Running Head GENDER ISSUES IN SPORTGENDER ISSUES IN SPORT .docx

Running Head: GENDER ISSUES IN SPORT
GENDER ISSUES IN SPORT
2
**** Respond to class mate Ashman (150 words)
Women should have equal access to sport regardless of the
success of the program. Furthermore, Title IX is a federal
program which ensures that women have equal access to sport.
According to the Women’s Sport Foundation (2017), “Title IX
is an important federal civil rights act that guarantees that our
daughters and sons are treated in a like manner with regard to
all educational programs and activities, including sports. ” The
law clearly mandates that women should have equal access to
sport and institutions can be penalized for failure to comply.
Additionally, women should have access to sport regardless of
availability of women’s programs whereas their ability is
superior to that of their male counterparts.
As a child growing up, I did not have access to all sport
which I was interested. At the time of my youth, I excelled in
baseball. I played in a youth boys baseball league because girl’s
baseball and softball were not available in my community.
Although I was a girl playing a “boys” game, I annually made
the all-star team as the league’s best second baseman. I
travelled with the team to all-star tournaments with my male
counterparts and represented our community well. Because my
sport of preference was not available in a girl’s program, I
opted to play in a boy’s league in which I excelled. All women
should have this same opportunity based on their interests and
ability.

In the instance where women do not have access to the
sport of their specific interest or ability, women should be
allowed to participate in a man’s league. When a female
demonstrates equal or superior skill, she should be allowed to
participate in the league if a female program is not available.
Football is an example where female athletes do not have equal
access to sport. However, Toni Harris did not let the challenges
of unavailability for women to play football. She pursued her
interest and is the first female to receive a college scholarship
in football as a safety (Caron, 2019). Her access to football was
a challenge, but she overcame that obstacle to set a precedence
for women in football.
References
Caron, E. (2019). Female football player makes history with
scholarship offer . [online] Sports Illustrated. Available at:
https://www.si.com/college/2019/02/27/female-football-player-
toni-harris-makes-history-college-scholarship-offer [Accessed
27 Nov. 2019].
Women's Sports Foundation. (1998). What is Title IX? -
Women's Sports Foundation . [online] Available at:
https://www.womenssportsfoundation.org/advocacy/what-is-
title-ix/ [Accessed 27 Nov. 2019].
***Respond to classmate Glass ( 150 words)
This is a tough, and sensitive, topic! I fall somewhere in the
middle of this statement. I do think that women should have fair
and equal access to sports; however it is very hard to control
marketplace success. There are factors that clearly impact how
society views a particular sport. The media’s portrayal and
reporting on the sport can help launch it into popularity.
Something that is unheard of cannot become popular. The
televising of a sport can also help it to gain momentum with

marketplace success. People cannot watch what they do not
have access to. With that said I do not think that equal access
can happen without some level of marketing.
I also think that there are subtle events that take place that lead
to men’s sports being more popular. Take, for example, high
school soccer. In my own community the girls’ soccer team
plays first (every single week) at 500 and the boys soccer team
plays at 630. The 630 time slot is clearly more appealing and
easier to get to for individuals who work and get off at 500.
The crowd always grows around half time of the girl’s game and
by the time the boy’s play it has doubled in size. The school,
unintentionally, has made the girls’ soccer game somewhat of a
precursor to the main event of the boy’s game.
In order to truly promote women’s sports there has to be equal
access. Gaining success in the marketplace is up to society but
the media and marketing can help tremendously with this.
Commercials and ads with professional women athletes and
more televised women’s events can help to spread the interest
of women’s sports throughout the country. In the end, society
will determine what they find worthy of watching and making
popular; however, the lack of exposure will ensure that the
public does not find certain sports worthy.
****Forum | Commercialization of Sport (300 words)
What changes occur in the meaning, purpose, and organization
of sports when they become commercial activities? How does
such a commercial arrangement benefit members of a society?
What does sport commercialization tell us about the standard of
living of the society supporting it? Does commercial sport
activity like major league baseball or professional football
deserve any form of public assistance such as stadium subsidies
or other taxpayer support? Explain your view using the

sociological terms and elements you have learned to this point.
INTERNATIONAL TRADE LAW
ASSIGNMENT
Information: What formalities should I comply with?
You are required to format your assignment as follows: Times
New Roman font, point size 12, 1.15 spacing. You are also
required to ‘bold” the various headings that you will need to
utilise. You must also ensure that your assignment is stapled
and that it has a cover page with the following information:
· My name
· Course code and course name
· Your name and student ID #
· I promote environmental consciousness. For this reason,
assignments must be printed double sided. However, nothing
must be printed at the back of your cover page (see below).
What am I required to do?
You are required to prepare a research essay on the following
question:
In democratic societies, governments are given mandates to
institute policy measures and strategies that will promote
sustainable economic development or which advance national
interests and priorities. However, their ability to successfully
carry out these mandates may be hampered by multilateral trade
rules and the overall reality that the policies that they need to
implement must be reconcilable with the legitimate trading
interests of other states.
Using a case study of one or more states that has / have
encountered challenges in relation to the government’s

implementation of policies and strategies, discuss this
statement.
What information regarding grading should I be aware of?
· In addition to content, assignments will be graded on
grammar, clarity, flow of ideas, proper paragraphing and
sentence structure.
· All sources must be properly accredited.
·
· The assignment is a research assignment and there must be
satisfactory evidence of research. Students are responsible for
doing their individual research.
Is there a word limit?
Yes. Your assignment should not be less than 1, 500 words and
not more than 2,500 words, exclusive of bibliography and
references.
QUEST. 19%. 48.221-242
© 1996 National Association for Physical Education in Higher
Education
Approaches to Social Inequality
in the Sociology of Sport
Peter Donnelly

sport, by its very nature, produces and reveals inequalities in
terms of physi-
cality and athletic perfonnance. [n social terms, however, sport
has often been
considered the great social leveller. This paper considers the
production and
reproduction of social inequality in sport in regard to the
development of ideas
and research about social inequality in the sociology of sport.
Specifically,
inequality in sport is considered in terms of the progression
from reflection to
reproduction to resistance theses and the progression from
categorical to dis-
tributive to relational levels of analysis. The paper concludes
with a consider-
ation of some ways in which sport may be involved in the
production of social
equality.
Competitive sport, by its very nature, produces and reveals
inequalities in
terms of physicality and athletic performance. Pierre de
Coubenin referred to Olym-
pic spon as a "democracy of ability," prestnnably in reference to
his idealized view
of an Olympics based on participation rather than outcome.' If
democracy is con-
sidered a social condition of equality, then the condition of
having been selected as
an Olympic athlete apparently makes one an equal among one's
fellow Olympi-
ans. More realistic, and perhaps more modem views of sport
recognize not only
that Olympic athletes are already part of a very select/elite

group in terms of
athleticism and physical giftedness, but also that the whole
purpose of the Olym-
pics and other sport competitions is to reveal inequalities among
athletes and to
rank those athletes in terms of athleticism and physical
giftedness.
Sociological views of social inequality are far more complex.
They tend to
reflect the entire poiitical spectrum, from the right wing view
that social inequality
is inevitable (social Darwinism) or necessary to create incentive
(conservatism), to
the leî wing view that socia) inequality is wrong and should be
eradicated by
democratic (social democracy) or revolutionary (Marxist) means
(cf. Figler, 1981,
P- 4]). In focusing on equalization as a process, Williams
(1983) identified two
distinct meanings that reveal the complexities involved in
studying and eradicat-
ing socia] inequalities. In the first meaning, equalization is seen
as a "normative
principle" entailing a process "in which any condition, inherited
or newly
created,which sets some men above others or gives them power
over others, has to
is a substantially revised version of a paper thac appeared in
French as "Les
Sociales Dans le Spon," in Sociologie et Sociites, 27(1). 1995,
pp. 91-104.
Peter Donnelly is with the Departments of Kinesiology and
Sociology ai McMaster

