Welcome to Lesson 7! This week we will finish our study of how various bodies participate in are represented by modern society and sport. We began by looking at some theories about sport socialization; these will still form the foundation for our investigations this week. But for this week, we will focus on issues of race and gender. In so doing, we will revisit the concept of "intersectionality" that we began to discuss last week.
Today's lecture will focus on Richard Giulianotti's essay "Race, Ethnicity and Intolerance in Sport." My goal is to draw out his main arguments so that they become more clearly articulated and linked to the objectives of our course. After today's lecture you should be able to: understand three myths, race is clearly defined, blacks are good athletes, systematic racism has been eradicated, think critically about race and sport.
Before we begin, I'd like you to practice "stepping out" for a minute. Ask yourself the following questions: What race are you? How do you know? Is your race part or all of your identity? Do you have the right to speak for your race? How about for your gender? Your class? Who else has the right to speak for your race? I ask these questions as a way to get you thinking about some of the ideas and identities that you may take for granted. Do these questions make you uncomfortable? Would they make you uncomfortable if you had to discuss them in a larger group? Why? What is it about race, in particular, that makes it such a hot topic in the U.S. and abroad?
In his essay, Giulianotti also asks us to think more broadly about race and intolerance. Given our lectures from the past week, our own critical questions might include the following: How have we been socialized to think about race? Why have some races been deemed more "fit" than others? "Fit" for what? Has "race" been invented? Is there anything natural about "race"? What are some of the myths about race? Guided by Giulianotti's essay, let's take a closer look at three myths about race.
The first myth we'll discuss is that "Race is clearly defined." When I asked you those opening questions, I was hoping you might pause a moment to think: huh, how do I know what race I am? Who told me? What other races are there? Are races really all that different and easily distinguishable?
Race is difficult to define, in part, because it depends on so many factors that may or may not be related. Should we define race by blood or by heritage? By phenotype (what we look like) or by genotype (our DNA)? Who should define race? Us or someone observing us? All of these questions have led to much strife and conflict and bloodshed over the past centuries. From American slavery practices, to British colonialism, to the Nazi holocaust. Race matters: but we don't have a satisfactory way to define race. Race is enigmatic: it's a puzzle without a clear answer.
In pursuit of defining race, many people have turned to science. In Western post-Enlightenment culture, science is seen as the arbiter of all things. Science seems to be objective and capable of finding the answers we seek. But science often muddies up the question of race even further.
In the 1930s, scientists used "race" as a means to justify a study about the long-term effects of syphilis. 600 black men (399 w/ syphilis and 201 without the disease) were enrolled in the study. During the course of this study, it was discovered that penicillin would cure syphilis. But the study was not halted. The infected men were not offered the treatment; the scientists used them as a living experiment to see what were the long-term consequences of the disease. In fact, the study continued for 40 years, well into the 1970s. The result: many died, many more unknowingly infected their partners and children who also died.
Why was this study allowed to continue? Why were black men considered appropriate research subjects who could be tested without consent and then allowed to suffer and die with a curable disease? One answer is a particular definition of race: blacks, as a race, in America were deemed to be less than human - a belief that carried over from systems of slavery in the U.S. The Associated Press reporter who broke the story wrote that "For 40 years, the U.S. Public Health Service has conducted a study in which human guinea pigs, not given proper treatment, have died of syphilis and its side effects." This definition of race allowed scientists to justify the creation of human guinea pigs.
More recent pharmaceutical research that has targeted one particular ‘race' - again, African Americans - has been met with much skepticism largely because of this longer history of experimentation that includes the Tuskegee syphilis study. Bidil, a heart drug developed in the past decade, has been tested exclusively on African Americans. This time, race has been defined by the subjects themselves: if they self-identified as African American, they could be included in the study. The difference here with Bidil is that scientists stopped the study once they realized the drug worked. Thankfully, time has changed certain aspects of the definition of race. For more information about Bidil and race, you can check out the link on the Readings and Lecture page for the week - it will take you to the MSNBC clip you see on this slide.
