However, such a subculture has created ‘mainstream’ or dominant cultural knowledge for “…the media is not simply another symbolic good or marker of distinction but a network crucial to the definition and distribution of cultural knowledge” (Thornton, 1995:203). Hence the continual coverage received by these subcultured sports only reinforces and exemplifies the dominant cultural knowledge that ‘masculine’ sports are only to be engaged by men. Rose & Friedman (1997) further claim that, “[t]he masculine universe constructed by television sports seems to work to reinforce this patriarchal power structure” (p12).
BOXING – A case study
In America, before the 1900s, boxing was part of an ‘underground’ subculture that involved only white American men of lower social class. The sport began as a bare-knuckle contest fighting for a cash prize called a ‘purse’ – traditionally called ‘prize-fighting’. Spectators watched in angst and excitement as their bets won or lost. At that time, “in a new era of commercialised leisure, more and more people became interested in funding and staging boxing matches because of the money which could be earned at the gate” (Sugden, 1996:30). Boxing was still outlawed in many parts of the United States.
However, it wasn’t too long until this subculture was to be consumed by economic capital and media projection. Sugden (1996) states:
“A revolution in the communications industry made this possible and through newspapers and over telegraph wires, news of the build-up to and outcome of the fight was disseminated by embryonic sports media across America and around the world” (p31).
The revolutionary fight was the Sullivan-Corbett contest, a fight between two men of different social class. Corbett was an agile young man of middle-class whilst Sullivan was an older and heavier man of lower class. This three-day match gained record audiences more so for the underlying battle between young and old, traditional and new and small and large. The more agile Corbett defeated Sullivan and he “…symbolised much that was modern America – a confident and sophisticated urban society which was ready to shake free from the harsh and often brutish conditions which had characterised life both in the cities and at the frontier for much of the nineteenth century” (Sugden, 1996:32). This modernist and post-industrialist symbolism of boxing became an essential part of American patriotism, especially leading up to the involvement in the First World War.
Success in the ring, particularly if this led to the heavyweight championship of the world, came to symbolise not only the individual achievement, but also the racial and national superiority. Initially, a colour bar was introduced that prohibited the participation of black or ethnic immigrants. However, there was a decline in serious white contenders and Americans had to relax the colour bar to allow a black man, Joseph Louis Barrow, to fight his way to the top of the heavyweight rankings and uphold America’s symbolism. Barrow, or ‘Joe Louis’ was also a classic case of lower class society and broken personal history. “[H]e was from a broken home, moved with his mother to Detroit at the age of six, dropped out of school when he was eleven and ran in the streets until a friend introduced him to boxing” (Sugden, 1996:36). Despite his ghetto upbringing, he began competing in international fights and in June 1937 beat James Braddock for the heavyweight championship of the world. When the racism surrounding boxing contenders depleted, then began the dawning of new boxing champions and role models.
Muhammad Ali’s introduction into the ring in the 1960’s brought about much controversy in his political opinions. He was a renowned fighter but refused to support America’s involvement in the war. He created an anti-war lobby, which the NYSAC (New York State Athletic Commission) temporarily stripped of his boxing license. “An environment which brought together media money, showmanship, corruption and machiavellian political infighting was made for a man like Don King” (Sugden, 1996:45). ‘The King’ was the next regainer of the world championship, and then came Mike Tyson.
Taking this historical perspective, we can construe a subculture created by the medium of mass media of the boxing ring. The boxing ring is a site of physical and psychological aggression between two men. Initially, it was only a white man’s sport tied into the lower social class and involved the ‘underground’ culture of gambling. Its popularity and media coverage of the Sullivan-Corbett fight initiated a symbolism of American modernism and inspired significance during the First World War. The extinguishing of the colour bar initiated the involvement of black and ethnic contenders who became heavyweight champions and iconic role models. The legalisation of boxing and the huge endorsements by organizations created and mediated media’s trajectory of the sport. Hence, now we only see men participating in the sport of boxing, which has become dominant cultural knowledge. But not only does media televise boxing as male-dominated, there are also signifiers of masculine ideologies which females are not regarded to engage in.
