Understanding sports violence: revisiting foundational explorations

Abstract

Within this paper we discuss the importance of attending to definitions of 'violence'. Through a return to a selection of important foundational works, we attempt to unpack the fundamental meanings of violence in a general sense, and sport violence in particular. With a specific focus on the need for definitional clarity, and particular attention to the 'ritual' dimensions of sport violence, we argue that engaging with these concepts is essential when conducting research in 'violent' contexts. Based on a critical reading of a small selection of relatively recent scholarship in sports settings, we ultimately argue that without careful consideration of what can constitute 'violence', scholars risk misrepresenting the social worlds they investigate. In conclusion we call for researchers to enter into a dialogue with foundational explorations of violence and to pays far greater heed to the definitions favoured by practitioners who engage with apparent 'violence' on a regular basis.

“It's Only Sport”—The Symbolic Neutralization of “Violence”

“…While it is important to accept that there are differences between the "mimetic" and the "real" in terms of sports-related violence (see Matthews and Channon 2016), it is our contention that narratives reflecting this important conceptual distinction are employed by fans in ways which effectively invite the dehumanization of players. Thus, they assist in normalizing the commodified world of professional sport where athletes' bodies and bodily damage are reduced to a site of production and signification.…”

“…Indeed, during our previous research within combat sports subcultures we evidenced a recurring theme from various participants who experienced their actions as substantively different from the “real” violence that occurs outside of the ring/dojo/cage (Channon ; Matthews , ). Clearly such understandings trouble simplistic claims that the “brutal body contact” of ice hockey (and similar sports) is fundamentally the same as “real” violence (see also Matthews and Channon ). Yet, we contend that the availability of such symbolism can act as an opaque ludic veneer, masking the realities of commodified, professional sport through the insistence on separating sporting realities from those of the wider world.…”

“…In another recent paper (Matthews and Channon ), we draw attention to the philosophical and empirical underpinnings of the use of the term “violence” in sport settings, particularly highlighting the importance of exploring the degree to which actions in sport might constitute “violations.” In focusing on the ice hockey players “volunteering” to be the target of physical damage, and their apparent pay conditions, James voids our attempts to cast athletes as victims of any such violation—either by other players, or implicitly, by the structures of professional sport which are conducive to the harm previously outlined. In this way, players' injuries were marked as excusable in that they had “chosen” to play the sport (and in so doing accepted the associated and partially managed risks) for financial gain.…”

“…and so therefore they can be understood and experienced differently by those involved—even at times when their physical consequences are identical. For lack of space, we are unable to fully elaborate on the debate over whether the concept of mimesis is useful in conceptually explaining actual acts of sport‐based violence (see Atkinson ; Maguire ; Matthews ; Matthews and Channon ), and since this is not the point of our study, we will not engage more in this discussion here. Instead, we use this term in the present article to describe the discursive handling of hockey violence observed among our sample.…”

“…See Matthews and Channon () for a discussion around the importance of attending to the manner in which participants articulate their understanding of engaging in sports “violence.”…”