Assessing the sociology of sport: On world inequalities and unequal development

Trajectory of the sociology of sport: from sport sociology to sociology of sport

Many people have forgotten that when this field of inquiry was born, it was baptized as sport sociology. This name was chosen because, despite the fact that by the mid-20th century sport had become an important social phenomenon arousing the interest of sociologists, the majority of them underestimated the true “social” significance of sport and failed to consider it a serious subject for research. Therefore, initially sport was studied from a sociological perspective, but instead of by sociologists rather by physical educators, philosophers, historians and (social) psychologists from different parts of Europe and North America, who recognized that what was happening in sport could be understood only in a social context. The fact that the new sub-discipline was born within an international context facilitated its early formal institutionalization which, in turn, helps us identify the key persons responsible for founding the sub-discipline. The accounts of this historical period vary somewhat with respect to the specific role of key scholars in the organizational process and interpret differently their orientation to sport and physical education (Malcolm, 2014). However, one consistent point shared by all accounts is that the founders agreed on the name of the new field of study. The founding fathers regarded sociology as the parent discipline, but when they named the new sub-discipline, regardless of their academic background, as a matter of course, they chose “sport” as the prefix. Arguably, the pioneers of the field were less concerned with the name and more committed to establishing and spreading the new field. They invited scholars with various scientific backgrounds to join their group. They “cast the nest as wide as possible (which) could be seen as a manifestation of status insecurity and as an attempt to establish legitimacy for the emerging sub-discipline” (Malcolm, 2012: 28).

With their diverse theoretical knowledge they focused on grounding sport sociology, both theoretically and empirically, complementing the dominant empirical approach with a socio-historical one, and with a view to broadening the theoretical landscape (Krawczyk, 1990). A name change from sport sociology to sociology of sport was fairly quickly put on the agenda when it was realized that even the renewed theoretical approach was not enough to change the marginalized position of the sub-discipline in sociology. Giving an account of the 1964–1968 activity of the international organization, Wohl refers to it as the International Committee of Sport Sociology (ICSS) regarding its first three years, then, in the same article, writing about the events in 1968 and further on, without explaining the reasons for the change, he uses the term of “sociology of sport” (Wohl, 1969). According to Wohl’s one-time comments, the tone was set on sociology because at that time the ICSS made an application to become a full member of the International Sociological Association (which was accepted in September 1967). There was no debate for and against either name; native-English experts suggested the new name, which was either welcomed or no importance was attached to it, especially because in several other languages the sub-discipline could only be named in a single way. Eventually, the two names became used as synonyms.

The shift in direction was reflected in the name of the North American Society for the Sociology of Sport (NASSS, 1978), which put the emphasis on sociology and this was further signalled in the name of its official publication, the Sociology of Sport Journal. The second generation of sport sociologists was seriously concerned with modifying the name of the sub-discipline, hoping that it would foster recognition within academic circles. For them sport sociology already offered career opportunities. Many believed that the name shift to sociology of sport would help to establish legitimacy for the new sub-discipline, but it hardly did as sociology of sport would suffer with issues of legitimacy for a long time both in sociology and physical education.

Assessing some challenges of the sociology of sport: more sociological, more sportive and more international

Sociology of sport continues to face new challenges. However, it is important to note that many old challenges have not been solved. Out of this group, three problems are arbitrarily discussed here. The first challenge is related to the following questions: To what extent is it desirable to invite representatives of other disciplines to join the community of sport sociologists? With respect to this question, on the one hand, it is true that sociological issues can be better explored from a multidisciplinary perspective. On the other hand, experts from other disciplines do not necessarily combine several disciplines into their work. Yet, while the sociology of sport espouses multidisciplinarity, familiarity with its conference programmes suggests that there is still a tendency towards a mono-disciplinary approach.

