A dominant culture is one that is said to possess qualities like high cultural capital. This is a term to describe resources such as power, wealth (economic capital) and status (social capital), often acquired at birth. The upper classes have these resources in abundance. According to Barker (2002) it ‘acts as a social relation within a system of exchange that includes the accumulated cultural knowledge that confers power and status’. This concept is heavily exploited by the upper class as they often use their sporting and leisure practices as a forum for public display of their status and identity. (Bordieu, 1978). Sports such as Hunting, shooting, polo and other equestrian sports are stereotypical of the upper classes, as they involve the highest investment of time, money and cultural capital. These types of sports are often marked by authenticity claims, authority and distinction. (Gruneau, 1983). It is what they wear, and how they act that distinguishes them. They have a lot of disposable income; so can afford all the expensive equipment needed. The phrase “All the gear but no idea” would seem to suffice. You are unlikely to see a person of upper class origin playing tennis, whilst wearing flip-flops, and Hawaiian shorts.
Exclusivity of these sports is sometimes achieved through legal protection. For example laws on trespassing, and club rules allowing ‘closure’. The activities take place on private land owned by the aristocracy, and therefore deters working class people from participating, as they cannot afford to. (Carr, 1986). It is a prime example of how social inequalities are perpetuated in sport.
Polo is a sport characterized by royal patronage, high costs, and strong military links. This helps to maintain its elitist nature; its show of wealth and its limited entry stresses the class/sport relationship. Its exclusivity is highlighted by the fact that the sport has 1,200 registered players in only 30 clubs nationwide (Anon, 1991). Tennis and golf are also becoming more exclusive, as participation is often through membership only. (Stoddart, 1991) describes these types of clubs as ‘A social oasis, where exclusiveness and real estate value physically separate them from the rest of the community’. These sports developed under the influence of a rise in disposable income, leisure time, private car ownership, and the realization of active sport playing a big part in personal health. According to Bordieu (1978) the middle/upper classes approach their physical culture in a way that emphasizes good health and hygiene and prestigious forms of exercise and display. E.g., aerobics and cardiovascular workouts at health clubs. Compare this to the ‘working class demand’ for the ‘outward signs of strength’ particularly in sports such as boxing, where masculinity and brutality are necessary to succeed. (Beattie, 1996).
Challenging Social Inequalities
Boxing is a good example of a ‘working class sport’ showing how these equalities can be challenged. Participants are mostly unskilled, unemployed males from working class backgrounds, longing for the prospect of fortune, and a release from ‘material deprivation’. Social mobility - ‘changes in wealth, education, and occupation over a person's lifetime’ (Coakley, 2007) can be achieved through sports, which results in release from poverty. Publicity surrounding the successful from such backgrounds keeps the sports located within a working class culture and allows aspiration to spread like fever, particularly amongst young people. The successful then become role models, as they have shown that social mobility can be achieved. (Beattie, 1996). This is an excellent example of how sport can be part of class relations –‘social processes that revolve around who has economic power and how that power is used’ (Coakley 2007), rather than simply class stratification.
Rugby union in South Wales, and Rugby league in the North of England, require a low involvement of cultural capital and clearly show how the ‘rags-riches’ scenario can easily become reality for workingmen from these areas. (Holt 1986). Based on the social class of these men, and the resources available to them, success was achieved by adopting an American based approach – Meritocracy ‘A social system in which rewards and occupational positions are allocated on the basis of merit, rather than ascriptive factors such as class, gender, ethnic group or wealth’ (Benabou, 2000). A ‘no pain, no gain’ attitude is paramount.
Carroll (1984) illustrates how social barriers are slowly eroding in sports such as hunting. Supporters clubs are a ‘tangible force’ and evidence of a social mix, which is a formidable defence against the sport’s critics. Although horse racing can be enjoyed by any class group, social stratification is still particularly evident. Horse racing is characterised by the upper-class owner, middle-class trainer, and the lower class worker in the betting shop. (Vamplew, 1976). The FA cup is a classic yet ironic example of stratification in modern day sport. Royal patrons surrounded by a bourgeoisie of administrators reward players (mostly of working-class background) with their winner’s medals. (Hargreaves, 1986)
The literature above shows how some of these class inequalities are being challenged. Some groups in society however, attempt to try and tackle these inequalities themselves.
