars to the field by providing an accessible and comprehensive text that can be used readily as a teaching and research resource.
    • Serve as a guide for teachers who wish to establish new curricula and develop courses and programmes in the area of sport and society studies.

    A brief overview of the history and development of the field will help us to assess the advances that have been made in our understanding of sport and society.

    Among the subdisciplines concerned with the study of sport as a social phenomenon, the sociology of sport was the first to emerge in an institutionalized form. For example, it was the first to be named as such, to have a named professional body (The International Committee for Sport Sociology ICSS) and its own ‘house’ journal (The International Review of Sport SociologyIRSS), and to be researched and taught in universities and other centres of higher education in specifically named and dedicated courses. The ICSS, recently renamed the International Sociology of Sport Association (ISSA), was and remains dedicated to organizing conferences and promoting the field. At the same time, the IRSS has continuously published research and a range of conceptual and theoretical discussions.

    This process of institutionalization began in the mid-1960s, largely in conjunction with five main interrelated and interacting developments. The first was a dawning recognition among university teachers of physical education that sport and physical education are social practices and that they are culturally and historically relative. This, in turn, led them to see traditional teacher training curricula emphasizing sports, athletics and gymnastics practice, together with biomechanics and exercise physiology as unnecessarily restrictive and lacking the benefits associated with locating and looking at a subject sociologically.

    The second development was that a few university teachers of sociology (including Theodor Adorno, Norbert Elias, Max Horkheimer, Charles H. Page and Gregory P. Stone) realized that sport was an increasingly visible and important social practice, and that a sociology in which this was not clearly recognized would represent and foster an impoverished, perhaps distorted, view of the social world.

    The third development was the general process of university expansion that took place in the 1960s. This expansion was accompanied by increased competition both within and between disciplines, and it both intensified the pressure on university teachers to publish and expanded the need for publication outlets. The International Review of Sport Sociology was one of the new journals that met this need. At the same time, it encouraged the formulation of research and theory related to sport and society.

    The fourth development associated with the institutionalization of the sociology of sport was the advent of what might be called the ‘permissive revolution’. This has been described by Norbert Elias (1996) and others (Wouters, 1986) as a process of ‘informalization’, the origins of which were grounded in significant equalizing shifts in the balance of class, racial/ethnic, gender and inter-generational power largely in favour of hitherto subordinate groups. Permissiveness/informalization was conducive to the expansion of sociology and the spread of sociological ways of thinking, especially left-orientated, ‘radical’ forms of thinking, into areas such as the study of science, religion, law, the arts, medicine, education and sport. In its turn, the expansion of left-orientated, ‘radical’ forms of sociology reciprocally fuelled the process of informalization and the associated ‘permissive’ ways of behaving which gathered momentum through the 1960s and early 1970s.

    The fifth development was the EastWest struggle or ‘Cold War’ which started in the 1940s and lasted through the 1980s. This global polarization and nuclear stand-off between the ‘first’ or ‘capitalist’ and the ‘second’ or ‘communist’ worlds created a context in which there was a perceived need to increase understanding of global power relations and the prominent and complex part that came to be played by sport in those relations.

    However, the institutionalization of the sociology of sport during the 1960s is perhaps best understood as one of the key moments in a long-term ongoing process, the roots of which can be traced back as far as the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries and the initial emergence of modern sport. In Britain, for example, works such as Peter Beckford's Thoughts on Hare and Foxhunting (1796), Pierce Egan's Boxiana (1812) and Montague Shearman's (1887, 1889) studies of the history and development of soccer, rugby and athletics although they were not produced in academic institutions or intended for the instruction of students marked the inception of the serious study of sport in that nation. Later, these works became rich research resources for twentieth-century scholars. Then, at the end of the nineteenth century, Thorstein Veblen wrote about American college sports in his Theory of the Leisure Class (1899). Shortly thereafter, Max Weber, widely identified as one of the ‘founders’ of sociology (see Giddens, 1971), discussed the opposition of the English Puritans to sport in his famous book The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (Weber, 1958). His analyses were published in two parts in 1904 and 1905 respectively, and made available in English translation in 1930.1 In 1906 William Graham Sumner devoted part of a chapter to ‘popular sports’ in his Folkways, and somewhat later, Willard Waller wrote about the integrating functions of sport in US high schools in The Sociology of Teaching (1932). However, despite their historical significance in sociology, none of these texts was devoted to the sociological study of sport per se. Rather, sport was discussed in them in the context of a sociological analysis of some wider issue. Accordingly, they can be regarded as containing, at best, proto-sociological studies of sport.

    To our knowledge, the sociology of sport first emerged as a named endeavour and the subject of a book-length study in 1921, when Heinz Risse, a student of Theodor Adorno, published his Soziologie des Sports. Along with Max Horkheimer, Adorno founded the Frankfurter Institut für Sozialforschung (the Frankfurt Institute of Social Research) which was the location of the earliest productions in ‘critical theory’ of the so-called ‘Frankfurt School’.2 However, after 1921 Risse seems to have disappeared from the academic scene and the sociological study of sport did not become firmly established in that context. This is not surprising given what happened in Germany between the 1920s and the 1940s when a majority of sociologists were forced into silence, conformity with Nazi dogma, or exile. In fact, Adorno, Elias and Horkheimer were among those forced into exile. At any rate, it was not until 1969, at the height of the worldwide student protest movement, that the second piece of ‘critical theory’ dealing with sport, Bero Rigauer's Sport und Arbeit (Sport and Work), was published. By that time, the sociology of sport was well on the way towards becoming a recognized and institutionalized, if not a high status, area of academic endeavour.

    We have already noted how the early institutionalization of the sociology of sport as a university subject took place as part of the expansion of higher education that occurred in most Western countries during the 1950s and 1960s. Sociology was one of the subjects that expanded most rapidly in that context, and public awareness of its existence spread although this awareness did not always take the form of accurate knowledge of the ways in which specialists defined and understood sociology. It was during this time that the insightful and original essay ‘American Sports: Play and Display’ was published by the University of Chicago-educated, symbolic interactionist Gregory P. Stone (1955). If we are right, this was the first sustained and unambiguously sociological piece of work on sport to appear after Risse's text was published in 1921. Then, in Britain in 1961, Anthony Giddens at the London School of Economics, and Eric Dunning at the University of Leicester, successfully defended sociological Masters theses on sport-related topics (Dunning, 1961; Giddens, 1961). Their theses drew on the ‘proto-sociological’ work on sport done by physical education scholars such as Peter McIntosh, A.D. Munro, Bill Slater and Barbara Knapp of Birmingham University.3 Perhaps not surprisingly, one of the central concerns of these physical education scholars during that period was to combat what they saw as the deleterious effects of the professionalization and commercialization of sports. In some ways, the work they did anticipated the later Marxist critiques of the commercialization and commodification of sports but they did so in a context of research which was empiricist and lacking in the rigour and penetration characteristic of Marxist studies at their best.

    It was not until 1965, however, when the ICSS was formed and the IRSS was first published, that the sociology of sport ‘came of age’. Centrally involved in this formalization and institutionalization of the subject were German (later substantially American-based) scholar Günther Lüschen, the First General Secretary of the ICSS, and Andrzej Wohl from Poland, the first ICSS President and first Editor of the IRSS, together with Peter McIntosh and Gregory P. Stone. It was Günther Lüschen who, in 1966, organized the first ICSS Symposium. Its theme was small groups in sport and it was convened in Cologne.4 Subsequent ICSS Symposia were held in ChampaignUrbana (1967), Leicester (1968), and Magglingen/Macolin (1969).5 In addition to the ICSS officials listed above, other participants in these early meetings included Rolf Albonico (Switzerland); Michel Bouet (France); Norbert Elias, Eric Dunning and Barbara Knapp (UK); Kalevi Heinila (Finland); Gerald S. Kenyon (Canada); John W. Loy, John C. Phillips and Walter Schafer (USA); and Brian Sutton-Smith (New Zealand/USA). It was characteristic both of the early development of the field and of sport per se that, at that stage, all but one of the participants were male and, with the exception of a few Japanese scholars such as Takaaki Niwa of Nara Women's University, all were white.