University, Hamilton, ON L8S 4K1, Canada.
22i
222 DONNELLY
be removed or diminished" (p. 118). In the second overl^ping
meaning, equaliza-
tion is seen as a meritocratic process based on the premise that
everyone should
"start equal," and that "any subsequent inequalities [are] seen as
either inevitable
or right" (p. 118). As Williams wryly notes, the second meaning
represents the
"equal opportunity to become unequal" (1983. p. 118).
It is the fact that equality and inequality are measurable
characteristics when
comparing humans in terms of factors such as height, athletic
ability, and possibly
intelligence, that results in complications with regard to social
inequality. As
Williams notes,
what needs to be shown is that the measurable difference is
relevant to the
particular inequality, in a social sense: height would not be.
though colour of
skin has been held to be; energy or intelligence might be, and
this is where
most serious contemporary argument now centres. (1983, p.
119)
This paper focuses on the nexus between the measurable

inequalities that form the
basis of modem competitive sport and various social
characteristics that have been
socially constructed as the bases for human inequality.
The consequences of social inequality in sport are parallel to its
consequences
in the larger society—various forms of discrimination and self-
discrimination, and
the development of ideological views that justify the
discrimination. Sociological
approaches to social inequality are clearly reiterated in the
sociology of sport; and
in North American sociology of sport, research and theory show
a progression of
thought that characterizes changing views of social inequality in
sport. This pro-
gression is evident in the shift fi'om reflection to reproduction
to resistance theses,
and in the development from categorical to distributive to
relational levels of analy-
sis. The two main parts of this paper are concemed with
examining the underlying
theses and the levels of analysis as they bave impinged on the
development of
views of social inequality in the sociology of sport. The final
part deals with the
production and reproduction of social inequality in terms of the
nexus between
measurable inequalities and socially constructed inequalities;
includes a brief ex-
amination of the debate between culturalist and stmcturalist
explanations for so-
cial inequality in sport; and considers some ways in which sport
has been, and has
the potential to become, an agency for the production and

reproduction of social
equality.-
Underlying Theses
The sequence of theses in the development of sociology of
sport, from re-
flection to reproduction to resistance, was first proposed in a
prelitninary way by
Ingham (1980) who made note of the refiection (or
representation) and resistance
theses. The reproduction thesis emerged from Bourdieu and
Passeron (1977). and
the three were put together in terms of the development of
sociology of sport by
Ingham and Loy (1980) in a conference paper.'
Reflection
The most passive of the theses is the reflection thesis—"sport is
a mirror [or
microcosm] of society." It was most popular in the 1960s and
1970s during the
early development of the sociology of sport, although it is still
reiterated in some
text books. The reflection thesis is connected with structural
fiinctionaiism. the
APPROACHES TO SOCIAL INEQUALITY 223
predominant theory at the time in American sociology and the
most significant
influence in the origins of North American sociology of sport
(cf Luschen, 1967).

In the case of functionalism (and its structural-functional
variants), a presump-
tion is made that spon reflects society . . . it is axiomatic that
the material
structures and ideological dimensions of "society" and those of
sport in some
way correspond. (Ingham, 1980, p. 1)
The reflection thesis permitted both positive and negative
thinking about sport,
depending on the analyst's political position with regard to
dominant values. Sport
was either an institution that socialized individuals into
conformity with approved
dominant values or, for the more critical functionalists,
especially those concemed
with social inequality and social control—racism, sexistn,
tnilitarism, and so forth
(e.g., Hoch, 1972)—was an institution that socialized
individuals w i ± unaccept-
able values. It quickly became apparent that the reflection thesis
did not explain
anything; it just described an obvious situation—^that sport was
a part of society
and must therefore reflect that society. But it was an important
stage for sociology
of sport to pass through because of the need to overcome the
concurrent thinking
about sport—that it was a distinct sphere somehow separate and
different from
social life, even transcending social life (e.g.> Novak, 1976).
Reproduction
The 1970s saw the emergence of the reproduction thesis, a more

dynamic
thesis that suggested sport was not just a passive reflection of
society, but a force
actively involved in the reproduction of a status quo in society
from generation to
generation. Notions of social reproduction are rooted in more
critical aspects of
sociology and indicate that sport is actively involved in
maintaining an unequal
status quo in which more powerful groups in society retain their
power over subor-
dinate groups. This thesis became relatively popular in the
sociology of sport through
the Westem countercultural critique of sport (see Mandeil,
1990) and from the
availability in English of the worlcs of such European neo-
Marxist sport sociolo-
gists as Brohm (1978). Rigauer (1981), and Vinnai (1973). The
reflection thesis
continued to be prominent throughout the i 970s; however, it
became apparent that
the reproduction thesis could also be used to characterize
functionalist thinking in
which sport is seen to play an active role, through the process
of socialization, in
contributing to social system needs such as adaptation,
integration, goal attain-
ment, pattem maintenance and tension management—all of
which are concemed
with the maintenance of a status quo view of the social order.
Resistance
The early 1980s marked a key turning point in North American
sociology of
sport. A new level of theoretical sophistication was evident at

the Queen's Univer-
sity (Canada) conference on "Sport and the State" (Cantelon &
Gruneau, 1982);
the inaugural meeting of the North American Society for the
Sociology of Sport
(NASSS) in Denver was marked by criticism of extant
positions: theoretical devel-
opments continued through 1981 at the 1st Regional Symposium
of the Intema-
tional Committee for the Sociology of Sport in Vancouver
(Ingham & Broom,
1982) and the NASSS Fort Worth conference (Dunleavy,
Miracle, & Rees, 1982;
Rees & Miracle, 1986); and the feminist critique of sport was
prominent at the
224 DONNELLY
1982 NASSS Toronto conference (Theberge & Donnelly, 1984).
By this time, the
shortcomings of the reproduction thesis were beginning to
become apparent. Indi-
viduals were rendered as passive agents in this active but one-
way process. They
were characterized as falsely conscious consumers of the new
"opiate of the masses"
(sport), unaware of the forces involved in producing and
reproducing inequality
and maintaining their subordinate status; or they "were
characterized as passive
leamers "molded' and 'shaped' by 'society'" (Coakley, 1993, p.
170)."
In the resistance thesis, sport is seen as "contested terrain," and

individuals
are seen as active, self-reflexive agents (a) who "might quite
consciously value
sports as meaningful and beneficial aspects of their lives, while
at the same time
being aware that ruling groups attempt to use sport as an
instrument of control"
(Hargreaves, 1982, p. 43; Gruneau, 1983, pp. 151-152); (b) who
have the capacity
to change the conditions under which they practice sport and
recognize and change
the conditions that maintain their subordinate status; and (c)
whose attempts at
resistance sometimes have an opposite effect, serving to
reinforce the conditions
of their subordination. The resistance thesis does not deny or
replace the reproduc-
tion thesis, but rather supplements it by introducing the notion
of agency to stand
in a dialectical relationship with the structural aspects of the
reproduction thesis.
The resistance thesis is also evident in Coakley's view of
"socialization-as-interaction" in which "the tensions,
negotiations, misunderstand-
ings, and resistances that characterize the social relationships
associated with a
person's entry into and participation in [sport]" need to be taken
into account—the
sport participant is seen "as an active agent, as someone with
self-reflective abili-
ties and creative potential, as someone seeking autonomy and
affirmation of iden-
tities, as someone who is not simply a passive leamer" (1993, p.
170).
Development through the tliree theses has had a profound effect

on our think-
ing about social inequality and how it is produced, reproduced,
and resisted in
sport. Initially, social inequalities in sport were seen simply as
a reflection of the
social inequalities evident in society. Subsequently, social
inequalities came to be
seen either as a consequence of hegemonic forces attempting to
maintain (repro-
duce ) an unequal status quo from which they were the principle
beneficiaries, or
as an incentive to motivate individuals to seek social mobility
(cf Davis & Moore,
1945). Most recently, social inequalities have come to be seen
as a part of the
contested terrain of modem sport in which what is at stake is a
more democratized,
less unequal form of sport. This outcome is, of cotirse, opposed
by those who find
privilege in the status quo and who benefit from the present
conditions of social
inequality (e.g., white, heterosexual, able-bodied males from
the middle and upper
classes); and such opposition may, in tum, be resisted by those
seeking to overtum
the status quo.
Levels of Analysis
The theoretical progression in the sociology of sport has been
paralleled by
three levels of analysis: categorical, distributive, and
relational.^ It should be noted
that these levels of analysis are not strictly parallel to the
reflection, reproduction,
and resistance theses respectively (i.e., research assuming the

reproduction thesis
was not all conducted under the distributive level of analysis).
However, there is a
temporal relation, and both typologies reflect the increasingly
sophisticated level
of interiH-etation and analysis in the sociology of sport.* As
with the theses, these
levels of analysis are representative of the ideological positions
taken by research-
ers examining social inequality in sport. However, they provide
an even more im-
portant guide to interpreting how we have come to understand
the production and
reproduction of social inequality in sport. In the following
discussion, most atten-
tion is paid to categorical analysis because it establishes the
socially constmcted
bases for social inequality in sport; less attention is given to
distributive analysis,
although it does provide empirical support for the effectiveness
of the social cat-
egories; and least attention is paid to relational analysis because
its assumptions
and critiques are implicit throughout the paper.
The following sections describe each of the levels of analysis
and consider
how each has been used to examine three bases for social
inequality in sport: so-
cial class, gender, and race/ethnicity. The selection of these
three is purely a reflec-

tion of the amount of research that has been conducted on social
inequality under
these categories and is not an indication that they represent the
more important
forms of discrimination. Any social characteristics that have, at
any time and in
any place, been interpreted as barriers to involvement or
participation (e.g., age,
religion, mental and physical disabilities, sexual orientation,
region of origin) could
be considered in an examination of social inequality in sport. It
should also be
noted that distinguishing social characteristics in this way adds
a level of distor-
tion to the analysis because none of the characteristics are
discrete. Each of us has
a gender, a social class background, a racial/ethnic affiliation,
and a variety of
other social characteristics that serve as advantages or
disadvantages in the
various stmctural and cultural circumstances of our lives, and
we relate to each
other on the basis of "ours" and "theirs." The articulation
between the three sets
of social relations that have produced the most research is only
now beginning to
be explored.
Categorical Analysis
Categorical analysis is concemed with identifying differences in
character-
istics and/or behavior between categories of individuals that
have been established
and defmed as having some significance. Thus, categorical
research constructs the