‘Masculinity’ and the role of women in boxing
Lisa McDermott (1996) argues the two representations of women in sport:
“First, females who engage in the traditional “masculine” sports often have their sexuality called into question, either through practices such as sex testing at competitions, or being labelled as “unfeminine”, butch, lesbian, and so forth. On the other hand, women who engage in “traditional” female sports are held up as the appropriate female sporting models” (p15).
The subordination and categorisation of women also occur in sport. As mentioned earlier, subcultured sports like football, rugby, boxing or ice hockey, are perceived only for male engagement. The main concern for this is the “definitive expressions of physicality” (McDermott, 1996:13). Physicality is linked to power and thus male physical power and masculinity. Hargreaves’ (1986) ideas on the connections between male power, muscularity, and masculinity suggests that male power is symbolized in the muscularity of the male body, which in turn is a key indicator of masculinity.
This is certainly the case for boxing. “[B]oxing is an essentially masculine activity, associated with the male physique and psychology, and with no organic connection with femaleness” (Hargreaves, 1997:35). The aggression, violent incentives and physical excretions are all signifiers of masculine activity. Rose & Friedman (1997) describe how masculinity is projected in television sports coverage:
“The irreconcilable ideals of masculinity come to a head-on collision on these organised battlegrounds, where macho aggressivity is both required and punished.” (p8).
The role of women in sport significantly differs to those of men and relate back to Mulvey’s feminist theory of “to-be-looked-atness”. Women are passive, submissive and objectified for male voyeurism. “Successful female athletes tend to be positioned in glamorous, inactive and often sexually suggestive poses that ignore their athletic skills and performances, thereby reducing them to objects of the desire of male gaze” (McDermott, 1996:15).
There is a distinct correlation between women’s bodies and sexuality in boxing. Hargreaves (1997) takes an historical perspective of women in boxing and looks at their role and imagery in the sport. Women’s perceived role in the boxing culture is either as spectators or models holding up the round cards. However, if the female is inside the boxing ring as a contender, she is still sexualised and exploited. The battered body of a male represents different signifiers to that of a female…
“…the battered body of the male boxer [is] a symbol of defeat, of heroic masculinity; the battered body of the female boxer [is] the very denial of the supposed essence of femininity and a symbol of brutalisation and dehumanisation, at the same time creating an image of exciting and animalistic sensuality” (Hargreaves, 1997:37).
Furthermore, the satisfaction and popularity gained from a fight between women is not motivated by courage, skill and endurance but sexual gratification. For men, “it’s explicit sexualization through bare breasts and the ripping of clothes, its scope for male fantasies, and its potential as a surrogate for male brutality against the ‘weaker’ sex, increased the entertainment value of women’s boxing into the 20th century” (Hargreaves, 1997:38).
“Girlfight” as a feminist text
The film “Girlfight” tells the story of an 18-year-old schoolgirl, Diana Guzman, fighting the perils of love, life and boxing. She lives in the ghetto community of the Bronx with her father and younger brother. Her mother has suicided due to her father’s abuse and her loneliness, rejection and anger finds her with an aggressive and short-tempered disposition. Her father has forced her brother, against his aspirations, to train in boxing because “he needs to look after himself when he goes out there”. From this, she discovers her objective to be a boxer and perseveres through discrimination, stereotype, male patriarchy and dominant values. Finally, she wins the “gender-blind” amateur championship defeating the male opponent, her boyfriend.
The imagery presented in this film is certainly not that of the protagonist female being passive, submissive, ‘weak’ or sexualised. It presents quite the contrary. Here is a young girl who not only employs the traditional roles of the female (nurturer for her father and younger brother) but also embodies signifiers of masculinity or non-femininity. She is toned and built, she does not care for beautification and dresses, she is aggressive and determined and she is challenging the male subculture of boxing. Unfortunately, she maybe perceived as the radical feminist who is butch, unfeminine and androgenous (Walters, 1995; Charlton, 2002).