    A further mark of the early institutionalization of the sociology of sport as a subject researched and taught in universities was the appearance in the 1960s and early 1970s of the first textbooks. With the exception of George Magnane's Sociologie du sport, published in 1964 (little known in the English-speaking world),6 edited collections or ‘readers’ were the first to appear. Loy and Kenyon's Sport, Culture and Society (1969) was the first major collection to be published, followed by Dunning's The Sociology of Sport: a Selection of Readings (1971). German ‘readers’, Texte zur Soziologie des Sports edited by Kurt Hammerich and Klaus Heinemann and Die Soziologie des Sports edited by Günther Lüschen and Kurt Weis, followed in 1975 and 1976 respectively.

    Other signs that the field was beginning to mature appeared around the same time. For example, in the United States Harry Edwards's text, The Sociology of Sport, was published in 1973, and three additional texts were published in 1978 Sport in Society: Issues and Controversies by Jay Coakley; Sociology of American Sport by D. Stanley Eitzen and George Sage; and Social Aspects of Sport by Eldon Snyder and Elmer Spreitzer. Since that time, confining the discussion for present purposes to the English-speaking world, many introductory-type ‘readers’ and textbooks have been published in Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom as well as the USA.7

    Beginning in the 1970s and 1980s publication outlets continued to expand with the publication of new journals devoted to social analyses of sports. These journals represented many disciplines in addition to sociology (see Table I). Furthermore, many mainstream journals in both sociology and physical education began to accept and publish research using sociological perspectives to study sports. Further growth in the field was fuelled as national and regional professional associations in both sociology and physical education in many countries began to sponsor regular sessions in the sociology of sport at annual conferences. Such conferences have also been sponsored regularly by national and regional sociology of sport associations around the world, including those in Japan, Korea and Brazil, as well as the countries of North America and Europe. Attendance at most of these conferences has been consistent, and the quality of conference programmes generally has been impressive.

    Table I Some major English-language sport and society journals
    SubjectJournal titleFirst published
    AnthropologyPlay and Culture1988
    EconomicsJournal of Sports Economics2000
    GeographySport and Place1987
    HistoryBritish Journal of Sport History1984
    Canadian Journal of the History of Sport19801
    Journal of Sport History1974
    International Journal of Sport History1984
    Soccer and Society1999
    Sporting Traditions1985
    The European Sports History Review1999
    The Sports Historian1981
    PhilosophyJournal of the Philosophy of Sport1974
    Political scienceno journal
    PsychologyInternational Journal of Sport Psychology1970
    Journal of Applied Sport Psychology1989
    Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology1979
    The Sport Psychologist1988
    SociologyInternational Review for the Sociology of Sport1966
    Journal of Sport and Social Issues1976
    Leisure Studies1982
    Society and Leisure1968
    Sport, Culture, Society1998
    Sociology of Sport Journal1986
    InterdisciplinaryJournal of Sport Behavior1978
    1Founded in 1970 as The Canadian Journal of the History of Sport and Physical Education.

    An indication of the growing public awareness of the value of research on sport and society is provided by the fact that scholars who use sociology and other related disciplinary perspectives to study sports have become recognized widely as ‘public intellectuals’ by journalists and reporters associated with the media. Quotes from and references to the research of these scholars appear increasingly in the popular print and electronic media. Another indicator of widespread interest in sports as social phenomena is the fact that ‘http://Amazon.com’, the major Internet bookseller in the world, listed over 490 books in its ‘Sociology of Sport’ reference category as of June 2000. Additionally, according to an organization that tracks the number of students taking various courses in the United States, there were nearly 30,000 students around the world expected to take ‘sport in society’ courses during the 19989 academic year (CMG College Mailing List). This organization also reported that in the United States alone there were about 580 instructors in all disciplines who taught such courses.

    The existence of organizational endorsement and support along with the continued growth in the pervasiveness, visibility and significance of sports in society supports our thesis that the study of sport and society is a growing field. But at the same time, even in countries where scholars have been using sociology to research sports, mainstream sociology has been slow at the institutional level to acknowledge the growing social and cultural significance of sports and sports participation. The tendency among most sociologists to give priority to studies of work and other ‘serious’ subjects (politics, for example) over studies of play, sports, or leisure has accounted for much of this inertia in the parent discipline. Many sociologists around the world have seen sports as trivial, non-productive dimensions of society and culture that do not merit scholarly attention relative to more ‘serious’ issues and concerns. Furthermore, they have not identified sports as sites for the existence of the issues and problems deemed by many as important in the field. Consequently, the sociology of sport has continued to exist on the fringe of sociology as a whole, and studying sports has not contributed generally to scholars' career enhancement in many sociology departments. For example, data from the American Sociological Association (ASA) indicate that during 1999 only 149 (1.3 per cent) of 11,247 members declared ‘Leisure/Sport/Recreation’ as one of their three major areas of interest, and over half of those scholars focused primarily on leisure rather than sports. Only 37 ASA members, 0.3 per cent of the Association's total membership, identified ‘Leisure/Sports/Recreation’ as their primary research and/or teaching topic, and according to the 1999 Guide to Graduate Departments of Sociology, only two Canadian and two US sociology departments offered a graduate emphasis in the sociology of sport. Furthermore, at the 1998 annual ASA meeting there were approximately 3,800 presenters and co-presenters, and just 20 dealt with sport-related topics in their presentations; two of the 525 sessions were devoted to the sociology of sport. Patterns in the late 1990s were similar in Canada, Britain and Australia (Rowe et al., 1997). The number of scholars doing research and teaching in the sociology of sport in each of these countries has increased. However, they do not constitute a critical mass large enough to present themselves as formal subsections in the major professional sociology associations in their countries.

    Patterns have been slightly different in physical education where professional associations have incorporated the sociology of sport in a formal manner and often designated an organizational subsection to represent those doing research and teaching related to sport and society. This is not to say that these subsections assume prominent positions within the organizations, but they do exist and they do provide institutional support for the field in ways that have not been characteristic in professional sociology associations. In large part this is because those who have figured prominently in the institutionalization of the field have backgrounds in departments of physical education or departments that have grown out of the field of physical education. The development of the field and the backgrounds of those who claim a professional attachment to the sociology of sport reflect this history.

    In addition to an expansion of the field during the last half of the twentieth century, there have also been significant changes in the study of sport and society. There are many ways to highlight this but we will identify some of these changes by comparing the contents of the present volume with the contents of the 1981Handbook of Social Science of Sport edited by Günther Lüschen and George Sage.8 The most obvious contrasts between the two can be inferred through an analysis of the respective tables of contents (see Figure I for the Table of Contents of the 1981 volume, and Table II for a comparison of chapter titles in the 1981 volume with titles of Chapters in the Key Topics Section of this volume). With the exception of two chapters dedicated to anthropological and social psychological analyses, the contents of the 1981 Handbook focused almost exclusively on the sociology of sport a fact implied by their title. The table of contents in the present volume is considerably broader in scope because, as editors, we have been able to draw on expanding contributions from scholars in the disciplines of economics, geography, history, philosophy and political science as well as sociology. The expansion of the study of sport and society is also seen in the fact that the 1981 Handbook contained 24 chapters, while the present volume contains 44. Of course, it is important to note that the 1981 volume devoted over 200 pages, nearly 30 per cent of its content, to an international bibliography and cross-listed index of sport and society publications.