Football hooliganism is predominantly associated with working class behaviour, a phenomenon that lacks a legal definition. The term ‘football hooliganism’ is a construct of the media and politicians rather than a social scientific concept. It is used in a ‘cover all’ sense, in which various forms of violence are grouped together under the umbrella term ‘football hooliganism’, to refer to football fans who cause ‘harm’ to society. (Frosdick & Marsh 2005). Its emergence has been acquitted to economic and social changes in society, but also to football itself. Commercialisation, internalisation, and proffesionalisation of the game has led to the alienation of working class fans from a historically working class game. (Robson, 2000). According to Taylor (1971), hooliganism is ‘the democratic response by the rump of a soccer subculture to the bourgeoisification of their game’. It can be seen as one of the consequences of the changing relationship between the game and its audience.
Dunning (2000) uses a figurational approach to explain hooliganism in terms of the structure of the lower strata of society and the traditional relationship between members of the strata and football itself. For many working class men, fighting is one of the only sources of excitement, meaning, and status gaining opportunity available to them, but also is a way of defending their territory. Positive feedback from peers falls back on aggressive behaviour in many areas of social relation. (Robson, 2000). A lot of research on hooliganism has been criticised as speculative and lacking any form of empirical confirmation. According to Dunning (2000) “Hooliganism is unlikely to stem from identical social roots”. Spaijj et al. (2003), found that hooligan groups at Dutch clubs Rotterdam and FC Harlem, contained many relatively highly educated individuals coming from bourgeois middle-class backgrounds. In an ethnographic study of militant football fan groups in Andalucia, 77% were students. Also, in a study of 246 Athletico Madrid ‘Ultras’, it was found that 50% of them were students, and 25% of them were at University level. (Diaz, 2004).
This research is evidence of how slowly but surely diffusion across class boundaries is taking place. Some people are now bridging the gap and playing sports or taking part in activities, i.e. Hooliganism, that are not normally associated with their class group. Despite this diffusion, social stratification is always going to be a factor in modern day society, and social class will always affect participation. This is why class boundaries in sport will remain intact for a long time to come.
Reference List
Allen, M.P, Broyles, P. (1989).
Class Hegemony and political finance. American Sociological Review, Vol. 54, No. 2, pp. 275-87
Barker, C. (2002). Making sense of cultural studies: Central problems & critical debates, London: Sage
Beattie, G. (1996). On the ropes: Boxing as a way of life, London
Benabou, R. (2000). Meritocracy, re-distribution and the size of the pie, In meritocracy and economic inequality, Princeton University press
Bordieu, P. (1978). Sport and social class, Social science information, Vol. 17, No. 6, pp. 819-40
Carr, R. (1986). English fox hunting: A history, revised edition, London, pp. 230-46
Carroll, T. (1984). Diary of a fox-hunting man, London, Futura
Coakley, J. (2007). Sports in Society, Issues and Controversies, 9th edition, P322-55
Diaz, R.A. (2004). Football fans groups in Spain, Unpublished paper, university of Seville
Dunning, E. (2000). Towards a sociological understanding of football hooliganism as a world phenomenon, European journal on criminal policy and research, Springer Netherlands, Vol. 8
Frosdick, S., & Marsh, P. (2005). Football Hooliganism, Cullompton: Willan publishing
Giddens, A. (1993). Sociology, Cambridge: Polity Press, P212.
Gruneau, R. (1983). Sport and society, Annual review of sociology, Vol. 17
Hargreaves, J. (1986). The state and sport: programmed and non-programmed intervention in Britain, Manchester University press, pp.242-61
Holt, R. (1986). Working class football and the city: the problem of continuity, British journal of sports history, Vol.3
Marx, K. (2001). Capital: A Critique of Political Economy, Penguin/Vintage, London/New York, NY, Vol. 1
Marx, K. (1993). The transition from feudalism to capitalism, journal of theory and
society, Springer Netherlands, Vol.22
Robson, G. (2000). No-one likes us, we don’t care, The Myth and Reality of Millwall Fandom
Spaijj, R., & Torre, E. (2003). Rotterdam Hooligans, Aspects of hooligan violence, a re-appraisal of sociological research into football hooliganism, Amsterdam school for social science research
Stoddart, B. (1991). Historical dimension in the British sports experience: A review article, Sporting traditions, Vol. 7, pp. 207-13
Taylor, I. (1971). Football mad, a speculative sociology of football hooliganism, London, Frank Cass, pp.352-77
Vamplew, W. (1976). The Turf: A social and economic history of horse racing, London, Allen Lane
