Sociological Versus Empiricist History: Some Comments on Tony Collins's ‘History, Theory and the “Civilizing Process”’

Sport and Leisure

“…It is a regrettable fact that, while the scientific process involves careful examination and revision of theories, the term ‘critique’ has acquired an almost theological sense. In this regard, progress in the field does not necessarily mean a demolition of one's own or others’ theoretical foundations while robust critique and counter‐critique such as that between Collins (2005) and Curry, Dunning and Sheard (2006), for example, are crucial to the advancement of knowledge about sport. It is to these and other controversies that we now turn.…”

“…Briefly, Collins charged Dunning and Sheard (2005 [1979]) with exaggerating levels of violence in their seminal work on rugby union, presenting long‐term change as linear progress and projecting the present into the past. In their robust response, Curry et al. (2006) accepted the charge of exaggerating levels of violence in Northern (English) rugby but strongly rebutted Collins's criticism of the status‐rivalry hypothesis for the bifurcation of soccer and rugby as well as his accusations of teleological thinking.…”

“…It is this developmental focus which has, perhaps, exercised earlier generations of figurational sociologists more, while younger generations have certainly strengthened the present-centred focus and applicability of the paradigm, though not to the detriment of maintaining developmental sensitivities – that is, without ignoring the impact of ‘the past’ on ‘the present’. In this connection, figurational studies in the sociology of sport and leisure (at least in the Atlantic Isles) have so far been mainly concerned with the problem areas of the social aspects of sports injuries (for instance Roderick et al , 2000; Sheard, 2006; Liston et al , 2006; Pike and Maguire, 2003); sport, health and drugs (e.g., Waddington, 2000; Waddington and Smith, 2009); sport and race (Dunning, 1999b; Jarvie, 1992); sport, leisure and gender relations (e.g., Colwell, 1999; Mansfield, 2007; 2008; Liston, 2005; 2007; 2008; Velija and Malcolm, 2009); young people's sporting and leisure lives (for instance Smith and Green, 2005; Smith et al , 2007); physical education (Green, 2002; 2008a; Green et al , 2009; Smith and Parr, 2007); the globalization of sports, national identities and the migration of players and athletes (e.g., Bloyce, 2004; Liston and Moreland, 2009; Maguire, 1999; 2005; Maguire and Poulton, 1999; Maguire and Tuck, 2005; Molnar and Maguire, 2008); football hooliganism, spectator and player violence in sport (Dunning et al , 1988; Dunning et al , 2002); the development of modern sports in civilizing processes, not all of which are necessarily team or contact-based sports (e.g., Sheard, 2004; White, 2004; Malcolm, 2004; Smith, 2004; Lake, 2009); and the growing commercialization and professionalization of sport particularly at the elite levels (e.g.,…”

“…22 Put differently, Elias argues against the idea of ‘history without structure, a collation of details determined more by traditions and transient fashions than by systematic cross-fertilization with any consistent theory’ (2008: 138). It was in this context that figurational sociologists and historians of sport demonstrated their respective differing commitments to sociological versus empiricist history (see, for example, Collins, 2005; Curry et al , 2006). Briefly, Collins charged Dunning and Sheard (2005 [1979]) with exaggerating levels of violence in their seminal work on rugby union, presenting long-term change as linear progress and projecting the present into the past.…”

“…Briefly, Collins charged Dunning and Sheard (2005 [1979]) with exaggerating levels of violence in their seminal work on rugby union, presenting long-term change as linear progress and projecting the present into the past. In their robust response, Curry et al (2006) accepted the charge of exaggerating levels of violence in Northern (English) rugby but strongly rebutted Collins's criticism of the status-rivalry hypothesis for the bifurcation of soccer and rugby as well as his accusations of teleological thinking. In this connection, they also clarified the differences between a ‘retrospective judgement about a factually observable sequence [and] a statement about an inevitable progressive trend’ (Curry et al ., 2006: 117), the latter criticism arising from the misconception that the application of a wide ranging theory of scope and depth, such as that of figurational sociology, equates to a form of linear if not evolutionary thinking.…”