categories of interest (e.g., skin color but not hair color) and
attempts to discover
and explain differences between representatives of different
social classes, racial/
ethnic groups, males and females, or any other serial categories.
For the purposes
of sociology of sport, such differences would be in terms of
sport practices or
preferences, or in terms of the characteristics presumed to
predispose individuals
to different sport practices or preferences (e.g., biological,
psychological, geo-
graphical, or other characteristics used to describe individual
differences).
Social Class. A great deal of research shows that sport
preference varies
by social class, and a number of theories have been put forward
in an attempt to
explain this finding on the basis of psychosocial differences
between the classes.
For example, Luschen (1969) proposed that the upper-class
preferences for nov-
elty (new experiences and objects), individual achievement, and
exclusivity are
reflected in a preference for "new" sports, individual sports, and
sports dependent
on organization into clubs. Yiannakis (1976) used sport
stmcture, cost, publicity,
and physical contact as the distinguishing characteristics in his
finding that higher
status individuals showed a preference for individual and
expensive sports
(reflecting autonomy in higher status occupations and the
ability to pay) and

226 DONNELLY
shunned publicity (in favor of sports that are out of the
limelight, reflecting a pref-
erence for and an ability to ensure privacy) and aggressive
physical contact (an-
other occupational reference, in this case to mental work in
contrast to the physical
work of the lower classes). Renson (1976) attempted to show
that "the sports piayed
by a particular social class serve as symbols of their status and
function within
society" (Loy, McPherson, & Kenyon, J978, p. 366). This status
symbolism is
evident in higher class sports characterized by their use of
"status sticks" (cf maces
and batons); upper-middie-class interest in "nature" sports;
Jower-naiddle-class in-
terest in sports using targets, nets, and balls; and lower-class
involvement in indi-
vidual and contact sports.
Such explanations represent middle-range theorizing—in their
attempt to
explain observed events, these middle-range theories do not
take into account the
larger cultural and political economic issues involved in the
idea of class. They are
coDcemed with identifying the apparent characteristics of sports
and social classes,
and they impute class differences in choice of sport—^but these
choices must be
seen to occur in a structural situation in which the power to
choose varies enor-

mously. For example, Donnelly (1993) has identified four
processes by which sports
democratize—a situation of apparent choice. In three of these
(recruitment, the
doctrine of good works, and modelling) the element of choice is
clearly controlled
by the dotninant class. Only in the process of acquisition is
some choice evident,
and even the acquisition of access to sports takes place in a
constraining environ-
ment that limits the choices available. The middle-range
theories also appear to
describe particular local situations rather than explain them. For
example, the same
sport may represent quite different levels of social status in
different societies—
"gyrtmastics is low in Belgium . . . at the middle in Germany . .
. and at the
upper-middle in the United States" (Loy et al., 1978, p. 366).
Bourdieu (J 978) also appears to engage in categorical analysis
in his depic-
tions of aristocratic/upper-class sports as "disinterested"
practices, tniddle-class
sports as representative of the "developmental" ethic, and
working-class sports as
expressive of an "instrumental" relationship with the body.
However, these cat-
egories are much more rooted in historical notions of class, and
they lead to dis-
tributive and relational levels of analysis (Bourdieu, 1984). His
work gives a much
more clear sense that
spOTting fffaaices . . . are articulated and negotiated within a
set of historically

develc^wd and socially prcxfaiced limit^OTis and possibiJiiies.
. . . They are im-
pOTtant sites where the social relations of power and privilege
are negotiated,
developed and givai particular meaning and represairaoCTi
(Dewar, 1991, p. 18)
Research on biological differences has been largely absent from
consider-
ations of social class. Feminist research has been most
significant in drawing our
anention to the reflection of ideology through biological
science—namely, the
desire to establish difference (i.e., categories; cf Birrell & Cole,
1990; Davis &
Delano, 1992). Feminist research, however, has tended to focus
on the political
effects of biological differences between males and females,
and it has also sensi-
tized us to the effects of emphasizing racial/ethnic difference.
Notions of social
mobility have tended to limit emphases on
biological/psychological differences
between social classes—^Bl^ks cannot become Whites, nor
females become males
without biological intervention,^ but lower-class individuals
can sometimes
become middle-class individuals without such interveDtion.
There are examples, however, of "scientific" attempts to
discover such bio-
logical differences between social classes and a great deal of

evidence of popular
belief in such differences. Social Darwinism, for example,
imputes biological/psy-
choiogicaJ differences between classes. In the case of sport, the
achievements of
working-class athletes have, in the past, often been attributed to
characteristics of
body size, shape, and habitus (such as the "naturalness" of hard
work to such
individuals). The amateur-professional distinction was, in part,
a result of such
beliefs: working-class cricketers were usually assigned to the
task of bowling
(pitching), defined in the late 19th century as more
menial/manual than the gentle-
manly skill of batting; Victorian mountaineers attempted to
explain the climbing
skill of their guides in terms of the physiological adaptation of
their feet (Wherry,
1896); and even in the 1950s, when working-class rock climbers
were beginning
to make their mark on the sport, their achievements were often
attributed to their
small size and powerful build (prestunably the result of some
Lysenkian inherit-
ance of characteristics acquired in several generations of
manual work in factories
and mines).
Gender. In contrast to social class, categorical analyses of
gender have
focused almost excltisively on "discoveries" of the biological
and psychological
sciences regarding gender differences. These were, and still are
in many places,
regarded as sufficient explanation of the differences in sport

performance and prac-
tices between men and women. Notions about the "apparently"
greater height,
strength, and speed of men, and about the vulnerability of
women's reproductive
organs, are presented as "facts" regarding "natural" differences
between men and
women. Similarly, masculinity and femininity have been
regarded as personality
traits, and these, together with other traits (dependence,
dominance, etc.), have
been assessed as determinants of difference between men and
women. When the
physiological characteristics and personality traits are combined
with the presumed
requirements for most modem sports, it comes as no surprise
that a close fit is
found between male biology and psychology and those
requirements. Thus, fe-
male athletes were presumed to experience not only lower levels
of performance
(biology as destiny) but also role cotiflict resulting from going
against their "natu-
ral femininity" in the pursuit of athletic excellence. When such
arguments are pushed
to their extreme, the achievements of female athletes may be
attributed to their
"masculinity," resulting in ideas concerning the sexuai
orientation of female ath-
letes.
A great deal of research and theoretical argument in the
sociology of sport
for the last 10 years has been devoted to deconstructing and
discrediting these
arguments (see, for example, Birrell, 1988; Coakley, 1994; Hall,

Slack, Smith, &
Whitson, 1991; and Willis, 1982, for summaries of these
critiques). Dewar (1991)
has specifically shown how such categorical analysis is based
on a set of
decontextualized "facts" that take male ^hievement as the
standard of compari-
son. But the categories of masculinity and femininity are
stubbornly persistent as a
basis for understanding sport inequality, and as Theberge (1985)
has noted, sport
inequality becomes an imponant site for the reproduction of
social inequality by
transforming women's presumed physical inferiority into social
inferiority.
Race/Ethnicity. Such is the power and ingenuity of white, male,
middle/
upper-class hegemony that racial subordination is based on an
opposite sei of bio-
logical parameters to gender subordination. If women are
presumed to be biologi-
cally inferior (in everything but childbearing and nursing) and
therefore socially
DONNELLY
inferior, Blacks are presumed to be biologically suf^rior (in
terms of certain
sport-specific skills) and therefore socially inferior! Once again
biologically de-
terminist arguments have been employed to "explain" the
supposedly superior
jumping and sprinting ability of Blacks and the supposed

inferiority of Blacks in
sports such as swimming."* Psychological arguments regarding
differences in in-
telligence and other traits have also been employed to justify
pattems of positional
segregation in team sports. Thus, while lower levels of athletic
achievement by
women in certain sports are employed to justify their social
subordination, the
high levels of achievement by black athletes in certain sports
have been attributed
to natural ability and physiological advantages—^presumably in
contrast to the hard
work and intelligence of white athletes (cf Davis. 1990).
Again, a great deal of work in the sociology of sport has been
applied to
deconstructing and discrediting these examples of bad science
(for summaries of
these critiques see Coakley, 1994, and Phillips. 1993), but the
idea of difference
and advantage persists and appears to have a distinct effect on
sport selection—
in terms of counseling by coaches and physical education
teachers, and in terms
of self-selection by young athletes. In contrast to the idea of
gender difference,
which has a long history with regard to sport participation, the
idea of racial dif-
ference and advantage became a widely accepted post hoc
explanation of observed
events once sport had begun to integrate, and black athletes
began to win. A people
who had been enslaved and maintained in a subordinate social
position for so
long could not be permitted the same explanations for athletic

