Welcome back! In today's lecture, we're going to look at two sociological theories in more depth. In this lecture, I will highlight several of the key points from Jay Coakley's chapter "Using Sociological Theories"
Our objectives include: Understanding a major split between theories, Understand functionalist and conflict theories, Assumptions, System Functions, Weaknesses
The sociological theories we will discuss this week can be broken into two families: structuralist theories and social action theories. As you can see from this diagram, structuralist theories include functionalist and conflict theories. These structuralist theories look at society from a macro perspective: they tend to focus on society's larger systems: religion, the economy, the media, family, etc. Sructuralist theories tend to take a top-down approach: they assume that these macro-systems dictate how society works. Individuals behave the ways they do because of norms, shared values, and social rules. Social action theories take a very different approach. They look at society from a micro-perspective: in other words, they focus on the individuals within a society. These social action theories tend to take a bottom-up approach: they assume that a society's norms and rules are dynamic and are formed by the interactions that happen between people. Today, we'll focus on the two Structuralist Theories: functionalist and conflict theories.
Coakley explains that "functionalist theory is based on the assumption that society is an organized system of interrelated parts held together by shared values and established social arrangements that maintain the system in a state of balance or equilibrium." A helpful analogy is the human body, which is also an organized system of interrelated parts. Like society, your body wants to maintain balance and equilibrium so that it can remain healthy. Your body relies on exercise, good food and warmth to function; society relies on established social arrangements, which include social norms, social rules, and shared values.
Social norms outline expected behaviors: for example, men are expected to wear pants and not dresses in US modern culture. Social norms are not fixed, but they are very powerful, and most people in a society follow these norms so that they can be included in the larger community. Social rules outline expected behaviors in a more explicit way: you might think of them as the laws of a society. We have plenty of examples: social rules teach us not to steal from or murder other humans. Shared values are part of a society's larger ideology: the things that are foundational to the way society works. Shared values help us create meaning and a plan for what we should do and why we should do it. Social institutions, such as the family or sports, teach us these values. In the US these values include: being a team-player, being competitive, and being a good consumer.
So, functionalist theory understands society as a big, integrated system of parts. Thanks to social norms, social rules, and shared values, the system should function well and remain balanced. You might think of functionalist theory as the status-quo theory: it is interested in preserving social systems as they stand. It does not seek change; it does not acknowledge that individuals in a society might have very different ideas about how the system should function.
To sum up, functionalist theory assumes that social order is based on shared values and that social order happens most efficiently when all the parts are working together. Sports can play a role in this social order by promoting the society's shared values, by building character, and by having a positive impact on society by keeping the parts running smoothly.
Sports can help to: Socialize people into shared values, Promote social connections ? cooperation, Motivate people ? achieve accepted goals, In so doing, sports can protect the larger social system from disruption.
Functionalist theory is powerful stuff: it explains why sports can play a very powerful role in preserving the status quo of a society. However, functionalist theory also has several weaknesses: It overstates the positive impact that sports have on a society. Think, for example, about all the negative behaviors that sports help to create: the commercialism of mass spectatorship, the fame and untouchability of celebrity athletes, the overzealous coaches and parents pushing child athletes to their limits. Functionalist theory also ignores that sports are often used as tools of control by the wealthy and powerful. Everyone does not have equal access to sports and even if they do, sports are often unequal playing fields for people of various races, classes, genders, and abilities. Finally, functionalist theory assumes sport is stable. As we have seem from our brief history lessons, sport is anything but stable. It is constructed by each society to fit the needs of that society. Sport changes over time and by place.
Like functionalist theory, conflict theory takes a structuralist approach. Unlike funcationalism, which focuses on the many integrated parts of the system, conflict theory focuses on only one system: economics. According to Jay Coakley, "Conflict theory focuses on the ways that sports are shaped by economic forces and used by economically powerful people to increase their wealth and influence."
We might think of conflict theory in terms of this diagram in which economics is at the center influencing all of the other parts of society, from family to the media to sport. Key terms here include class relations (which we studied when we looked at Marx and modernity last week), wealth, power, and privilege.
Very basically, conflict theory assumes that: Economics is at the center of social relations, Social class shapes relationships, Economic power is a tool for exploitation. In terms of sports, a conflict theorist would argue that athletes are being exploited for their labor. Because of this—and I'm hoping you remember something of your lessons from last week—athletes come to feel alienated from their bodies and their labor. They are being used by a larger system that produces socio-economic inequality (the team owners get rich by exploiting the players) and a mass opiate for spectators who sit back and simply watch. Powerful companies benefit from athletes and fans by way of profits from merchandise and ticket sales.
As with any good Marxian revolution, a conflict theorist believes that a revolution would cause several changes in the system: The increase of play and the decrease of spectacle, The creation of a liberating, empowering experience, rather than an experience of exploitation, And a focus on the local, rather than the larger, mass commercial spectacle. In short, a revolution would get athletes back in touch with their labor, take profits away from the economically powerful, and establish a more organic system that could empower athletes of all kinds.
Conflict theory has several weaknesses of which you should be aware: first, it overstates the negative aspects of sport. If functionalists are too positive, conflict theorists are too negative: they see sports as tools of the wealthy and powerful; yes a revolution might occur, but, like most Marxist revolutions, change would be fleeting and the economically powerful would take over the system eventually. Conflict theorists do not see all of the potential positive aspects of sports, including the chance to be part of team, to develop self-worth, to get some exercise, etc. Think, for example, about the potential positive impacts of wheelchair rugby, not as a commercial entity, but as a change to rethink disability. Second, conflict theory overestimates the power of the economy as the singular and driving force behind society. In this way, conflict theory ignores all of the powerful influences of other social systems: the family, the media, etc. Instead of being powerful in their own right, these other systems are seen as extensions of the economy (remember back to our diagram?) Finally, conflict theory assumes that power is used self-interestedly. It does not assume that economically powerful people could use their influence to make positive changes to sport or society. Changes such as funding a new baseball field for disadvantaged kids.
In closing today, I would urge you to think through each of these structuralist theories using some examples from your own experience. If you are an athlete (of any kind) what is it like? Do you feel like you have to follow certain norms and rules? Has your sport bought into any larger shared values? As a college athlete, do you feel like you are being used by the economically powerful university? Is your labor being exploited? Keep in mind that these theories are meant to be used to help us understand various social situations. So even as you learn the basics about each theory, keep thinking about how you can apply them to sports and your own experiences.