    Contributors to the 1981 volume represented five countries, while contributors for this volume represent 13. Table III shows that 16 of 26 contributors to the 1981 Handbook were born in the United States and an additional five lived in the USA for some time. Only two of the contributors, one from England and one from Germany, lived entirely outside the United States. The fact that the majority of contributors to the present volume come from the United Kingdom and that contributors represent 13 countries in total provides a measure of the increasingly international scope of the sociology of sport and the global reach of research on sport and society. This trend is further documented by the membership of the International Sociology of Sport Association (the former ICSS) which, in the year 2000, included 170 paid-up members representing 34 countries.

    In saying this, we do not wish to exaggerate the degree to which sport and society studies, and particularly the sociology of sport, have spread internationally. The continuing predominance in this volume of contributions from scholars living in the UK and the USA inevitably reflects our own national backgrounds and professional networks as editors. However, it also reflects, we think, the tradition that the field is more clearly identified and developed through research and academic curricula in the English-speaking countries than it is elsewhere, at least in terms of the number of scholars and students. The exceptions to this would be Germany and France, where Bero Rigauer, Klaus Heinemann, Pierre Bourdieu and their colleagues have made important contributions to the field. And we should add that notable developments and contributions from various regions and countries around the globe are summarized in the 12 short chapters that make up Part Four of this volume. Part of our intent in including this section is to stimulate further research in the countries represented by the chapters and in other countries and regions where the study of sport and society is just now being initiated. The ultimate goal is to promote greater global representation in this regard.

    Figure I Contents and contributors to the Handbook of Social Science of Sport, editors G. Lüschen and G. H. Sage, Stipes Publishing Co., 1981

    The proportions of male and female contributors in each of the volumes highlights one of the most significant changes in the field in the two decades separating the two publications. Men constituted 21 of 26 contributors to the earlier volume, a malefemale ratio of roughly 4:1. Men constitute 37 of 51 contributors to the present volume, a malefemale ratio of around 2.5:1. We believe that the 1981 ratio was a reflection primarily of patriarchal structures and values in the world at large and in the social sciences at that time. That these structures and values persist both in the sociology of sport and the wider social world is indicated by the continuing, although lesser, predominance of male contributors in this present volume. However, it is important to stress that the greater number of female contributors to this handbook also represents a clear increase in the number of women scholars who have made contributions to sport and society studies. It also reflects the impact of feminism on the field and the associated and at least embryonic transformations in taken-for-granted patriarchal assumptions that have traditionally influenced research as well as relationships between colleagues.

    Sociological contributions predominate in this volume as they also did in the 1981 Handbook. However, apart from Gregory Stone's symbolic interactionist discussion of ‘Sport as a Community Representation’, a majority of contributions in the earlier volume were implicitly and in some cases explicitly grounded in empiricist (that is, data-based analyses that lacked an explicit theoretical focus) and structural-functionalist assumptions. This emphasis did not represent the Marxist, critical and figurational theoretical perspectives which were emerging at the time. But it did highlight the extent to which early work on sport and society was grounded in and influenced by the notion that societies are most accurately conceptualized as ‘social systems’ possessing ‘needs’ and ‘goals’ and delimited by clear-cut, impermeable and easily determinable boundaries. Of course, these assumptions have been criticized to the point that structural functionalism has been used less and less often to guide research and analysis in sport and society studies since the early 1970s. However, that structural-functionalist assumptions continue to be implicit even in the work of its critics is demonstrated by Loy and Booth in their chapter (Chapter 1).

    At the beginning of the twenty-first century scholars in the field are more likely to take the following positions:

    • Societies are fluid and interpenetrating products of human interaction and interdependence which change and develop over time.
    • Sports and societies are most accurately conceptualized as the unplanned products of the interaction over time of pluralities of conscious, interdependent, differentially powerful, emotional as well as rational ‘embodied’ human beings who make choices.
    • Social life is more open-ended and less determined than previously assumed by structural functionalists and some kinds of Marxists (although to say this is not to claim that it is chaotic, contingent and entirely undetermined).
    • Social processes are best understood in connection with various forms of power relations that are inter-societal as well as intra-societal.
    • The balance and tension that exists between continuity and change in social life has been shifting in favour of change at an accelerating rate at least since the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.

    Overall, it has been widely recognized that there are serious difficulties associated with attempts to understand social life within a framework of essentially static, process-reducing assumptions such as those underlying the Parsonian version of structural functionalism.

    Despite the priority given to structural functionalism in the 1981 Handbook, there was, beginning in the 1960s, considerable conflict over theoretical paradigms.9 This conflict heated up during the late 1970s and early 1980s when Marxist/neo-Marxist, feminist and Marxistfeminist scholars became increasingly vocal and powerful, if not hegemonic, figures in the sociology of sport. As they grew more influential there was an associated change in the dominant professional self-image among sociologists of sport. Rather than seeing themselves as technocratic servants of sport-forms which they uncritically accepted as ‘good’, many began to see themselves as critics whose principal goal was to use research and action to ‘purify’ the ‘pathological’ sport-forms produced under capitalism. The ultimate goal was to secure more egalitarian articulations of sports into more egalitarian social frameworks. Sociologists of sport today continue to have variants of both these self-images but, if we are right, the ‘critics’ have come to outnumber the ‘technocrats’.

    We suggest that the paradigm conflicts that intensified during the 1960s and 1970s in sociology remain today. These conflicts raise complex issues that are perhaps best addressed in this context by means of an historical detour. The first thing worthy of note is that sociology was named as a subject in a conflict-situation, more particularly when Auguste Comte reacted critically to a book published in 1835 by Belgian statistician Adolphe Quetelet. The subtitle of Quetelet's book was An Essay on Social Physics and, although Comte himself had used the term ‘social physics’ up until that time, he ceased from then on to use it. He did so for two main reasons: first, he objected to Quetelet's vision of ‘social physics’ as a primarily statistical subject; and secondly, he objected to what he regarded as Quetelet's scientifically unwarranted egalitarianism. Comte's alternative term was ‘sociology’ (Coser, 1971).

    Another term coined by Comte was ‘positivism’, and the chief positive method that he recommended for use in sociology was the method of historical comparison. In a word, even though the meaning of ‘positivism’ has been changed so that it now refers to the inappropriate advocacy and use of natural science methods in studies of the social field, a struggle between sociologists who advocate comparative-historical methods and those who advocate statistics has been built into our subject since its early days. In the 1960s, this struggle surfaced in the sociology of sport in the different paradigms advocated by Kenyon (1969), Loy (1968), and Lüschen (1967) on the one hand, and by Elias (Elias and Dunning, 1986) and Dunning (1971) on the other. Paraphrasing Ralf Dahrendorf's description (1959) of the new middle class in capitalist societies, sociology and the sociology of sport can be said, like the new middle class, to have been ‘born decomposed’, that is, with differences, conflicts and tensions built into their very core.10

    Other early conflicts in sociology were also noteworthy as we try to put current conflicts in perspective. In late nineteenth-early twentieth-century France there were heated differences between ‘realist’, Emile Durkheim and ‘nominalist’, Gabriel Tarde. Around the same time in Germany there took place what they called the Methodenstreit, the not dissimilar ‘fight over method’, between the ‘posi-tivists’ (in Comte's sense, they were wrongly named)11 and the ‘historicists’. Max Weber sought to resolve this conflict through the suggestion that sociologists should seek explanations that are both ‘causally adequate’ and ‘adequate at the level of meaning’. Interestingly, Weber advocated the establishment of causal relations, not by means of statistical analyses, but by means of counterfactual reasoning.