achievement as
white athletes—hard work, persistence, intelligence, and so
forth. The biological
explanations, derived from earlier attempts to search for
difference once race be-
came established as a socially significant category (cf.
Hoberman, 1992),'' served
to demean the achievements of black athletes and maintain their
social subordi-
nation.
Social arguments sitnilar to those developed for social class
have frequently
been employed to establish ethnic categories and explain
observed differences in
spon selection and participation rates, even in playing .styles.'"
In the Canadian
case, most research has been concemed with the categories of
anglophone and
fi-ancophone, and observed differences. Hall et a!. (1991) have
summarized vari-
ous explanatiotis proposed to account for positional segregation
by language group
in professional ice hockey (from cultural difference to
discrimination). Tliey also
summarize the most prevalent debates conceming the
underrepresentation of
francophones on Canadian national teams and the different
patterns of sport par-
ticipation between the two language groups by asking whether
these result fi-om a
lower emphasis on sport in francophone culture (reflected in the
underdevelop-
ment of amateur spon until the 1980s and the lack of physical
education and
interschool sport programs in many Quebec schools) or from

prejudice and dis-
crimination. Though it seems likely that both culttirai
differences and discrimina-
tion combine to produce the observed pattems, adopting one
position or the other
has produced some heated debate (cf. Curtis & White, 1992;
Laberge & Girardin,
1992; McAll. 1992; White & Curtis. 1990a. 1990b).
The decision to establish categories based on ascribed
characteristics; the
decision to attribute social significance to some of those
categories (e.g., weight
more so than height); and the decision to seek support for the
establishment of
those categories by seeking differences employing bio-, psycho-
, and socioscientific
means—each of Uiese decisions is ideologically loaded,
inflecting the power and
APPROACHES TO SOCTAL INEQUALITY 229
the ideology of the decision makers. And the results of such
decisions provide
powerful support for W.I. Thomas' dictum that, if people defme
a situation as real,
it has real consequences. It is difficult to imagine what sport or
sport sociology
research would be like if such categories had not been
established or if others had
been constructed. Whatever their form, such categories provide
the basis for re-
search employing the distributive level of analysis.

Distributive Analysis
Dewar has noted that distributive analysis is concemed with
"the nature and
extent of opportunities available to different categories of
individuals" (1991, p.
19), and that such analysis is particularly concemed with the
nature of social in-
equality. Categorical analysis is concemed with the individual
bases of inequality,
whereas distributive analysis draws our attention to social
stmcture; and within
liberal democracy it emphasizes Williams' (1983) second
meaning of eqtiality (viz.,
equality of opportunity, or meritocracy). Dewar notes that
research questions con-
cem "who gets what, and why" in terms of "the numbers of
programs, the funding,
facilities, and opportunities for mobility to leadership
positions" (1991, p. 19).
Following are brief examples of the results of this type of
research with respect to
the three selected bases for inequality.
Social Class. Hargreaves summarizes a large body of research
showing
that "the higher the class, the greater the rate of panicipation" in
sport and physical
activity (1986, p. 96). Even the most recent stirvey data from
American high schools
show strong evidence of differential rates of involvement by
social class (Fejgin,
1994). These findings are particularly evident at the level of
high-performance
sport in Canada, and they appear to persist even after
government efforts to shift to

a more meritocratic basis for selection. For example, Gmneau
(1976), using 1971
data, showed an overrepresentation at the Canada Wmter Games
of athletes with
fathers from the highest occupational categories and an
underrepresentation of
those from the lower occupational categories. Despite the
implementation of fed-
eral government programs to overcome the barriers to
participation (primarily de-
fined as financial). Beamish (1990) found that similar pattems
persisted over 15
years later.
Gender Recent data indicate that in "advanced" societies, adult
men and
women show similar rates of participation in recreational
physical activity—for
example, Canada (Stephens & Craig, 1990) and Switzerland
(Lamprecht & Stamm,
in press). However, the typical individuals most likely to
participate in at least one
competitive sport are still "young, well-educated, white males
who belong to the
professional or managerial occupational categories, and who
have relatively high
incomes" (Hall et al., 1991, p. 156)." And female athletes still
show a marked
decline iti participation during adolescence:
In the 10-14 age group, 49% of the female population are
involved in sport,
versus 72% of the male population. Beginning at age 12,
involvement in girls
declines steadily until only 11 % are involved in physical
activity by grade 11

(age 16-17). (Best, Blackhurst, & Makosky, 1992, p. 149)
These results are also evident in Fejgin's (1994) study in which
there are signifi-
cantly lower rates of panicipation among American high school
females than males.
There are also unintended consequences of government policy
evident with regard
230 DONNELLY
to gender. Since the passage of Title IX of the Educational
Amendments Act in the
United States, a law intended to increase opportunities for
female athletes (and
which has, to a certain extent, had that effect), there has been a
very significant
decline in the number of postparticipation opportunities for
women athletes in
terms ofcoaching and administrative positions (Stangl &Kane,
1991).
Race/Ethnicity. A great deal of data collected in the United
States (sum-
marized, for example, by Coakley, 1994; Curry & Jiobu, 1984;
and Phillips, 1993)
provide empirical support for the observation that Blacks are
overrepresented in
some sports (e.g., American football, baseball, basketball, and
certain events in
track and field) and at some positions in the team sports
(noncentral). Those stud-
ies rareiy go on to make the point that Blacks are
underrepresented in the vast

majority of sports; but recent concems have shown that, even in
the sports in which
Blacks are overrepresented, the opportunities to move on into
leadership positions
(coaching and administration) are extremely rare in comparison
to those available
to the white athletes. There are very few studies that have
considered representa-
tion on the basis of other racial or ethnic categories. In the
francophone/anglophone
Canadian examples noted previously, pattems still appear to
show lower represen-
tation of francophones on national teams (Laberge, 1989) and
lower levels of par-
ticipation in competitive sports among francophone males in
comparison to
anglophone males (Curtis & White, 1992).'-
By focusing on the idea of opportunity to participate,
distributive analysis
has a number of limitations because increased opporttmity does
not automatically
lead to increased participation. For example, upper- and upper-
middle-class indi-
viduals usually enjoy the broadest possible opportunity set in
any given society,
and yet there are examples of their withdrawal from
participation in various activi-
ties (e.g., boxing), and of activities in which they have shown
little interest in
participation in recent years (e.g., bowling). Similarly, there are
inexpensive ac-
tivities that do not enjoy high levels of participation from low
income individuals
(e.g., hiking). Also, in liberal democratic terms, it is the
provision of opportunities

to piay that is considered to be important, not the
encouragement of a more com-
plete democratization that would necessitate ftill involvement in
an activity—that
is, the power and the right to determine the forms,
circumstances, and meanings of
participation (Donnelly, 1993). A further limitation to the idea
of opportunity in-
volves the observation that, in order for any individual to take
the opportunity to
participate in any given activity, that activity has to have the
capacity to become
meaningftil to the individual. What is the point of increasing
the opportunity to
participate in a sport for an individual who is enmeshed in a set
of social relations
that make such participation meaningless?
Relational Analysis
Relational analysis shifts beyond the notion of discrete
categories and the
distribution of resources among those categories to consider
whole sets of social
relations—among men and women, social classes, and
racial/ethnic groups; and it
examines such relationships in their social context (e.g., among
men and women
who belong to social class and racial/ethnic groupings in a
particular time and
place). In relational analysis, sport and other cultural forms are
seen as "cultural
representations of social relations;" and such analyses "begin
with the assumption
that sporting practices are historically produced, socially
constmcted and cultur-

ally defitied to serve the interests and needs of powerful groups
in a society" (Dewar,
1991, p- 20). Such power is not expressed in a simplistic
conspiratorial sense,
rather, it represents the power to create cultural forms to one's
own tastes; the
power atid motivation to maintain the status quo that supports
one's privileged
position; and the power to make such hegemony (in a Gramscian
sense) appear to
be natural and normal to the dominated.
"Understanding how this hegemony is negotiated and contested
is crucial in
relational analyses" (Dewar, 1991, p. 20) because such analyses
also begin with
the assumption that hegemony "is never total or exclusive"
(Vfliliams, 1977, p. 113).
Relational analyses are frequently conducted employing
ethnographic methods in
order to determine the meaning of sports to individuals
representing various social
categories, and the relationships among those individuals.'^
However, although
Dewar (1991) argues that distributive analyses are frequently
conducted from a
liberal democratic ideological position, the data provided
frequently make a sig-
nificant contribution in developing a powerful critique of
practices in modem sport
and to supponing relational levels of analysis.