Bidil video clip: http://video.msn.com/v/us/msnbc.htm?g=31b57fe9-2ff9-4ea6-8232-d388106dc008&f=00&fg=email
Finally, we might think about one last definition of race from a scientific point of view. We asked earlier how we might define race: by blood? By heritage? By DNA? According to the Human Genome Project, "DNA studies do not indicate that separate classifiable subspecies (races) exist within modern humans. While different genes for physical traits such as skin and hair color can be identified between individuals, no consistent patterns of genes across the human genome exist to distinguish one race from another." So much for that theory - or should I say, myth?
Source: http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/minorities.shtml
Some of you might be wondering: why are we talking about science? This is a course about sport and modern society . . . My answer is Giulianotti's answer: we have to think more largely about where sport fits into systems of power. Or as Giulianotti puts it: "sport cannot be analytically dislocated from other domains of structured power" (72). The definitions of race and evidence of racism that exist in other aspects of society are often transferred to sport. As we have seen all semester: sport is not separate from other parts of society; sport is simply one more aspect of modern society. By studying sport, we begin to understand society; by studying society, we begin to understand sport.
The second myth we'll discuss today is the belief that blacks are better athletes. Take a minute and think back to Giulianotti's essay. Do you have as sense of how this myth emerged? How it has changed over time. And on what stereotypical assumptions is it based?
Notions of race and ideologies of racism have a long history. According to Giulianotti, there are several precursors to the myth that black are better athletes including the inverted relationship between "physique and intelligence" (63). Whites were fit to rule, Anglo-Saxons argued, because they were more intelligent, even if they were less physically advanced. Blacks were fit to serve because they were less intelligent and had more robust physiques. According to this logic, the black athlete is a brute, capable of physical feats, but unable to lead a team or make intelligent decisions. This leaves leadership roles, such as coaches and quarterbacks open to whites. This logic is all ideologically driven; it is not based on fact. Other myths include the Middle Passage Myth: that "slavery enhanced black physicality" (63) and the myths you see on this slide. I have listed the major assumption and in parentheses a sense of the arguments that dispute these myths.
The best way to combat these myths is to remember three things: The reason and logic behind each myth is based on social assumptions, not on real or natural difference, the myths are applied only to single populations (such as African Americans); whites are not subjected to the same reasoning or myths, finally, and very simply, the myths rely on very poor logic that cannot and has not be substantiated.
Ok, so let's move on to our last myth for today: that systematic racism has been eradicated. I think Giulianotti's essay alone refutes this myth given the number and strength of his examples of institutional racism around the globe. But let's take a closer look at two arguments that Giulianotti makes.
First, Giulianotti argues racism has taken different forms that are harder to see. For example, stacking - the placement of white athletes in power-positions - still promotes racial stereotypes and myths, it's just harder to see. Likewise, and as Giulianotti points out, intersecting oppressions are often harder to see. It may be that it's now easier for African American males to get involved with sport, but this masks the fact that African American females still struggle for recognition. I would encourage you to check out the other arguments made by Giulianotti concerning the continued power of institutionalized racism all of which can be found on pp. 72-74.
For a more specific example of institutionalized racism that persists today, we need only look to sport mascots who rely on American Indian stereotypes. From the Braves, to Chief Illini, these images and representations of American Indians are harmful. As the image above explains: "we're humans, not mascots." And yet, even though American Indian peoples have expressed frustration, anger and good logical arguments for the removal of these stereotyped images, mascots persist. As Giulianotti argues: "such crude signifiers demean native American culture, and reflect its custodian' subaltern position within American society" (Giulianotti, 67).
Take a look at this video (available in the Readings and Lecture page in Compass) for a well-reasoned and impassioned argument to end the use of mascots. We began today's lecture with a question: What race are you? How do you know? Hopefully, today's lecture has demonstrated that race is a slippery object: it's difficult to define, has been used in the production of myths, and continues to haunt modern society and sport.
I want you to keep all of this in mind as you read the short story assigned for tomorrow "Vanilla Dunk." As you read, also consider the following questions: What makes an athlete great? Is athleticism a natural trait? Can skills and moves be learned? Does it matter if an athlete uses technology, supplements, etc. to improve his/her game?
