Social class can be characterized by several different factors such as economic, cultural, education and social status. According to Gardiner (2006) these different factors contribute to sport participation rate. Coakley and Whites (1992) qualitative study brings out some of these agendas. Interviews were conducted on 34 young men and 26 young women ranging in age from 13 to 23. They were predominately from working class families and the interviews focused on the sporting opportunities they had in their area. Results showed that most of the men and women felt they were deprived of sporting opportunities and facilities, with most of their constraints relating to money, parents and physical education in school. According to Functionalists, several constraints can be linked by social norms and values (Chapman 2004). Results showed that many of the younger children stated their parents had no desire to play sport or for their children to play sport. These norms and values are accepted by the child, who take the same approach. Another key issue that came from the results was the thought of poverty. The majority of the participants said they didn’t have the money to play in certain sports and participate at different facilities. Conflict theory looks in particular at the difference in sporting activity, which wealth can cause.
Conflict theorists believe that those with economic power exploit those with less power in order to increase their status and wealth (Coakly, 2009). Blanchard (1995) describes sport as a tool of oppression which creates a false sense of power and diversion consequently masking the exploitation and differences in wealth between the rich and poor. Those in power therefore take the full benefits of sport. Sport is run by wealthy owners and large corporations who have capitalist values and have a lifestyle based on competition and production. When people accept capitalist values without any question sport becomes a source of false and unrealistic sense of social life (Nixon, 2008). Research has been conducted on conflict theory. Rinehart and Grenfell (2002) study looks at how a simple grass root scheme of a BMX park in a socially deprived area is placed there with the intentions of gaining profit and making money for the wealthy. Looking back at past research, conflict theory was used in Flint and Eitzen’s (1987) study on professional sports team ownership and entrepreneurial capitalism. From their research they came up with three arguments. Firstly sports team owners do not maintain the social and corporate linkages found among capitalists in other industries. Secondly, these owners participate in the sports industry because it is both profitable and secure. Finally, the workings of a self- regulating monopoly and the popularity of sport enhance the reproduction of capitalist social relations and ideology (Flint and Eitzen, 1987). Both these pieces of research suggest that conflict theory is correct and sport involves financial and economic gain for the wealthy while the lower classes are exploited. However some sociologists would argue that conflict theory ignores that it may be possible for sports to have a positive on individuals and groups. It does not take into account that sport can act in the interests of the ‘have nots’ in society and act as a beneficial and creative experience which may inspire people to make economic changes (Coakly, 2009).
When researchers look at social class they often link ideas and hypothesis with gender. This next part of the essay is to briefly discuss gender and how it contributes to social exclusion in terms of sport participation.
Gender
When studying males and females in sociology it is key to address the distinction between the terms sex and gender. Sex is defined as a person’s biological status while gender refers to a person’s learned or cultural status and is determined by the structure of society and social norms (Wilson, 1989). Sport is uniquely positioned to reinforce the key elements of the basic ideology that women are less powerful and are inferior to men and that these differences are natural phenomenon, rather than the products of social process. (Collins and Kay, 2003). However the twentieth century has seen this assumption come under attack (Houlihan, 2008). Nevertheless sports participation by women and girls is lower than participation by men and boys in almost every country in the world and many sociologists especially feminists would argue that women face exclusion in sport. In Britain, these differences in participation between the sexes begin to emerge in late secondary school years (Houlihan, 2008). Curtis, Mcteer and White’s (1999) study on school sport experience and sport participation in later life show that sports participation is high during school years and the gap between the sexes is only three percent. However outside school, girls are less likely than boys to be frequent participants in sport and more likely to give up sport after they leave school (Curtis, Mcteer and White, 1999). Results also show that differences in sport participation rate between sexes increases in adulthood and women show preference for less structured sport and are less likely to take part in competitive sports. Feminists argue that this difference in sport participation is due to constraints that they face, while other sociologists argue that it is women’s own choice (Eitzen, 2000).
Globally, the participation of women and girls in sport has increased and recent research such as Browns and Connely’s (2010) can be put against Cutis, Mcteer and Whites (1999) past study to show this. However there is still a gap between sexes and women participate in different sports to men. Houlihan (2008) states that this target of going to the gym and fitness exercises is obviously directly linked to the idealised female body image. This along with issues surrounding the belief that female sports participants equate to lesbians has contributed to feminists argument that women face social exclusion within sport. Flintoff’s (1994) observation of physical education in schools showed that males had a stereotype of the ideal women’s physique, which girls played into the hands of when dressing for P.E. In addition to this remarks were made, especially from the girls, that those women that were good at sport and enjoyed it, were homosexual. This suggests that females are forced away from sports as they are afraid of all the stereotypes that go with it. However interprativist sociologists would argue that everyone has free will and anyone can break away from these types of stereotypes (Blackledge and Hunt, 1982).