Because relational analysis is the most recent to emerge, and
because stud-
ies are time consuming to conduct, there is little representative
research for the
three selected bases for social inequality. However, studies by
Gruneau (1983) and
Hargreaves (1986) provide examples of the analysis of class
relations in sport;
studies by Birrell and Cole (1990), Birreli and Richter (1987),
and the collection
of work edited by Messner and Sabo (1992)''' provide examples
of gender rela-
tions in sport; and studies by Birrell (1989), Majors (1992), and
Foiey (1990) all
examine racial/ethnic relations in sport. Because relational
analysis is most likely
to be sensitive to context, it has been at the forefront in
recognizing that distortion
is introduced by separate analyses of class, gender, and
race/ethnicity, and in com-
bining such analyses in research. For example, in Birreil's
(1992) study of gender
and race she notes that "The most effective blending would
highlight not only
class relations and gender relations, but racial relations as well"
(p. 185). Also
Coakley and White's (1992) study of English adolescetits
blended class and gen-
der analyses.'^
Relational Analyses, Democratization, and Resistance
The Case for Relational Analyses
Tlie citius, altius, fortius nature of modem sport is designed to

expose in-
equalities between human beings. Some will be faster, stronger,
and/or more skill-
fiii than others, a status they will have achieved through a
combination of genetic
inheritance and training. Such measurable differences between
human beings may,
in the case of high levels of success in certain sports, result in
upward social mobil-
ity. Sport success can lead to wealth and access to education
that may reduce so-
cial inequality for some (and at the same time perhaps produce
even greater sociaJ
inequalities for many others). However, although measurable
differences in alh-
letic performance may result in less inequality based on socia!
class (cf. Page,
1973, p. 28, on "the embourgeoisement of the jocks"), the same
situation is not so
apparent for gender and racial inequality (always given that the
articulation of the
three conditions of social inequality under consideration makes
discrete arguments
of this type rather artificial).
232 DONNELLY
At first, continuing racial and gender inequality and the lack of
social mobil-
ity for the majority of athletes (and the temporary social
mobility for some) was
seen in the sociology of sport as a straightforward reflection of
the societal status
quo. Then it began to become apparent that sport was modeling

inequalities in the
larger society and, along with education, could be seen as a part
of the apparatus to
prepare young people to accept such inequalities. Competition
in sport revealed
physical inequalities, and these served to confirm the rightness
of social inequali-
ties—though always holding open the possibility of social
mobility for those suc-
cessful in the competition. The growing awareness of such
modeling at a time
when long-entrenched social inequalities were being questioned
(i.e., the civil rights
and women's movements) led to the view in the sociology of
sport that, even more
than modeling social inequality, sport was an active agent in the
production and
reproduction of social inequality.
To retum to Williams' question, "is . . . the measurable
difference . . . rel-
evant to the particular inequality, in a social sense?" (1983, p.
119). Or, to put it
more bluntly, does athletic achievement make an individual
more valuable as a
human being? When the meaning of sport is seen in terms of
entertaitmiem and
commercial enterprise, the material and symbolic (prestige,
status) rewards given
to successful athletes suggest that physical superiority may
sometimes be tratis-
formed into a certain degree of social superiority. But sport is
clearly an active
agent in the production of racial and gender inequality. In both
of these cases,
science and ideology have formed a powerful alliance to

attribute meanings to
measurable physical and performance characteristics. Both
"inferior" and "supe-
rior" levels of performance are constructed as indicators of
social inferiority. It is
possible then to identify, in general terms, the relationship
between physicality
and social status within each of the three sets of social relations
under consider-
ation:
Soda] class: physical superiority = social superiority (for those
originating in
a subordinate social class)
Gender: physical inferiority = social inferiority (for women)
Raca'Ethnicity: physical superiority = social inferiority (for
those with some
African heritage living in a mixed race society)
The contradictory interpretations of black and female athletic
accomplish-
ments, and perhaps the persistent search for fiaws in those who
have achieved
upward social mobility through sport, suggest that the nexus
between the measur-
able inequalities that form the basis for modem sport and the
various social char-
acteristics that have been socially constructed as the bases for
human social in-
equality is far more complex than we previously believed and
needs a g r e ^ deal
more analysis.
Such analyses both require and affinn a relational level of

analysis. Con-
siderations of separate categories (e.g., lower class/tniddle
class; mEJe/female;
black/white) and the distribution of resources or opponunities
among those cat-
egories, fall far short of engaging with the complex social
reality implied by the
social construction and definition'^ of, and relations between,
the established cat-
egories. The determination, for example, that men are stronger
or more aggres-
sive (on average) than women (categorical analysis), or that
men receive far tnore
opportunities and resotirces than wotnen (distributive analysis),
leaves open a
great many questions. What value is placed on strength and
ag^ession and why?
How and why have men constructed and maintained "sport" as a
gender distin-
guishing activity? How have men been able to maintain the
greater share of op-
portunities and resources? And. how and why are changes in the
relationships
between men and women occurring, and what part does sport
play in such
changes?"
Sport and Democratization
A categorical level of analysis h ^ not really lent itself to
considerations of

process and change, although distributive and relational levels
of analysis have
been concemed with changes in the distribution of opportunities
and resources
and with changes in social relatiotis, respectively. However,
raising the issue of
process and change indicates that much of the preceding
discussion, and much of
the work on social inequality in the sociology of sport, has
failed to distinguish
concepttially between two overlapping processes—
democratization through sport
and democratization of sport. Democratization through sport
involves a process
whereby involvement in sport is presumed to ^sist in reducing
overall social in-
equality; the democratization of sport involves the reduction of
inequalities within
the sport environment. Of course, it is frequently assumed that
the latter will lead
to the former, although the processes by which this might occur
have not been
fully explored."*
Democratization Through Sport. In the early years of North
American so-
ciology of sport, democratization through sport was frequently
expressed in terms
of sport as the great (social) leveller (Goodhart & Chataway,
1968. ch. 3). Sage
described this presumed process as follows:
Spon has often been responsible for breaking down social class
lines, racial
and ethnic barriers, and sex role stereotypes. Sport often is the
common de-

nominator for members of different social classes—they may
use sport as a
focus for conversation or may band together to participate or
suppon a spon
team. Thus members of different social classes may unify in the
cause of spon.
. . . [Spon} has played a prominent role in American life in
assimilating differ-
ent races and ethnic minorities into American culture . . . [and
T]he liberation
of the female has its linkage with spon. (1974. p. 398)
Such ideas lie behind the notion of sport as "war without
weapons" (Goodhart
& Chataway, 1968; see also Lorenz, 1967) and de Coubenin's
ideas about the
Olympic family and the democracy of ability. And though it is
true that many
examples exist of good fellowship and racial/ethnic, gender, and
class harmony
and democratization being facilitated by sport, it is equally true
that racial/eth-
nic, class, gender, and other forms of hostility might equally
well be engendered
t>y sport.
The evidence does not support any widespread democratization
through sport.
In terms of social class, there has been a clear expansion of the
tniddle class in
Westem societies in the last 30 years, with many who formerly
identified them-
selves as skilled working class now identifying themselves as
middle class and
embracing middle-class values. This in itself may be interpreted
as an example of

democratization, but it does not appear that sport has had any
role in the process.
The expansion of the middle class appears to be leading to a
democratization of
DONNELLY
formerly middle- and upper-middle-class sports such as golf
(Bragg, 1995). The
increased interest in golf, however, does not appear to be
driving any reduction in
social inequality. Evidence in the last 15 years points to a
growing gap between the
rich and poor in many Westem societies. A recent report from
the Joseph Rowntree
Fotmdation, Income & Wealth, identifies rising inequality in a
number of Westem
societies (e.g.. New Zealand, UK, USA; Droban, 1995); and
recent United Na-
tions statistics show that North America has the highest rates of
child poverty
among advanced societies. Poverty represents a real class
barrier to participation
in sport.
With regard to race, there is also an expanding black middle
class in North
America (and it is here that the artificial distinction, for
purposes of analysis, be-
tween class, race, and gender becomes apparent). Although
some of this expan-
sion may be a result of highly paid and scholarship athletes (as
it is with the social
mobility of white lower-class athletes), it is much more

obviously a result of equal
opporttmity and affirmative action programs in education and
the workforce. How-
ever, there is evidence of a form of racial democratization
through sport in South
Africa, where the refusal to participate had an impact on
democratization (cf. Harvey
&HouIe, 1994; Kidd, 1991).
Recent data from Statistics Canada (Gadd, 1995) show that the
gap between
men and women is closing, but greater Involvement and
achievement in sport by
women appears to be a part of a whole pattem of greater
involvement and success
in ail aspects of society rather than an engine driving the
change. And, as noted
above, in the cases of both race and gender, sport participation
may actually have
served to slow down the process of democratization. In terms of
race, sport soci-
ologists are familiar with the various arguments suggesting that
black youths are
encouraged to see greater opportunities for success through
sport rather than through
education; the tendency to define black success in sport as a
result of natural abil-
ity tends to affirm traditional racial notions and close off other
avenues of opportu-
nity. In terms of gender, the continuing image of women
adopting traditional male
models of sport, and failing to achieve the same levels of
performance as males,
may model and serve to affirm a subordinate status. Thus, sport
has rarely suc-
ceeded as a great leveller, and, as outlined above, sport is now

frequently seen as
an active agency for the production and reproduction of social
inequality (see, for
example, various articles in Harvey & CanteJon, 1988).
Democratization of Sport. With regard to the overlapping
process of de-
mocratization of sport, there is evidence of an apparent
reduction of social in-
equality through increased involvement in sport and physical
activity by groups
whose access had in the past been limited (e.g., women, iower-
ciass individuals,
older persons, and persons with disabilities). The similar rates
of recreational par-
ticipation for men and women in Canada and Switzerland are
examples of this
(Lamprecht & Stamm, in press; Stephens & Craig, 1990). This
democratization
has been a result of various social movements promoting social
equality, human
rights (including the right to participate in sport that lies at the
basis of the Sport
for All movement), and health. However, there is evidence of a
backlash in some
cases (e.g., the current moves to reform Title IX legislation in
the US) and indica-
tions that any apparent democratization is only partial. As
Donnelly noted,
A fully democratized spon and leisure environment would
include both the
right to participate, regardless of one's particular set of social
characteristics,