    These early sociological conflicts were fiercely fought. However, the conflicts between proponents of opposing paradigms that began in the 1960s and continue through today are more intense than past conflicts. For 20 or so years following the end of the Second World War, advocates of functionalist and non-Comtean (that is, ahistorical and even anti-historical) ‘positivist’ sociology, most of them from the United States, reigned supreme. Then, for various sociological and extra-sociological reasons, the functionalist-empiricist hegemony collapsed and the subject, which had been ‘born decomposed’, became multiply fractured. The sociological reasons for this process of decomposition included, among other things, the difficulties encountered by Parsonian functionalism in dealing with issues such as conflict, power and change.12 The extra-sociological reasons included the effects on a younger generation of sociologists whose subject-identities and identifications were being forged in a context that was influenced by powerful events and forces which included: (a) the Vietnam war and the protest against it, (b) the civil rights struggle, (c) the rise of second-wave feminism, (d) the campus rebellions which broke out in North America and many countries in Western Europe, (e) the growth of ‘permissiveness’/ ‘informalization’ and (f) the power shift towards the younger generation. The latter centrally underlay and was reciprocally fuelled by many of these other changes.

    If we are right, the fact that Canadian scholars and others who had not been born in the United States were centrally involved in the left-radicalization of the sociology of sport which took place during the 1970s and 1980s correlatively with these powerful events and forces was no accident. Processes of radicalization are more likely to occur in dependencies than in centres of imperial power such as the USA. But more to the point for present purposes, it seems that sociologists of sport who received their sociological training in the 1960s and early 1970s differed from their predecessors. The former worried less about the dangers of the ‘Cold War’ and focused more on struggling against capitalism which, for most Marxists or near-Marxists, was seen as the principal cause of inequities and global conflict. Perhaps because fewer of them had directly experienced the Second World War, they were more inclined to take peace for granted? Be that as it may, what is certain is the fact that it was precisely when the conflict over paradigms was especially intense that the sociology of sport began to come of age. Like the parent discipline, having been ‘born decomposed’ it, too, became multiply fractured.13

    Since the 1960s, there have been on offer in sociology and the sociology of sport a variety of named paradigms. They include various forms of functionalism (for example, ‘soft’ and ‘hard’), Marxism (for example, ‘humanist’ and ‘structuralist’) and feminism (for example, ‘liberal’, ‘socialist’, ‘Marxist’ and ‘cultural’), together with conflict theory, Weberian theory, rational choice theory, action theory, symbolic interactionism, exchange theory, ethnometh-odology, structuralism, post-structuralism, postmodernism, structuration theory and figu-rational sociology. Among other things, these paradigms differ regarding the positions taken by their advocates in relation to epistemologi-cal/methodological issues and ontological/factual issues. Among the epistemological/methodological issues are the following:

    • Where they see sociology located on the continuum between the humanities and the sciences.
    • If they see sociology as a science, whether they see it as a science in a ‘soft’, for example, comparative-historical or participant observational orientated, sense or in a ‘hard’, that is, non-Comtean ‘positivist’ sense based on statistics and equivalents to experimentation.
    • Whether they see the purpose of sociological knowledge as an ‘end in itself’ (that is, as something that is interesting and valuable for its own sake), as a tool for improving human performance (in our case in the field of sport), or as a means to identify and achieve political goals.

    Among the ontological/factual issues are where their advocates stand in relation to such dualisms as ‘materialism’ versus ‘idealism’, ‘agency’ versus ‘structure’, ‘social statics’ versus ‘social dynamics’, and ‘synchronic’ studies versus ‘diachronic’ studies (that is, whether they see sociology as concerned solely with the present day or whether they see it as an historical subject).

    Approached in these terms, the abundance of paradigms listed above can be categorized into five basic types: functionalist paradigms, conflict paradigms, action paradigms, feminist paradigms and attempted syntheses, such as structuration theory and figurational sociology. Mention of these last two suggests another source of basic differences: the way that advocates of each sociological paradigm deal with the sociologyphilosophy relationship. Thus while Anthony Giddens, the primary architect of structuration theory, advocates a heavy dependency of sociology on philosophy, Elias, the principal originator of figurational sociology, urged sociologists to maximize their autonomy in this and other regards. In a word, while Giddens recommends the continuing relevance for sociology of philosophy, a subject based on metaphysical, armchair speculation and reading other people's books, Elias advocated the constant cross-fertilization of theory and research as the only secure means of advancing knowledge.14 Of course, he stressed comparative-historical research on balance in this connection, rather than research of a statistical kind. Most of the paradigms discussed above are now well represented in the sociology of sport and, up to a point, the conflict and competition between their proponents could be said to provide empirical confirmation of Marx's dictum ‘without conflict, no progress’. That is, the conflict and competition have contributed to the advancement of knowledge in the field. For example, much of the work of ‘male feminists’ owes its insights and acceptance to the sustained and highly effective feminist critique of the hitherto hegemonic status of patriarchal assumptions in the sociology of sport (Klein, 1993; Messner, 1992; Messner and Sabo, 1990, 1994). Seen solely from a present-centred perspective, these advances may not appear particularly great, but seen from the standpoint of those who knew what the sociology of sport was like in the 1960s and 1970s, they are substantial. As another example, there has been a definitive shift from a ‘sociology of women’ to a ‘sociology of gender relations’ perspective as represented in a wide range of ‘female feminist’ work (Birrell and Cole, 1994; Hall, 1996; Hargreaves, 1994; see Chapters 4 and 20 by Birrell and Theberge respectively in this volume). The clash over interpretations of the globalization of sport has also given rise to fruitful and creative analyses. Interpretations informed by Marxism have consistently emphasized that strong elements of ‘Americanization’ have been involved in the worldwide spread of sports (Donnelly, 1996; Kidd, 1991), while interpretations guided by figurational theory have shown, equally persuasively, that globalization is best understood as a trend or social process that is both homogenizing and heterogenizing (Maguire, 1994, 1999).

    In fact, we would suggest that, with the possible exception of the sociology of education which is in certain respects structurally similar, the sociology of sport has been one of the liveliest and most fruitful of the parent subject's subdisciplines since the late 1970s. We realize that such a judgement may reflect our greater familiarity with our own subdiscipline and our relative ignorance of others. Nevertheless, it seems to us and we hasten to add that this has not yet been established empirically that recent output in the sociology of sport has outstripped output in the sociology of law, the sociology of medicine, the sociology of science and probably the sociology of religion. This is almost certainly the case in terms of quantity and probably in terms of quality as well.

    Assuming the validity of this judgement, we hypothesize that the putative fruitfulness of our field relative to others can, in part, be explained structurally. That is, the power and status gap between sociologists and physical educators, like the gap between sociologists and school teachers, is considerably more narrow than it is in the relations between sociologists and lawyers, sociologists and doctors, sociologists and natural scientists, and even sociologists and the clergy. This relative equality has been centrally involved in constituting sociologists of sport as a figuration and the sociology of sport as a social field both of which are characterized by a tension-balance between the polarities of consensus and dissensus, cooperation and rivalry. This tension-balance has fostered creativity in the subdiscipline and this creativity has defused the centrifugal potential that is inherent in the paradigmatic fragmentation of post-1960s sociology. That is to say, in highly differentiated and individualized societies such as the ‘advanced’ or ‘complex’ societies of today, tension in the relations between people who pursue different specializations within a common field is less likely to produce hostility and a spirit of perversity when relationships are relatively equal than when the power and status gap is wide. Relative equality is also more likely to foster greater mutual recognition of what such groups can offer each other. That is to say, lawyers, doctors, and natural scientists are more likely than physical educators to ignore or deny the possibility that sociological investigation can be valuable and add to understanding in their fields of endeavour.