Gender expectations are instilled at an early age. Parents, as a result of their own sex role- socialisation, transmit gendered values to their children that reproduce stereotypes. By the time they have reached school age, many children have learnt that physical active play is appropriate for boys but less so for girls and the way in which sport is portrayed is influential in limiting its appeal to women. Media coverage has been a major provider to perceptions of sports limited relevance to women (Houlihan, 2008). Both the media and women’s involvement in sport has undergone profound changes; however contemporary coverage of sport remains discriminatory and contains overwhelming bias. Research has shown that this is the case not only just on the grand scheme but also over a stretch of small associations. Pedersons (2002) study shows us how athletics was portrayed in the media over a 1 year time frame. Over a 1-year timeframe, 602 issues were randomly selected from 43 daily newspapers. This sample produced 1792 articles that fit the study’s codebook. The articles revealed that female athletics, even when compared to three independent standards (gender breakdowns of school enrollment, participation rates, and number of sports offered), was significantly under-represented in both number of articles and total column inches. Male athletics not only received significantly more written coverage, but its articles were also more likely to be better positioned and have photographic accompaniment than those about female athletics. Results like this reinforce notions that women’s sport has less intrinsic value than men’s and that taking part in sport is only normal for women when it involves activities that correspond with predictable female gender role images (Harris and Clayton, 2002). ‘The lack of coverage of women’s sport at performance and excellence levels not only undermines women competing at these levels but deprives all females of role models to counter these views’ (Houlihan, 2008, p146).
Conclusion
The aim of this essay was to look at how sports participation is directly affected by social exclusion. From looking at the topics class and gender; past and present research shows that the issues of social exclusion has improved and the gap of sports participation between upper and lower classes and males and females has decreased over time. Nevertheless there is still issues in both topics which still need addressing, predominately the access lower classes have to upper class sports and the lack of media attention that the women face. However it is important that it is not assumed that these two groups are the only groups affected by social exclusion. In many of the studies class and gender were related to race, whilst we must not forget that the disabled and older ages are less likely to take part in sport. Not only is this the case in sport but all different groups of people need to be accounted for in sociology if wider patterns are going to be found in institutions such as education and health. (Nixon, 2008).
It is clear there is a growing amount of data gathering on social exclusion, however it is important that we don’t assume that all data is legitimate and correct. Questions in sociology are always asked on the study technique of the researcher. There may be problems with the methodology or the interpretation of the data. For example a researcher who is interviewing an individual or group may cause them to act differently and cause interviewer bias, where an observation made by one person may be interoperated differently to another person. All in all, generally research is a good indication of the real social world and it is nearly impossible for research not to have faults (Z. Greaves, S. Kirkby and C.Reid, 2006).
References
Blackledge, D and Hunt, B. (1985). Sociological interpretations of education. London. Routledge.
Bramham. P and Hylton. K. (2007). Sports development policy, process and practice. London. Routledge.
Brown K.J and Connolly.C (2010). The role of Law in Promoting women in elite athletics. Journal of Sociology of Sport. 45 (3) p.p 66 - 89
Chapman, S. (2004). Sociology. Glasgow. Letts and Lonsdale.
Clagton, C and Harris, J. (2002) Handbook of Sports and Media. London. Routledge.
Coakly, J. (2009). Sports in Society: Issues and Controversies. New York. McGraw-Hill.
Coakly. J and White A (1998). Making Decisions: Gender and sport participation among British adolescence. Journal of Sociology of Sport. 9 (1). p.p 269- 292
Collins M. (2004). Sport, Physical Activity and Social Exclusion. Journal of Sports Science. 22 (8) p.p 727-740
Collins, M.F and Kay. T. (2003). Sport and social exclusion. London. Routledge
Curtis.J, Mcteer.W, White.P (1999). Exploring effects of school sport experiences on sport participation in later life. Journal of Sociology of Sport. 16 (4) p.p 312-330
Dveine. P. (1997). Social class in America and Britain. Edinburgh. Edinburgh University Publishers.
Eitzen, D.S (2000) Sport in Contemporary Society. New York. Worth Publishers
Eitzen, D.Z (1987). Professional sports team ownership and capitalism. Journal of Sociology of Sport. 4 (1) p.p 316-340
Flintoff. A (1994). Sexism and Homophobia in Physical Education: The Challenge for teacher educators. Journal of Sociology of Sport. 17 (2). p.p 598- 534
Gardiner S. (2006). Sports Law. London. Routledge
Greaves Z, Kirkby S and Reid C. (2006). Expereince research social change. Toronto. University of Toronto Press
Grenfell, C and Rinehart, R (2002) BMX spaces: Children’s Grass Roots Courses. Journal of Sociology of Sport. 19 (3). p.p 111-134
Hayes S and Stidder G. (2003). Equity and Inclusion in physical education and sport. London. Routledge
Houlihan, B. (2008). Sport and Society: a student introduction. Oxford. SAGE
Lawton.D (1975). Class, Culture and the Curriculam. London. Routledge
Macionis. J.J and Plummer. K. (2005) Sociology: a global introduction. Essex. Pearsons.
Millward.P (2009). Glasgow Rangers Supporters in the City of Manchester: The Degeneration of a ‘Fan Party’ into a ‘Hooligan Riot’. International Review for the Sociology of Sport. 44 (4) p.p 381-398
Nixon, H.L. (2008). Sport in a changing world. Michigan. Paradigm publishers.
O’Neil, M (2005) Policing Football: Social Interaction and Negotiated Order. Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan.
Pederson P.M (2002). Investigating Interscholastic Equity on the sports page: A content analysis of high school athletics newspaper article. Journal of Sociology of Sport. 19 (4) p.p 882-906
Renson. R (2002). Social sports stratification in Flanders 1969-1999: Intergenerational reproduction of social inequalities. International review for the sociology of sport. 37 (4) p.p 219-245.
Stempel. C (2005). Adult Participation sports as a cultural capital. International review of the sociology of sport. 40 (5). p.p 411- 432.
Wagg. S. (2004). British football and Social exclusion. London. Routledge.
Wilson. H.T. (1989). Sex and Gender: making cultural sense of civilization. Oxford. Blackwell