New waves of specialization within the social sciences have resulted in the emergence of new disciplines whose topics increasingly overlap with sociology of sport themes. This process may threaten the distinctive nature of the sociology of sport. Therefore, while borrowing from and co-operating with other social sciences may help maintain our interdependence with them, it would be desirable if the sociology of sport returned to its roots, renewing its relationship with its parent discipline and with the related sub-disciplines. In this way, sociology of sport could contribute not only to the knowledge base of sociology but also to changing sport worlds (Maguire, 2013).

The second challenge refers to changes in the conceptualization of sport. Although it would be exciting intellectually, there is neither capacity nor need for analysing here how the sport sociology pioneers separated the meaning of sport as the object of their studies from its common-sense understanding, and how they came to a fairly narrow interpretation of its contours (Malcolm, 2012). Since the mid-1970s, largely because of the appearance of new sport-like activities, definitional attempts have been renewed. There has always been a consensus over the social nature of sport among sport sociologists, but there has never been consensus over the scope of its meaning. Consequently, sport remains an often ambiguous concept within the sociology of sport. Today even the major international sport sociological bodies define sport differently (Malcolm, 2012). There are views that the term ‘sport’ is not broad enough, that it does not cover all areas studied by sport sociologists. Some scholars have even asked “whether there is a more all-encompassing name for the sub-discipline” (Harris, 2006: 86–87). For both rational and emotional reasons I personally would not agree with a name change for the sociology of sport; however, given the diversity of meanings, I do support keeping debates about the definition of “sport” on the agenda.

The third challenge is also relevant to other sciences: How can non-English speaking authors’ research be included into a given discipline whose language of operation is English? English has always been the working language within the sociology of sport, but at the beginning the ICSS made serious efforts to invite people with various native languages from all corners of the globe to participate in its conferences and to publish in its journal. However, this approach did have its challenges, including language barriers and even cultural differences in how to compose a scientific paper. In response to this situation, the International Sociology of Sport Association (ISSA) arguably became less inclusive for a while. The rising dominance of English exacerbated the problem: sport sociological works written in French, German, Spanish and other languages had less visibility internationally. One response to this was the formation of the European Association for Sociology of Sport (EASS) in 2000, which had as one of its implicit objectives the goal of counterbalancing the overrepresentation of English studies. To its credit, since the mid-2000s the ISSA has strongly encouraged non-native-English speaking scholars to contribute to the sub-discipline and has offered assistance to improve their English communication skills. These efforts notwithstanding, the question still remains: How can non-English-speaking scholars have a meaningful voice and integrally contribute to the global knowledge of the sociology of sport?

Future directions for the sociology of sport in Eastern Europe

During the era when sociology of sport was born as a distinct sub-discipline, the world was unequal in a different way. Instead of the contemporary global village, a global division based on the Cold War existed creating an international system divided into two poles. The opportunities for the emergence of sport sociology were radically different in the bipolar superpower states, the Soviet Union and the USA, and in their allied countries. Sport mattered enough in both camps to merit the attention of sociology, but the status of the parent discipline within the two poles was as different as night and day.

In the Western Bloc sociology was a prestigious academic area; in the Eastern Bloc it was a forbidden discipline, except in Poland and, after the early 1970s, in Hungary (Földesi, 2000). Two Polish social scientists, Wohl and Krawczyk, were among the first sport sociologists. Although I am not in agreement with his ideological views, one must admit that Wohl was highly committed and supportive and he helped legitimize the new sub-discipline. Krawczyk was a true scientist focusing on theoretical problems and educating the next generation of sport sociologists (Kosiewicz, 2009). While some of his talented followers left the country during the 1980s’ political crisis, others remained helping to develop a distinctly Polish, Eastern European sport sociology.