    In a related sense, the relative fruitfulness and high creativity of the sociology of sport may also be fostered by the relative equality between the people in the field employed in sociology departments and physical education departments. This equality within the context of universities has enabled an open dialogue to be maintained between scholars whose principal aim in their work is the advancement of knowledge and scholars whose principal aim is securing socio-political or ‘practical’ sport-related goals. An effective balance has been struck, in other words, between socio-political and ‘practical’ detachment and socio-political and ‘practical’ involvement. On no side have people allowed the search for ‘pure’ knowledge, for ‘practical interventions’ or for idealized political goals to become paramount and exclusive. As a result, the search for knowledge has been aimed at the real world of sports and games, and at increasing our ability to make practical interventions in that world. Finally, the bonds between different specialists in the sociology of sport are further consolidated through a widely shared fondness for sports and a common belief in the value of sociology as a means of enhancing our understanding of sports and society and as a means of informing our involvement in related practical and political issues.

    This discussion of fruitfulness and creativity in the sociology of sport is not meant to imply that we think there are no challenges or problems facing the field as we begin the new millennium. In fact, we are facing a series of serious interrelated challenges that seem to us to revolve around the following.

    1. Dealing with the Consequences of Paradigmatic Fragmentation in Sociology as a Whole This fragmentation has negatively affected our subdiscipline in at least two ways. First, it has on more than one occasion been accompanied by potentially dangerous caricatures of the work of others. When these caricatures become deeply embedded in segments of disciplinary discourse, they are not only difficult to dislodge, but they become subversive of the mutual respect that is required for relationships in the field that are simultaneously critical and supportive. Secondly, fragmentation has weakened sociologists relative to specialists in other subjects, thus making it difficult collectively to resist the intrusion into the field of the representatives of higher status subjects such as philosophy. The prestige that has been or is recurrently heaped on abstract theorizers such as Parsons and Giddens, who are nominally sociologists but really types of philosophers, is one example. Another example is the overly positive reaction of some scholars in our field to ‘postmodernist’ philosophers, primarily those from France, who advocate approaches to the social world parts of which verge on solipsism. Although it is crucial for us to interrogate what is know-able about the social world, the existence of that world, although it may be complex, is a precondition for sociology itself. The challenge for sociology and the sociology of sport is to utilize that which is of value in what the postmodernists have said and continue to say and to abandon the rest. The high status of philosophy should not allow what philosophers argue to go unchallenged.

    2. Maintaining a Balance between Understanding and Action in the Sociology of Sport When scholars in our field place the need for action above the need for understanding, there is a possibility that ‘truth claims’ will come to rest primarily on normative commitments rather than theory-guided empirical research. Although it is important for scholars in any of the social sciences or humanities to discuss what ought to be in a critically reflective and morally reasoned manner, it should not supplant systematic and replicable attempts to understand what is and how it has come to be. This means that while we recognize that sociologists are not morally or culturally neutral analysts who stand apart from the societies in which we participate and, indeed that our socio-political involvements are a source of motivation and knowledge, the viability of our field depends on our ability to develop collective agreement about rules for making ‘truth claims’ or, perhaps better, claims about the ‘reality-congruence’ of our propositions and findings. In the absence of such an agreement, we cannot share and criticize each other's ideas and research in a manner that produces general understanding as well as a foundation of knowledge that can be used to inform intervention and transformational efforts.

    We would argue that there are indeed circumstances when the need to take assertive action must take precedence over the need for understanding, but we would also argue that the identification of such circumstances requires a thorough and thoughtful assessment. We remember Karl Marx's observation that ‘philosophers have interpreted the world in various ways; the point, however, is to change it’. But we also remember that he devoted his life to laying the foundations for a ‘scientific socialism’ through a detailed, empirically based understanding of social relationships and social dynamics. In fact, if he were alive today, he might even look back at history and say that ‘Marxists have tried to change the world in various ways, the point, however, is to understand it’. At any rate, it is important to balance understanding and action.

    3 Engaging in Critical Self-reflection as a Field This challenge should be self-evident in any academic discipline or subdiscipline. However, it is important for scholars to engage in constructively critical self-reflection while avoiding forms of self-deconstruction and deconstruction of the work of others that can jeopardize the political and intellectual foundations of the field. For example, while it is extremely important for the sociology of sport to serve as a site for integrating a range of dissenting voices concerned with sport and society, without a basis for identifying a unity of focus and for making ‘truth claims’ that will be respected and seen as legitimate by others it is possible that the field will lack the status required to elicit and maintain funding within the institutional structure of contemporary universities.

    It is also important for scholars in sociology and the sociology of sport to interrogate the assumptions of cultural neutrality that have traditionally informed theory and research, the organization of the field including professional networks and relationships, the evaluation of colleagues, and the identity development of scholars themselves. Although sociologists in the past have dealt with this challenge from a distance through the sociologies of knowledge and sociology, the growth of various forms of feminist theory, especially cultural feminism (Tong, 1998), has presented this challenge to us in a close-up, face-to-face manner. This has caused considerable discomfort among some men in the field, a few of whom have made considerable contributions to sociology and/or the sociology of sport. During their professional socialization these men learned and accepted at least to some degree that being a good sociologist called for and valorized objectivity in research, and for competition and individualism in their professional relationships. Then certain feminist theorists made a convincing case that this way of being a sociologist was part of a gendered system through which the values and experiences of men were used as the basis for making ‘truth claims’, assessing the quality of research, evaluating colleagues and defining oneself as a scientist. Joining the feminist theories were racial theories and queer theories that critically interrogated ‘whiteness’ and heterosexuality in the same way that feminists had interrogated masculinity in connection with the field. As a result, some white, male, heterosexual sociologists with records of achievement and participation in the parent discipline and our subdiscipline were faced with the accusation that all their ‘truth claims’ were contentious, and that their theories and research were tainted by various combinations of sexism and patriarchy, racism and colonial privilege, and/or heterosexism and homophobia. In the same context there was and continues to be a tendency among some younger scholars to reject previously identified classical scholars and theories as a matter of course. Thus, we are faced with a two-sided challenge. One side involves acknowledging and dealing with the pervasive consequences of longstanding systems of privilege within sociology in general and the sociology of sport in particular. The other side involves coming to terms with the value of past theory and research in the field as a form of data and with the value of those who have done this work as colleagues (Loy and Booth, in press). An inability to face and deal with this dual challenge could leave the field hopelessly decomposed (see Risman and Tomaskovic-Devey, 1999). It is our suspicion as sociologists who no longer consider themselves to be young that forms of ‘ageism’ on the part of both older and younger generations of scholars a mutual inability or unwillingness to recognize common problems of humanity, for example, the old forgetting they were once young and the young being unwilling to entertain the fact that they will age may be among the contributories to this problem.