APPROACHES TO SOCIAL INEQUALITY M5
and the right to be involved in (tetenninmion of the forms,
circumstances, and
meanings of participation. (1993, p. 417)
The current democratization of sport appears to have included
increases only in
the right to participate.
Lamprecht and Stamm (in press) go even further than this in
their contribu-
tion to a current debate in European sociology of sport over the
issue of democra-
tization. Although there is widespread acknowledgement of a
process of expan-
sion and inclusion in sport and physical activity, a contradictory
process of greater
distinction and differentiation (cf. Bourdieu, 1978; Gebauer,
1986) is also identi-
fied;
Thus, new opportunities and meanings of sport contain new
forms of social
distinctions and social limitations. . . . There are differences
between certain
sports, between certain sport places, between motives and, quite
generally,
between "real sport" and "nonsporting sport" which also render
possible the
demonstration of social differences. (Lamprecht & Stamm, in
press)
The debate concems whether the process of democratization of
sport is neutral-

ized by the process of differentiation through sport. Thus, even
the production of
new opportunities in sport may be accompanied by the
production of new grounds
for social inequality.
This discussion of democratization supports the claims of the
resistance the-
sis to be used in conjunction with a relational level of analysis.
The process of
democratization stands in a dialectical relationship with the
production and repro-
duction of social inequality. Although sport is clearly involved
in the reproduction
of socia] inequality, the existence and (partial) success of
democratizing move-
ments—(such as the women's, antiracist, and antipoverty
movements)—or
sport-specific democratizing agents (such as Title IX or the
Sport for All move-
ment) attempting to reduce social inequalities are clear
indications that the pro-
duction and reproduction of social inequality do not go
unchallenged (i.e., are
resisted). Therefore, this must be taken into account in any
analyses of sport and
social inequality.
Culturalism vs. Structuralism and Resistance
In further support of the need for more relationaJ analyses, even
when it is
accepted that social inequality is produced and reproduced in
sport, a conflict ex-
ists between culturalist and structtiraiist arguments. From a
culturalist position,

choice of sport participation is assumed to be voluntary, and
different cultures and
values are presumed to result in the different choices that are
made regarding sporl
involvement. Culturalism may take a conservative fonn in which
some values are
deemed superior to others (cf Simpson, 1987; Vedlitz, 1988), or
a more liberal
form in which no value judgements are made about consumer,
lifestyle, or physi-
cal activity choices (cf White & Curtis, 1990b). Unfortunately,
those adopting a
culturalist explanation sometimes fail to consider the social
structure within which
a particular culture was produced—a stmcture which, for
subwdinate groups,
niay constrain opportunity or inclination to become involved in
certain physical
activities. Structuralism is characteristic of neo-Marxist work in
the sociology
of spon (e.g., Brohm, 1978). From a structtiraiist position,
choice is determined
^ d limited by one's location in the social structure, and
discrimination against
236 DONNELLY
subordinate groups is the major determining factor in restricting
choice of sport
involvement.
The problem with adopting a purely culturalist or a purely
stmcturalist posi-
tion is that both may be quite deterministic. Bourdieu (1984)

identifies the twin
determinations of culture and structure respectively as (a) class
(and presumably
racial/ethnic and gender) habitus as a determinant of taste,
lifestyle, and consumer
choices; and (b) a social space (such as the space of sport
practices) characterized
by power relations and ideologies that discriminate and
therefore restrict access.
Individuals make their choices about participation from a
position that involves
both cultural and structural constraints. But they may also step
outside their par-
ticular habitus and invade restricted social space—for example,
in the case of girls
wirming the right to play on boys' teams. This involves great
difficulties and may
not always be successftil, but without such resistance there
would be no social
development in sport.
A young Afro-Canadian male from a public housing project may
face a double
struggle in his desire to become a figure skater: the structural
constraints of pov-
erty and the potential racism of a majority-White environment,
and the cultural
constraints of class, racial, and gender cultures in which figure
skating is not seen
as a legitimate choice of sporting practice. That same male
choosing basketball
would find an enabling structural and cultural environment in
which poverty and
racism are less constraining; in which the class, racial, and
gender cultures would
deem the choice appropriate; and in which there would be a

positive expectation
of skilled performance and success. But it is important that,
however difficult, the
choice between figure skating and basketball is seen to exist.
Cultures are pro-
duced within structural environments that both enable and
constrain; those envi-
ronments change; and the dynamics of cultural production form
a dialectical rela-
tionship with the structural envirormient to produce choices that
frequently con-
form to cultural expectations, but that may sometimes resist
both the cultural ex-
pectations and the stmctural environment. The resistance thesis
and a relational
level of analysis endorse this articulation between structure and
agency and pro-
vide a sound basis for the study of social inequality.
In addition to the potential for individual challenges to social
inequality
in sport, there are a number of agencies and movements that
have both enabling
and constraining eifects with regard to overcoming social
inequality in sport.
Following is an outline of a number of examples of these,
including, the cotnmer-
cialization of sport, govemment involvement, educational
institutions, and social
movements.
Commercialization of Spon. The market is having a significant
effect in
overcoming inequality through the commodification and
commercialization of sport.
Money has no gender, race/ethnicity, or class; and since

everyone is a potential
customer for the goods and services of the sport industries, it is
in the interests of
the sport industries to expand their cotisumer base. Thus, the
market can have the
effect of reducing social inequalities and increasing the
democratization of sport.
And although the market tends to be govemed by the status quo
and is more likely
to follow trends that are the products of culture than it is to
itiitiate them (e.g.,
greater women's involvement in a variety of activities), the
provision of inexpen-
sive sports outfits, equipment, and facilities has brought a
number of activities
within reach of individuals who would not have been able to
afford them in the
past. Of course, the sporting goods industry also seeks and
creates
APPROACHES TO SOCIAL [NEQUALiTY 237
markets; and sportswear, equipment, and facilities may just as
easily be used to
create distinctions.
Govemment Involvement. Govemments, through the provision
of facili-
ties and services, also have an effect on reducing inequalities.
Former federal and
provincial policies in Canada tended to gear provision to the
high-performance
sector, and policies of gender and racial equity had a small
impact on reducing

inequalities. Government policies are begitming to shift toward
the promotion of
physical activity because of its perceived potential to reduce
health care costs. As
a result, the greater involvement in physical activity by, for
example, the aging and
the disabled is becoming apparent.
Educational Institutions. Educational institutions, through their
physical
education and sport programs, also have a great deal of
potential for reducing
inequalities. Unfortunately, such programs have far too often
reflected the rather
conservative ideologies of white, male, middle-cJass physical
education teachers
and coaches. Demands by women for a greater share of school
resources; increas-
itig multiculturalism in many parts of North America; and a new
generation of
teachers, many of whom are sensitized to issues of inequality in
schools, may
produce further changes.
Social Movements. Finally, various social movements are
having a pow-
erful impact on reducing inequality in sport, particularly the
human rights move-
ments (working through various nongovernmental organizations
and action groups)
that are dedicated to reducing inequalities in all sectors of
social life—feminism,
gay liberation, and movements by the aging and disabled.''^
Similarly, the sport
for all, fitness, and health movements are having an effect on
increasing access

to sport and physical activity for many sectors of the
population, and the envi-
ronmental movement is having a sensitizing effect regarding
forms of sport
involvement.
Conclusion
Although sport has been an important agent in the production
and reproduc-
tion of social inequality, democratizing actions on the part of
individuals and orga-
nizations have sensitized us to sport's potential to be an equally
important agent of
social transformation for the production of social equality. Such
transformations
are usually thought of in individual terms conceming health and
quality-of-life
issues. We have also long held (though with little evidence) that
sport participation
has the capacity to transform the character of individuals,
particularly in terms of
self-confidence and attitudes. I have suggested previously,
however (Donnelly,
1991, 1993), that the struggle to achieve more fully
democratized forms of sport
and leisure—that is, involvement both as a participant and in
the determination of
the forms, circumstances, and meanings of panicipation—
^might result in the ca-
pacity to transform communities. People could leam initiative,
community en-
deavor, collective rather than individual values, self
determination, and so forth,
that could permit them to begin to take charge of their own lives
and communities.