Though here is a feminist text that primarily presents the female protagonist as physical and empowering rather than objectified. She is the representation of McDermott’s (1996) contention of physicality as an agency where the ideas are surrounded by: “the positive expression of the embodied self, control, power, capability, personal change, knowledgeability, and unintended consequences” (p19). Throughout the narrative, you begin to understand and perceive the change of Diana Guzman from being passive, distraught, and self-pitying to being empowered, determined and disciplined. Furthermore, the final match between her and her boyfriend metaphorically displays the challenge of dichotomies: female/male, weak/strong, superior/inferior and patriarchy/subordination. “Girlfight” is the feminist equivalent to the “Rocky” series starring Sylvester Stallone. However, the final consensus was not of good over evil, but equality, respect and deconstruction of gender hierarchy and power relations.
Towards equal gender representations
As discussed, the media is fundamental in governing certain ideologies. Certain male dominated sports are continually being reinforced through mass media representations and thus fixating dominant cultural knowledge. Boxing is one subcultured sport where male contenders create physicality as masculinity and reiterate male patriarchy and power. Male boxers like, Mohammad Ali and Don King, are presented as iconic role models and endorsed by million-dollar organizations. Sylvester Stallone in the “Rocky” series has also enjoyed capital gains through entertainment audiences. However, boxing was initially a white man’s sport where blacks and ethnics were discriminated against, hence presenting the current situation with females and sport.
Brooks (1997) quotes, “women, like colonised subjects, have been relegated to the position of “Other”, “colonised” by various forms of patriarchal domination” (p109).
Films such as “Girlfight” are indeed a positive and iconic representation towards the equality of men and women in subcultured, male-dominated sports like boxing. If the media governed and further endorsed females in boxing as legitimate and genuine contenders, there would not be a declined alienation from the sport. Females should be encouraged where the focus of ‘physicality’ is on empowerment and self-discipline rather than a distinct correlation to the female body as sexualization and objectification. For “the reality that women’s restricted experiences of their physicality have served to reproduce the existing gender hierarchy through its implicit validation of the underlying belief (i.e., the “natural” physical superiority of males) supporting this hierarchy” (McDermott, 1996:26).
BIBLIOGRAPHY
-
Atyeo, D. (1979), Blood & Guts: Violence In Sports, Cassell Publishing, Australia.
-
Bourdieu, P. (1993), Sociology in Question, translated by Nice, R., SAGE Publications, London.
-
Brooks, A., “The ‘Landscape of Postfeminism’: The intersection of feminism, postfeminism and post-colonialism”, Postfeminisms: feminism, cultural theory, and cultural forms, New York and London: Routledge, (1997).
-
Hargreaves, J., “Women’s Boxing and Related Activities: Introducing Images and Meanings”, Body & Society, (1997) v3: 33-47.
-
McDermott, L., “Towards a Feminist Understanding of Physicality within the Context of Women’s Physicality Active and Sporting Lives”, Sociology of Sport Journal, (1996) v13(1): 12-30.
-
Mulvey, L., “Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema”, in Media and Cultural Studies: Keyworks, ed. Durham, M.G. & Kellner, D.M. (2001) Blackwell Publishers, UK.
-
Rose, A. & Friedman, J., “Television Sports as Mas(s)culine Cult of Distraction”, in Out Of Bounds: Sports, Media & the Politics of Identity ed. Baker, A. & Boyd, T. (1997), Indiana University Press, USA.
-
Sugden, J. (1996), Boxing and Society: An International Analysis, Manchester University Press: Manchester and New York.
-
Thornton, S., “The Social Logic of Subcultural Capital (1995)”, in The Subculture Reader, eds. Gelder, K. & Thornton, S. (1997) New York: Routledge.
-
Walters, S.D., “Postfeminism and Popular Culture”, Material Girls: Making Sense of Feminist Cultural Theory. Berkeley: University of California, (1995).