    4 Maintaining Professional Commitment in the Clash over ‘Modernism’ and ‘Postmodernism’ One of the central struggles in sociology and related disciplines today is over what one might call the validity and value of the promise of ‘modernism’ and whether we have entered or are currently entering a ‘postmodern’ era. Centrally at issue in this connection is the belief that the success of sociology rests in the promise of its theories and methods in delivering the tools necessary for contributing to the creation of a future that will be better than the past and present. In short, what is at issue is whether sociology can make a contribution to human ‘progress’. The seeds of such a belief can be traced, for example, to Condorcet and Turgot in the eighteenth century. However, it first began to be given an explicitly sociological form by thinkers such as August Comte and Herbert Spencer in the nineteenth century. Although he considered himself to be a ‘political economist’, it has come to be customary to include Karl Marx among the earliest contributors to this sociological way of thinking. Despite the often considerable political and scientific differences between them, all these thinkers were united in their belief that history and social development equal ‘progress’, and that social scientific research and theory can be of help in bringing this ‘better future’ into being.15

    Turn-of-the-century sociologists such as Durkheim and Weber were among the first to be involved in the institutionalization of sociology as a university subject and they were also among the first to entertain doubts about the ‘inevitability of progress’. Durkheim, for example, claimed to have demonstrated that nineteenth-century social developments in Europe were leading to increasing rates of suicide, social disintegration and anomie, while Weber hypothesized that the processes of rationalization, which he showed were occurring correlatively with the development of capitalism, were likely in the future to lead to growing ‘disenchantment’ with and of the world (Entzaüberung) and an increase in irrational behaviour.16 There was an attack on ‘progress theories’ in anthropology, too, for example, by Franz Boas and his students,17 and, whilst at the end of his career he became involved in a revival of ‘evolutionary’ sociology, Talcott Parsons began his elaboration of what he called ‘the theory of social action’ with an attack on the ‘evolutionary individualism’ of Herbert Spencer (see Parsons, 1937). Nevertheless, whether he was writing in his earlier ahistorical and static mode or in his latter mode which was diachronic and evolutionary, Talcott Parsons can be said to have played a central role after the Second World War in spreading and consolidating the idea that the promise of ‘modernism’ and ‘modernity’ has to be grounded in an understanding of the properties of social systems (see Parsons, 1951). Such an idea grew during the 1960s and 1970s as a number of more ‘radical’ sociologies, including most importantly varieties of Marxism, were fuelled by the belief that the promise of ‘modernism’ could only be fulfilled through various revolutionary movements and transformations. However, a majority of the proponents of these more radical sociologies continued alongside their more ‘liberal’ (for example, Parsonian) colleagues to stress that more adequate sociological knowledge is a necessary prerequisite for effective social revolution and reform.

    What might be called ‘mainstream sociology’ as we enter the third Christian millennium continues to be organized by and large around the pursuit of social possibilities grounded in the ‘modernist’ notion that it is possible to discover a body of sociological theory which will enable us ‘scientifically’ to establish a ‘normative centre’ or ‘consensus’, that is, a set of normative propositions or principles around which work for a better future might be organized. At least since the writings of the German philosophers, Nietzsche and Heidegger and more recently of French philosophers such as Foucault and Baudrillard who were more or less heavily influenced by their reading of their German predecessors,18 there has been a growing number of social observers and analysts, many with a literary rather than social scientific background, who have concluded in various and what are widely regarded as ‘compelling’ ways that the social world is comprised of unstructured and unstructurable differences (Lemert, 1995: 20911). The goal of their social and cultural analyses has been and continues to be that of understanding that world in as many of its particular and differential details as possible (Rail, 1998). Apparently forgetting or being unaware of earlier sociologists who attacked ‘grand theories’ (such as C. Wright Mills, Norbert Elias, Robert K. Merton, Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss19), such ‘postmodernist’ writers also proclaim the ‘impossibility’ of ‘grand narratives’ or ‘universal theories’ (itself a kind of ‘grand narrative’ or universal lawlike statement, it seems to us!). However, be that as it may, their work has served to disrupt the mainstream search for ‘the normal’. These individuals are describing what they regard as a variety of social worlds in ways that give rise to what they think of as critical analyses of the dynamics of power, denial, marginalization and exclusion that have been at the core of the self-same economic, political, academic and scientific structures in and through which the ‘promise of modernism’ was first formulated and through which it has subsequently been sustained (cf. Lemert, 1995).

    As one might expect, heated debates occur when mainstream sociologists encounter these analysts and their analyses that are not premised on the modernist quest for a normatively ‘centred’ social world. We have seen this in the sociology of sport as well as in sociology as a whole. The futures of the organized discipline of sociology and subdisciplines such as the sociology of sport, rest in the extent to which these debates foster a culture of critical self-reflection and mutual tolerance and respect among dissenting sociological voices and a recognition that the vitality of sociology should not be measured simply by the standards of modern progress. The purpose of these debates should not be to dismiss what ‘classical’ and ‘mainstream’ sociology have to offer in our attempts to understand the social world and the many varieties of lived experiences that constitute that world. Nor should the purpose be to arrive at a single, general explanation of the world and how we might use that explanation to make the world unified through a particular normative consensus. Instead, the purpose, if we wish to continue coming together in formal gatherings to share our experiences and understandings, should be to give voice to a range of experience-based descriptions and explanations of the world. If these descriptions and explanations contain the necessary particular details, we should be able to use them to acknowledge and come to terms with our own differences and then deal with the dilemmas associated with social factors and forces that constrain people's lives, including our own. If we can manage this, sociology can become a means for a critically informed body of knowledge that can serve as a basis for engaging an ever-changing collection of social relationships and the unanticipated problems and issues often associated with them.

    Concluding Comment

    Our sense is that in practical terms the sociology of sport consists of a collection of scholars most of whom claim to do ‘science’, agree on the rules we use to make ‘truth claims’, and then share our claims and how we have arrived at them through publications and discussions. If our ‘truth claims’ are based on empirical data, if there is general agreement on what constitutes data, and if we are committed to a rigorous pursuit of understanding, the diversity and dynamism of the field will enrich our awareness of sport and society and enhance our potential to transform both. The chapters in this handbook represent a version of the ‘state of our understanding’ of sport and society at this point in time along with where we have been and where we might go in the immediate future.

    As we anticipate that future from our perspective as editors of this volume, we wonder about the connection between this present Handbook of Sports Studies and the next similar volume that might be published (probably electronically) in 2020. If the editors of the 2020 volume are a Latin American woman and a black man from postcolonial Africa, how might they select authors and chapter topics? Might they look back at this volume and wonder about our naivety as editors and ask why we did not select other authors or foresee issues related to sport and the law, sport and the environment, sport and postcolonial development, and other topics that should have been discussed at the turn of the millennium? We expect so. And for the sake of the vitality of our field, we hope so.

    Notes

    1 As Loy and Kenyon (1969) note, Weber also discussed the knightly games of feudal Europe.

    2 The Frankfurt Institut für Sozialforschung was founded in 1923 at the University of Frankfurt by Felix Weil, the son of a rich businessman. Its first Director was Max Horkheimer and among its prominent early members were Theodor Adorno, Walter Benjamin and Erich Fromm. More recently, its members have included Herbert Marcuse and Jürgen Habermas. The Frankfurt School (or ‘critical theorists’ as they are also called) are Marxists but it is characteristic of their approach that they concentrate in their work on elements of ‘the superstructure’, that is, on aspects of ‘culture’.

    3 Together with their colleagues M. Baument, M.A. Madders and Beryl Sanders, these four scholars were the authors of an influential pamphlet, Britain in the World of Sport: An Examination of the Factors Involved in Participation in Competitive International Sport (University of Birmingham, 1956). Perhaps the best-known member of the Birmingham group, and certainly the one most influential in the sociology of sport, was Peter McIntosh. See, above all, his Sport in Society (1960).