Thus sport may clearly be seen as contested terrain, providing
fertile ground for
ttie production and reproduction of social inequality,
undergoing change (some-
times progressive) as a result of the various processes and
ageticies noted above,
and having the potential to transfomi individuals and
communities in ways that
seriously reduce social inequalities.
238 DONNELLY
References
Beamish, R. (1990). The persistence of inequality: An analysis
of participation patterns
among Canada's high performance athletes. International
Review for the Sociology
ofSpon,25{2), 143-156.
Best, J . C , Blackhurst, M., & Makosky, L. (1992). Sport: The
way ahead (Report of the
Minister's task force on federal sport policy). Ottawa: Sport
Canada.
Birrell, S. (1988). Discourses on the gender/sport relationship:
From women in sport to
gender relations. Exercise and Sport Sciences Reviews, 16, 439-
502.
Binrell, S. (1989). Racial relations theories and sport:
Suggestions for a more critical analy-
sis. Sociology of Sport Journal, 6(3), 212-227.

Birrell, S. (1992). Women of color, critical autobiography, and
sport. In M. Messner & D.
Sabo (Eds.), Sport, men, and the gender order (pp. 185-3 99).
Champaign, IL: Hu-
man Kinetics.
Birrell, S.. & Cole, C. (1990). Double fault: Renee Richards and
the construction and natu-
ralization of difference. Sociology of Span Journal, 7( I), ] -21.
Birrell, S., & Richter, D. (1987). Is a diamond forever?:
Feminist transformation of sport.
Women's Studies International Forum, 10(4), 395-409.
Bourdieu, P. (1978). Sport and social class. Social Science
Information, 17, 819-840.
Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A social critique of the
judgement of taste. New York:
Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Bourdieu, P., & Passeron, J.C. (1977). Reproduction in
education, society and culture. Lon-
don: Sage.
Bragg, R (1995, March 17). Blue collars around the greens.
{Toronto] Globe & Mail, p. A l l .
Brohm. J.M. (1978). Sporr- A prison of measured time. (1.
Fraser, Trans.). London: Ink
Links.
Cantelon, H., & Gruneau, R. (Eds.). (1982). Sport, culture and
the modem state. Toronto:
University of Toronto Press.
Coakley, J. (1993). Sport and socijUization. Exercise and Sport
Sciences Reviews, 21,169-200.

Coakley. J. (1994). Sport in society: Issues and controversies
(5tb ed.). Toronto: Mosby.
Coakley, I., & White, A. (1992). Making decisions: Gender and
sport participation among
British adolescents. Sociology of Sport Journal, 9(1), 20-35.
Curry, T., & Jiobu, R (1984). Sports: A social perspective.
Englewood Clitfs, NJ: Prentice
Hall.
Curtis, J., & White, P. (1992). Toward a better understanding of
the sport practices of
francophone and anglophone Canadians. Sociology of Sport
Journal, 9(4), 403-422.
Davis, K., & Moore, W. (1945). Some principles of
siratification. American Sociological
Review, 10, 242-297.
Davis, L. (1990). The articulation of difference: White (n-
eoccupaiion with the question of
racially linted genetic diff(M"ences among afhl^es. Sociology
of Spon Journal, 7(2),
179-187.
Davis, L., & Delano, L. (1992). Fixing the boundaries of
physical gender: Side effects of
anti-drug campaigns in athletics. Sociology of Sport Journal,
9(1), 1-19.
Dewar, A. (1991). Incorporation or resistance: Towards an
analysis of women's responses to
sexual opfffcssion in sport. International Review for the
Sociology of Sport, 26( 1), 15-23.

Donnelly, P (1991)- Spon for all: Concerns for the future. In P
Qja & R. Telama (Eds.),
Sport for All (pp. 425-438). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Donnelly, P. (1993). Democratization revisited: Seven theses on
the democratization of sport
and ac^ve leisure. Loisir et soci^ti/Society dE Leisure, 16(2),
413-434.
Drcdian. M. (1995, Mardi 25). The Briti^ fi^ a new class war.
[Toronto] Globe & Mail, p. D4.
Dunleavy, A., Miracle, A., & Rees, R. (! 982). Studies in the
sociology of sport. Fort Worth:
Texas Christian University Press.
Fejgin, N. (1994). Participation in high school competitive
sports: A subversion of school
mission or contribution to academic goals. Sociology of Sport
Journal, 11(3), 211 -230.
Figler, S. (1981). Sport and play in American life. Philadelphia:
Saunders.
Foley, D. (1990). The great American football ritual:
Reproducing race, class, and gender
inequality. Sociology of Sport Journal, 7(2), 111-135.
Gadd. J. (1995. August 12), Where women stand now. [Toronto]
Globe & Mail, p. A5.
Gebauer. G. (1986). Festordnung und geschmacksdistinktionen:
Die i!lusion der integra-
tion im freizheirspon. In G, Hortleder & G. Gebauer (Eds.),

Sport-Eros-Tod (pp.
113-143). Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.
Goodhart, P., & Chataway, C. (1968). War without weapons.
London: W.H. Al!en.
Gnineau, R. (1975). Sport, social differentiation, and social
inequality. In D. Bali &. J. Loy
(Eds.), Sport and social order: Contributions to the sociology of
sport (pp. 117-184).
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Gruneau, R. (1976). Class or mass: Notes on the
democratization of Canadian amateur
sport. In R. Gruneau & J. Albinson (Eds.), Canadian sport:
Sociological perspec-
tives {pp. 108-140). Toronto. Addison-Wesley.
Gruneau, R. (1983). Class, sports, and social development.
Amherst: University of Massa-
chusetts Press.
Hall, A., Slack, T , Smith, G., & Whitson, D. (I99I). Sport in
Canadian society. Toronto:
McClelland & Stewart.
Hargreaves. J. (1982). Sport, culture and ideology. In J.
Hargreaves (Ed.), Sport, culture
and ideology (pp. 30-61). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Hargreaves, J. (1986). Sport, power and culture. Cambridge:
Polity Press.
Harvey, J.,&CanteJon, H. (Eds.). {]9S%). Not just a game:
Essays in Canadian sport soci-
ology. Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press.

Harvey. J.,&Houle,F, (1994). Sport, world economy, global
culture, and new social move-
ments. Sociology of Sport Journal, 11(4), 337-355.
Hoberman, J. (1992). Mortal engines: The science of
performance and the dehumanization
of sports. New York: The Free Press.
Hoch, P. (1972). Rip off the big game. Garden City, NY:
Anchor.
In^iam, A. (1980). "Sport and society": Interpenetration and
resistance. Unpublished manuscripL
Jngham, A. (1987. May 22-25). Some comments on theorizing
social relations. Unpub-
hshed conference paper. North American Society for Sport
History, Columbus, OH.
Ingham, A. (1995). Personal communication.
fngham,A..&Broom, E. (Eds.). (1982). Career patterns and
career contingencies in sport.
Vancouver: University of British Columbia.
Ingham, A.. &Loy, J, (1980). Heroes, sport and society: Issues
of transformation and re-
production. Unpublished conference paper presented at the
Intemational Sport Sym-
posium, Los Angeles, CA.
Jamieson. K., Bailey, I., &Ross, D. (] 993, November).
Influence of ethnicity and socioeco-
nomic status on sport participation among Mexican heritage and
Anglo-American
females. Paper presented at the NASSS Conference, Ottawa.
Kidd. B. (1991). From quarantine to cure: The new phase in the

stmggle againsi apartheid
sport. Sociology of Sport Journal, 8, 33-46.
Laberge, S. (1989). L'^galiti dans le sport amateur au Canada.
Paper presented at the 7th
Canadian Olympic Academy.
340 DONNELLY
Laberge. S., & Girardin. Y. (1992). Questioning the inference of
ethnic differences in achieve-
ment values from type of spon participation: A commentary on
White and Curtis.
Sociology of Sport Joumal, 9(3), 295-306.
Lamprecht, M., & Stamm, H. (in press). Age and gender
patterns of sport involvement
among the Swiss labor force. Sociology of Sport Joumal.
Lenskyj,H. (1984). "Akindof precipitate waddle": Early
opposition to women running, in
N. Theberge & P Donnelly (Eds.), Sport and the sociocultural
imagination (pp.
153-161). Fort Worth: Texas Christian University Press.
Lorenz, K. (1967). On aggression. New York: Harcourt, Brace
& World.
Loy. J.. McPherson, B.. & Kenyon, G. (1978). Sport and social
systems. TorODto:
Addison-Wesley.
Uischen, G. (1967). The interdependence of spon and culture.
International Review of Sport

