Binary Oppositions

Though the consideration of binary oppositions originates in Greek philosophy, and specifically the observations of Parmenides, the basis of more contemporary discussions can be found in the structuralist work of Ferdinand de Saussure and Noam Chomsky which suggests that language involves two-part systems, where terms, words or concepts are defined by their counterpart and, more importantly, by what they are not. For instance, male is defined as opposite and in contrast to female, as is black to white, high to low, good to evil, and so on …

Lévi-Strauss (1966) suggested that these codes of opposition operate at a level that is not conscious or directly observable, but at a level that is sometimes described as that of deep structure. The study of culture, according to structuralists, consists of an examination of cultural forms. These cultural forms are the result of the human mind being brought to bear on particular environments. Lévi-Strauss argued that the resultant cultural forms all exhibit the same pattern, that of binary oppositions. What is significant is not the different contents, but the identical patterning of cultural forms and, hence, their structure.

The unequal nature of binary oppositions is developed further by Jacques Derrida, who points our attention to how one side of each binary pair is always ‘preferred’ to the other (such as ‘good’ over ‘evil’ or ‘masculine’ rather than ‘feminine’), which is the product of imbalances of power and knowledge. Derrida suggests that this privileging of one component of a couplet is always based upon ‘presence’ and ‘absence’ – such as in Freudian psychoanalysis, when the female is defined as an absence of masculinity (and more specifically the phallus), which is seen as the ‘norm’. However, Derrida suggests that binary oppositions are fundamentally flawed and unreliable and seeks to deconstruct these, pointing to how these oppositions are far from set or natural. In particular, Derrida breaks down the boundaries between binary pairs and argues that, rather than being understood as opposites, it is important to understand how these will blur and collapse into each other.

Given the focus of Derrida's own deconstruction of philosophy is ‘Plato's Pharmacy’, the issue of drugs in sport is an appropriate example to illustrate how this concept can be applied in leisure studies. Following Derrida, we can understand drug use as the scapegoat of sport. It is frequently seen as an ‘evil’ found in sport that must be cast out to maintain its ‘purity’ and ‘true’ ‘essence’. However, Derrida deconstructs this order and in the process undermines the logic that there is some ‘true’ ‘essence’ of sport. Drug use has been prevalent in sport since its inception (both as a performance enhancer and as a remedy for injuries) and as a scapegoat it must belong inside sport, yet it must also belong outside because it undermines the ‘true’ ethos of sport. Deconstruction suggests that our ethical decision making about drugs in sport is socially constructed and based upon a set of judgments that rely on the invocation of existing frameworks of power and knowledge about what is ‘deviant’ and what is ‘normal’ in sport.

...