For political reasons a full generation was lost from mainstream Hungarian sociology, and consequently Hungarian sport sociology was several steps behind Poland for a good while. At this time, the emerging sociology of sport was largely empirical, but this started changing after McPherson and Kenyon visited Eastern Europe in the mid-1970s with the aim of disseminating the sub-discipline in the region. They gifted sociology of sport books in Budapest, which were like treasures at that time, given that the iron curtain had prevented the free flow of scientific knowledge to the region. Lüschen and Dunning helped sport sociology in Hungary in a similar way. Sport sociology sub-committees within national bodies for sport science and sociology were initiated early on but at first the standard of the field did not correspond to its level of institutionalization. This was the case as well in some other Eastern Bloc countries, where, ironically, there existed some organizations for experts studying sport from a sociological perspective although sport sociology per se did not exist. The case of the German Democratic Republic was perhaps the strangest case where there was a well-known historian amongst the founders of sport sociology but real sociological studies were not allowed.

Following the 1990s’ change in political regimes in Poland and Hungary, a new generation of sport sociologists embracing the “sociological imagination” and utilizing sophisticated theoretical and methodological knowledge appeared (Dóczi, Gál, Lenartowicz and Rymarczyk). As such a newer generation of scholars will be starting from a stronger theoretical grounding. Moreover, the research agenda seems to have broadened with more topics relevant to contemporary sport (as opposed to historical analysis) and, crucially, analyses have moved beyond the descriptive level. As a result, the prospects for the sub-discipline look very positive in these two countries. In other Eastern European countries, a genuine sociology of sport emerged only in the early 1990s. Since there were two generations who had not been trained in sociological thinking, these scholars have had to cope with somewhat similar problems faced by early sport sociologists five decades ago. In these cases sociology of sport tends to remain more connected to sport than to the parent discipline of sociology and more physical educators deal with sport-related social issues than sociologists. The end result is that some research within this casting of sport sociology does not always deal with problems of sociological importance.

It is fair to say that the world of sport is generally more interested in research results that can be useful in the short term. This attitude limits the choice of research topics and restricts intellectual activity. Notwithstanding, there remain attempts to establish a theoretically and empirically based sociology of sport that can challenge existing paradigms in Eastern European (and other) countries. However, because of a lack of critical mass in innovative thinkers, a paradigm shift has not yet occurred.

Contemporary sociologists of sport are in a unique situation in Eastern Europe: they are “participant observers” of the recent political changes and their effects on sport. They are witness to the change that “sport matters” in a different way than it did during “socialism”, but also aware that some problematic similarities still exist. A particular challenge for sport sociology in the region is to identify and critically analyse the intended and unintended consequences of the political and economic transition of sport.

Another new challenge is to cope with a sort of double jeopardy: (a) many talented would-be sport sociologists eventually select a more profitable profession with better income and higher social prestige; (b) several gifted sociologists of sport emigrate to welfare states and thereby the field loses some of its most capable resources. At the same time, emigrant sport sociologists have a great opportunity to make their national sport sociology known internationally, and can help to make the sub-discipline more sociological in Eastern Europe. Sociology of sport exists in Eastern Europe, but there is not yet a distinctly Eastern European sociology of sport. The sub-discipline cannot be divided by geographic location as a way to distinguish particular sociological orientations as the situation is more multifaceted and complex than this (Földesi and Dóczi, 2011).

There is some scepticism about the future of sociology of sport here and not without reason. At present it is developing in different ways and at different rates in various Eastern European countries. However, while progress is often slow and even sometimes contradictory, it remains today that there is optimism about its future in the region.

Concluding thoughts

World inequalities are well reflected in the half a century-old history of the sociology of sport. Although there has never been any prejudice and discrimination around it, it is a historical fact that the rise of sport sociology as a discipline was fostered by white males, mostly from European and North American welfare states. Not a single expert was in at the birth of the sub-discipline from underdeveloped and developing countries; the majority of the few from the Eastern Bloc were involved in its formal institutionalization because of political considerations. Females and males from different geographic regions and with different ethnic origins could join the sport sociological community only later. For various reasons, the sociology of sport emerged at different times and developed in different spaces and directions in the various corners of the world. The language barriers are still significant but the field in its entirety has high potential for massive improvement. There is still much work to do which, in our global village, can be done effectively only if everyone who calls him/herself a sociologist of sport makes endeavours to act together.