Sociology,!, 127-139.
Liischen, G. (1969). Social stratification and social mobility
among young sponsmen. InJ.
Loy & G. Kenyon (Eds.), Sport, culture and society (pp. 258-
276). New York:
Macmillan.
Majors, R. (1992). Cool pose: Bl^ik masculinity and spons. In
M. Messner & D. Sabo(Eds.),
Sport, men, and the gender order (pp. 109-114). Champaign. IL:
Human Kinetics.
Mandell, R. (1990). Modem criticism of spon. In D. Kyle & G.
Stark (Eds.), Essays on
sport history and sport mythology (pp. 118-138). College
Stmion: Texas A&M Uni-
versity Press.
McAll, C. (1992). English/French Canadian differences in spon
panicipation: Comment on
White & Curtis. Sociology of Sport Journal, 9(3). 307-313.
Messner, M., & Sabo, D. (Eds.). (1992). Spon, men. and the
gender order. Champaign, IL:
Human Kinetics.
Novak. M. (1976). The joy of sports. New York: Basic Books.
Page, C. (1973). Pervasive sociological themes in the study of
sport. In J. Talamini & C.
Page (Eds.). Sport and sociery: An anthology (pp. 14-37).
Boston: Little Brown.
Phillips, J. (1993). Sociology of sport, Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Rees, R.. & Miracle. A. (Eds.). (1986). Sport and social theory,
Chatnpaign, IL: Human

Kinetics.
Renson, R. (1976). Social status symbolism of sport
stratification, Riper presented at the
Olympic Scientific Congress. Qu6bec City.
Rigauer. B. (1981). Sport and work (A. Gutanann. Trans.). New
Ycat Columtta University Press.
Sage, G. (Ed.). (1974). Sport and American society: Selected
readings (2nded.). Reading.
MA: Addison-Wesley.
Simpson, L. (1987). Values, respect and recognition; On race
and culture in the
neoconservative debate. Praxis International,!, 164-173.
StangI, J.. & Kane, M.J. (1991). Structural variables that offer
explanatory power for the
underrepresentation of women coaches since Title IX: The case
of homologous re-
production. Sociology of Sport Joumal, 8(1). 47-60.
Stephens, T . & Craig. C L . (1990). The well-being of
Canadians: Highlights of the 1988
Campbelis survey. Ottawa: Canadian Fitness and Lifestyle
Research Institute.
Theberge, N. (1985). Toward a feminist altemative to spon as a
male preserve. Quest, 37.
193-202.
Theberge, N.. & Donnelly. P. (1984). Sport and the sociological
imagination. Fon Wonh:
Texas Christian University Press.

Vedlitz, A. (1988). A question of values: Conservatives and the
culture of poverty. Social
Justice Research, 2, 235-248.
Vertinsky, P. (1995). Body history for spon historians: The case
of gender and race. In K.
Wamsley (Ed.), Method and methodology in sport and cultural
history (pp. 50-61).
Dubuque, IA: Brown & Benchmark.
Vinnai, G. (1973). Football mania (D. Triesman, Trans.).
London: Orbach & Chambers.
Whannei, G. (1983). Blowing the whistle: The politics of sport.
London. Pluto.
Wherry, G. (1896). Alpine notes and the climbing foot.
Cambridge: Macmillan & Bowes.
White, P., & Curtis, J. (1990a). English/French Canadian
differences in types of spon par-
ticipation: Testing the school socialization expianatron.
Sociology of Sport Journal,
7(3), 347-368.
White, P.. & Cunis, J. (1990b). Participation in competitive
sport among Francophones and
Anglophones in Canada: Testing competing hypotheses.
International Review for
the Sociology of Sport, 25(2), ! 25- ] 41.
Williams, R. (1977). Marxism and literature. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.

Williams, R. (1983). Keywords: A vocabulary of culture and
society. London: Fontana.
Willis, P. (1978). Pmfane culture. London: Routledge & Kegan
Paul.
Willis, P. (1982). Women in sport in ideology. In J. Hargreaves
(Ed.), Sport, culture and
ideology (pp. 117-135). London: Routiedge & Kegan Paul.
Yiannakis, A. (1976). A theory of spon stratification. Sport
Sociology Bulletin, 4, 22-32.
Notes
'This view is characterized in the traditional icka that it is not
wttelher you win or lose but
bow you play the game.
'1 am well aware thai a large body of literature exists on the
cultural reproduction of
inequality, particularly with regard to the media and sport.
However, limitations of space permit
only passing mention of ihis important body of work. Also, the
analysis in this paper is primarily
concerned with Canada, although relevant data have been drawn
from a number of non-Canadian
sources. And, as a final qualification, [ am using the term sport
in this paper in a generic sense.
This is for convenience and space-saving purposes, but it has
the problematic etfect of disguising
an enonnous amount of variation in form and level of
organization of sports; this variety has
various distributional and relational implications. In general,
the type of spon primarily involved
in the production and reproduction of social inequality would be
organized competitive sport.

'The theses are also reiterated, to some extent, in Coakley's
(1994) consideration of func-
lionalism, conflict theory, and critical theory {chapter 2).
''Coakley refers to this view as the "socialization-as-
imemalization" approach (1993, p.
171).
'The levels of analysis were (kveloped in a preliminary way by
Gruneau (1975) and Ingham
(1980) who identified the distributive and relational levels. The
categorical level emerged in
discussions between Ingham and Gruneau (Ingham, 1995) and
was first ffeveJopcd in a confer-
ence paper by Ingham (1987). Dewar (1991) has provided one of
the most succinct descriptions
of these levels of analysis, and is cited here.
*'Loy (1995) s u g ^ s t s there may be a closer fit between the
two typt^ogies than is pro-
posed here, with a clear correspondence between the reflection
thesis and categorical analysis,
and between the resistance thesis and relational analysis.
However, the temporal progression of
the levels of analysis is less clear than the theses; though there
is less research now using a
categorical level of analysis, all three levels may be found in
current research.
1̂ am well aware that a statement such as this accepts men and
women (and various racial/
ethnic divisions) as distinct categories, a notion that is
increasingly in question. However, for the
purposes of the point being made (i.e., popular beliefs about
spon), the statement stands.

342 DONNELLY
"•Such arguments suffer from an important statistical flaw in
that within categories differ-
ences (e.g., between the fastest and the slowest) tend to be
significantly greater than the mean
differences between categories.
•̂ Veninsky (1995) has documented the development of
scientific/medical searches for dif-
ferences between men and women. Blacks and Whites, and Jews
and non-Jews. Also, Lenskyj
(1984) provides an account of biomedical research purportedly
documenting the frailty of
(middle-class) women.
'"Whannel (1983) has noted how mediated sport is a powerful
tool for establishing differ-
ence in that commentators/journalists tend to employ
stereotypical references to the national
character/playing style of. in his case. non-British athletes.
"Both Hall et al. (1991) and Lamprecht and Stamm (in press)
note that it is in recreational
and low intensity exercise activities that male and female
involvement reaches similar levels.
'-As Curtis and White (1992) note, however, no value judgement
should be made abouj
lower levels of involvement in competitive sport and higher
levels of involvement in recreational
spon. Such value judgements are sometimes made, though, in an
attempt to explain differences
in social and economic terms (i.e., lower levels of

competitiveness).
"See also Wi!]i5 (J978, p. 196) for the use of a "cluster of
methods" in relational analysis
(participant observation, observation, just being around, group
discussions, recorded discussions,
informal interviews, use of existing surveys), h is possible to
add content analysis of suhcuitural
literature and questionnaires to this list.
'̂ For the longest time, courses, books, and articles about gender
were usually about women.
The Messner and Sabo (1992) collection placed the issue of
gender firmly within relational analysis
by including a number of papers focusing on men in relation to
women.
'̂ This recognition is now becoming established in distributive
analyses (e.g., Fejgin, 1994;
Jamieson, Bailey, & Ross. 1993), in which there is a growing
recognition of the intersections of
gender, race, and class. TTus is having interesting results—for
example. Fejgin {1994) reports no
racial difference.s in high school panicipation when class is
controlled. Note also a number of
carefully controlled studies by CurtiL and White.
"'For example, references to "gender" concem historically
specific and socially constructed
definitions of what consiitutes masculinity and femininity.
'̂ Similar questions could be generated with regard to the
specifics of inequity in any of
the sets of social relations under consideration.
'*For a short period of time io South Africa there was an

attempi by Whiles to democratize
sport without democratizing the larger society. Such a situation
creates impossible tensions and
contradictions that were only resolved with the ending of
apartheid.
"Unfortunateiy the movement for children's rights does not yei
seem to have had an im-
pact on sport
Acknowledgment
I would like to acknowledge the assistance of Alan Ingham,
John Loy, and Philip White
for the fruitful discussion of some of these ideas. 1 would also
hke to thank the three anonymous
reviewers for their comments.

Running Head GENDER ISSUES IN SPORTGENDER ISSUES IN SPORT .docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

More from jeanettehully

More from jeanettehully (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Running Head GENDER ISSUES IN SPORTGENDER ISSUES IN SPORT .docx