    4 The proceedings were published by Günther Lüschen (1966).

    5 See Lüschen (1970) for the proceedings of the ChampaignUrbana Conference, and Albonico and Pfister-Binz (1972) for the proceedings of the Magglingen Conference (the French-Swiss name for Magglingen is Macolin).

    6 Rather surprisingly, M. Magnane never took part in the affairs of the ICSS.

    7 A sample of these includes the following: Bryant and McElroy, 1997; Cashmore, 1996; Coakley, 1998; Coakley and Donnelly, 1999; Donnelly, 1997; Eitzen, 1996; Eitzen and Sage, 1997; Figler and Whitaker, 1991; Hall et al., 1991; Hart and Birrell, 1981; Harvey and Cantelon, 1988; Horne et al., 1987; Horne et al., 1999; Lawrence and Rowe, 1986; Leonard, 1998; McPherson et al., 1989; Nixon and Frey, 1996; Phillips, 1993; Sage, 1980; Vogler and Schwartz, 1993; Yiannakis et al., 1993.

    8 It is difficult to compare the 1981 Handbook with the present volume because each was edited under different circumstances. The 1981 volume was originally conceived as part of a larger project that was to take the form of an Encyclopaedia of Physical Education. The Lüschen and Sage contribution was to be one volume in the series that would make up the encyclopaedia. This is partly why over 200 pages of the 1981 volume consisted of a detailed bibliography and cross-listed index of sources that could be considered a foundation for the field at that time. Also, contributors to the volume were chosen in part because of their connection with physical education as it had developed primarily in the United States. In fact, the series editor was an exercise physiologist who had reservations about the critical nature of some of the work done in the sociology of sport during the 1970s.

    9 Related to this observation on our part, it should be noted that a handbook, or any similar volume, is often a more or less conservative representation of a field or body of literature. Authors are selected on the basis of their past work and the extent to which it has been accepted by established publication outlets and incorporated into the mainstream literature of the discipline or subdiscipline. Although we, too, may be guilty of this charge, we have tried in this volume, within the limits of our own professional experiences, to stretch the understanding of what the sociology of sport comprises by including new ideas and perspectives along with those that are widely recognized and discussed.

    10 Dahrendorf's (1959) point was that the new middle class of the twentieth century had consisted of white-collar workers and bureaucrats, differentiated groups with few, if any, common interests.

    11 Towards the end of the nineteenth century, German academics became sharply divided over the status of the ‘human’ or ‘social sciences’. The ‘positivists’ in this debate (for example, the psychologist Wundt) argued that the social sciences can use the same methods as the natural sciences, whilst the ‘historicists’ (for example, the philosophers Dilthey, Rickert and Windelband) argued that the human ‘mind’ or Geist (spirit) constitutes an autonomous sphere of reality which is not subject to law-like regularities similar to those which are studied by the natural sciences. It is reasonable to hypothesize that, like Weber, Comte would not have identified with either side in this dispute but would have sought a higher level resolution. What is certain, though, is that the main ‘positive’ method recommended for sociology by Comte was the method of historical comparison (see Andreski, 1974: 192ff).

    12 It is clear that Mertonian functionalism did not encounter these difficulties to the same extent, except perhaps in relation to power.

    13 This fact is not apparent in the volume edited by Lüschen and Sage.

    14 According to Anthony Giddens, ‘the social sciences are lost if they are not directly related to philosophical problems by those who practise them’ (1984: xvii). For Elias, by contrast, Western philosophy has been locked at least since Descartes and Kant in what he (Elias) called homo clausus modes of thinking which are not conducive to the advancement of knowledge about human beings and human societies. For a discussion of this complex issue, see Elias (1978).

    15 The Reverend Thomas Malthus's Essay on Population (1798), in which he pessimistically argued that population growth will always outstrip food supply, constituted an exception in this context.

    16 See Durkheim (1952) for his arguments, and see Gerth and Mills (1946, especially p. 139ff) for a discussion of Weber's theory of ‘disenchantment’. Weber took this term from poet and playwright Friedrich Schiller.

    17 German-born Franz Boas (18581942) was Professor of Anthropology at Columbia University, New York, from 1899 to 1936. Probably the most famous of his students were Margaret Mead and Ruth Benedict. Whilst accepting the reality of biological evolution, Boas and his followers denied the reality of its socio-cultural equivalents, that is, social or cultural ‘evolution’ or ‘development’.

    18 For a clear and insightful sociological diagnosis of the relationships between sociology and philosophy, see Kilminster (1998).

    19 Already in the 1950s, C. Wright Mills (1959) developed a sharp critique of what he called ‘grand theory’. Around the same time, R.K. Merton (1957) argued for ‘theories of the middle range’. Somewhat later, Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss in lectures and private discussions suggested that sociology needed ‘grounded theories’. Norbert Elias's favoured term in this connection was ‘central theory’ of which he considered his own theory of civilizing processes to be an exemplar.

    References
    Albonico, R., Pfister-Binz, and K. (eds) (1972)Sociology of Sport: Theoretical Foundations and Research Methods [Soziologie des Sports: Theoretische und Methodologische Grundlagen]. Basle: Magglinger Symposium.
    Andreski, S. (ed.) (1974)The Essential Comte. London: Croom Helm.
    Beckford, P.(1796)Thoughts on Hare and Foxhunting. London.
    Birrell, S., Cole, and C. (eds) (1994)Women, Sport, and Culture. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
    Bryant, J., and McElroy, M.(1997)Sociological Dynamics of Sport and Exercise. Englewood, CO: Morton.
    Cashmore, E.(1996)Making Sense of Sport, 2nd edn. London: Routledge.
    Coakley, J.(1978)Sport in Society: Issues and Controversies. St Louis, MO: CV Mosby.
    Coakley, J.(1998)Sport in Society: Issues and Controversies,
    6th edn.
    New York: McGrawHill.
    Coakley, J., Donnelly, and P. (eds) (1999)Inside Sports. London: Routledge.
    Coser, L.(1971)Masters of Sociological Thought. New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich.
    Dahrendorf, R.(1959)Class and Class Conflict in Industrial Society. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
    Donnelly, P.‘The local and the global: globalization in the sociology of sport’, Journal of Sport and Social Issues20(3)239–57(1996)
    Donnelly, P. (ed.) (1997)Taking Sport Seriously. Toronto, ON: Thompson Educational.
    Dunning, E.(1961)‘Early stages in the development of football as an organized game: an account of some of the sociological problems in the development of a game’. MA thesis, University of Leicester.
    Dunning, E.(1971)The Sociology of Sport: a Selection of Readings. London: Cass.
    Durkheim, E.(1952)Suicide: a Problem in Sociology. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
    Edwards, H.(1973)The Sociology of Sport. Homewood, IL: Dorsey Press.
    Egan, P.(1812)Boxiana. London: Sherwood.
    Eitzen, D.S. (ed.) (1996)Sport in Contemporary Society, 5th edn. New York: St Martin's Press.
    Eitzen, D.S., and Sage, G.H.(1978)Sociology of American Sport. Dubuque, IA: Wm. C. Brown.
    Eitzen, D.S., and Sage, G.H.(1997)Sociology of North American Sport. Madison, WI: Brown and Benchmark.
    Elias, N.(1978)What is Sociology? London: Hutchinson. Elias, N.(1996)The Germans: Power Struggles and the Development of Habitus in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries (edited by Michael Schröter and translated from the German by Eric Dunning and Stephen Mennell). Cambridge: Polity Press.
    Elias, N., and Dunning, E.(1986)Quest for Excitement: Sport and Leisure in the Civilizing Process. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
    Figler, S.K., and Whitaker, G.(1991)Sport and Play in American Life, 2nd edn. Dubuque, IA: Wm. C. Brown.
    Gerth, H., Mills, and C.W. (eds) (1946)From Max Weber. New York: Oxford University Press.
    Giddens, A.(1961)‘Sport and society in contemporary England’, MA thesis, London School Economics.
    Giddens, A.(1971)Capitalism and Modern Social Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Giddens, A. (1984) The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Cambridge: Polity Press.
    Glaser, B., and Strauss, A.(1967)Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative research. Chicago, IL: Aldine.
    Guttmann, A.(1978)From Ritual to Record. New York: Columbia University Press.
    Hall, M.A.(1996)Feminism and Sporting Bodies: Essays on Theory and Practice. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
    Hall, M.A., Slack, T., Smith, G., and Whitson, D.(1991)Sport in Canadian Society. Toronto, ON: McClelland and Stewart.
    Hammerich, K., Heinemann, and K. (eds) (1975)Texte zur Soziologie des Sports. Schorndorf: Hoffman.
    Hargreaves, J.(1994)Sporting Females: Critical Issues in the History and Sociology of Women's Sports. London: Routledge.
    Hart, M., Birrell, and S. (eds) (1981)Sport in the Sociocultural Process, 3rd edn. Dubuque, IA: Wm. C. Brown.
    Harvey, J., Cantelon, and H. (eds) (1988)Not Just a Game: Essays in Canadian Sport Sociology. Ottawa, ON: University of Ottawa Press.
    Horne, J., Jary, D., Tomlinson, and A. (eds) (1987)Sport, Leisure and Social Relations. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul (Sociological Review Monograph 33).
    Horne, J., Tomlinson, A., and Whannel, G.(1999)Understanding Sport: an Introduction to the Sociological and Cultural Analysis of Sport. London: EandFN Spon.
    Ingham, A., and Donnelly, P.‘A sociology of North American sport: disunity in unity, 1965–1996’, Sociology of Sport Journal14(4)362–418(1997)
    Kenyon, G. (ed.) (1969)Aspects of Contemporary Sport Sociology. North Palm Beach, FL: The Athletic Institute.
    Kidd, B.‘How do we find our voices in the “new world order”’? A commentary on Americanization. Sociology of Sport Journal8(2)178–84(1991)
    Kilminster, R.(1998)The Sociological Revolution. London: Routledge.
    Klein, A.(1993)Little Big Man: Bodybuilding Subculture and Gender Construction. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
    Lawrence, G., Rowe, and D. (eds) (1986)Power Play: Essays in the Sociology of Australian Sport. Sydney: Hale and Iremonger.
    Lemert, C.(1995)Sociology after the Crisis. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
    Leonard, W.M.II(1998)A Sociological Perspective of Sport, 5th edn. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
    Loy, J.(1968)‘The nature of sport: a definitional effort’, Quest 10 (May): 115.
    Loy, J., and Booth, D. (in press) ‘Emile Durkheim’, in J.Maguire, and K.Young (eds), Research in the Sociology of Sport (Vol. 1): Perspectives in the Sociology of Sport. London: JAI Press and Ablex Publishing Ltd.
    Loy, J.W., and Kenyon, G.S. (eds) (1969)Sport, Culture and Society. New York, NY: Macmillan.
    Lüschen, G.(1966)Kleingruppenforschung und Gruppe im Sport. Cologne: Westdeutscher Verlag.
    Lüschen, G.‘The interdependence of sport and culture’International Review of Sport Sociology2127–39(1967)
    Lüschen, G. (ed.) (1970)The Cross-Cultural Analysis of Sport and Games. Champaign, IL: Stipes.
    Lüschen, G., Sage, and G. (eds) (1981)Handbook of Social Science of Sport. Champaign, IL: Stipes.
    Lüschen, G., Weis, and K. (eds) (1976)Die Soziologie des Sports. Darmstadt: Luchterhand.
    Magnane, G.(1964)Sociologie du Sport. Paris: Gallimard.
    Maguire, J.‘Sport, identity politics, and globalization: diminishing contrasts and increasing varieties’, Sociology of Sport Journal11(4)398–427(1994)
    Maguire, J.(1999)Global Sport: Identities, Societies, Civilizations. Cambridge: Polity Press.
    McIntosh, P.(1960)Sport in Society. London: Watts.
    McPherson, B.D., Curtis, J.E., and Loy, J.W.(1989)The Social Significance of Sport: an Introduction to the Sociology of Sport. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
    Merton, R.K.(1957)Social Theory and Social Structure. New York: The Free Press.
    Messner, M.A.(1992)Power at Play: Sports and the Problem of Masculinity. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
    Messner, M.A., and Sabo, D.F. (eds) (1990)Sport, Men, and the Gender Order: Critical Feminist Perspectives. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
    Messner, M.A., and Sabo, D.F. (eds) (1994)Sex, Violence and Power in Sports: Rethinking Masculinity. Freedom, CA: The Crossing Press.
    Mills, C. Wright(1959)The Sociological Imagination. New York: Oxford University Press.
    Nixon, H.L.II, and Frey, J.H.(1996)A Sociology of Sport. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company.
    Parsons, T.(1937)The Structure of Social Action. New York: The Free Press.
    Parsons, T.(1951)The Social System. Glencoe, IL: The Free Press.
    Phillips, J.C.(1993)Sociology of Sport. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
    Rail, G. (ed.) (1998)Sport and Postmodern Times. Albany, NY: State University Press of New York.
    Rigauer, B.(1969)Sport und Arbeit. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp Verlag (trans. A. Guttmann (1981) Sport and Work). New York: Columbia University Press).
    Risman, B., Tomaskovic-Devey, and D. (eds)‘Symposia Values, politics, and science: the influence of social movements on sociology’, Contemporary Sociology: a Journal of Reviews28(3)255–88(1999)
    Risse, H.(1921)Soziologie des Sports. Berlin: Reher.
    Rowe, D., McKay, J., and Lawrence, G.‘Out of the shadows: the critical sociology of sport in Australia, 1986–1996’, Sociology of Sport Journal14(4)340–61(1997)
    Sage, G.H. (ed.) (1980)Sport and American Society: Selected Readings, 3rd edn. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
    Shearman, M.(1887)Football: Its History for Five Centuries. London: Longmans.
    Shearman, M.(1889)Athletics and Football. London: Longmans.
    Snyder, E.E., and Spreitzer, E.(1978)Social Aspects of Sport. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
    Stone, G.(1955)‘American sports play and display’, Chicago Review 9 (Fall): 83–100.
    Sumner, W.G.(1906)Folkways: a Study of the Sociological Importance of Usages, Manners, Customs, Mores, and Morals. Boston, MA: Ginn.
    Tong, R.(1998)Feminist Thought: a More Comprehensive Introduction,
    2nd edn.
    Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
    Veblen, T.(1899)The Theory of the Leisure Class. New York, NY: Macmillan.
    Vogler, C.C., and Schwartz, S.E.(1993)The Sociology of Sport: an Introduction. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
    Waller, W.(1932)The Sociology of Teaching. New York: John Wiley and Sons.http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/11443-000
    Weber, M.(1958)The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (translated by Talcott Parsons). New York: Charles Scribners.
    Wouters, C.‘Formalization and informalization: changing tension-balances in civilizing processes’, Theory, Culture and Society3(2)118(1986)
    Yiannakis, A., McIntyre, T., Melnick, and M. (eds) (1993)Sport Sociology: Contemporary Themes, 4th edn. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.

    • Loading...
Back to Top

Copy and paste the following HTML into your website