Assessing the sociology of sport: On N+1 and the cultural approach

Reflections on the trajectory of the sociology of sport

The status and development of sociology of sport reflects that of its parent discipline, sociology. The field of sociology had remarkable promise several decades ago. However, that promise has not been realized, with sociology drifting to the margins of societal discussion and to the narrow arena of sociologists’ internecine interests. In today’s consumption-oriented society, which counts on efficiency, sociology has not attained its potential role within the interdisciplinary competition to offer a comprehensive and alternative perspective. An idea presented by Pitirim Sorokin (1928: 761) is relevant here. Sorokin argued that the number of social sciences which are needed is “N+1”, with “N” referring to the number of areas of social life, each of which has a discipline of its own; for example, economics is concerned with economic questions, political science focuses on power and politics, the science of law addresses juridical questions, and so on. But, in addition, we need a science which operates between, beyond, and over these areas. Sociology, Sorokin said, is that science N+1. Should sociology be able to fully capitalize on its great potential to oversee the structures and dynamics of power, and thus claim the position of that science N+1? In the process of achieving that goal, would it not also become more visible and attain a higher status among the disciplines?

Instead, the trajectory has led to internal discussions in the field, to internal competition among different approaches and schools, and to the differentiation of the social sciences and sociology. I noticed this tendency towards internal discussion in 1998, the first time I participated in an International Sociological Association (ISA) world congress. I remember wondering at the energy being devoted to debate on quantitative and qualitative methods – sociologists discussing amongst themselves, creating and debating the fine points using their own jargon – instead of focusing on the big social questions of that time.

It is a tendency that does not strengthen the status of the field. For instance, sociology in Finland, in the interdisciplinary competition for status, operates principally in two roles: first as a provider of bits of information for administrators, and second in the role of the “barking dog” whose alarms go perhaps largely unheeded. That is to say, sociologists offer critiques, investigate issues, and suggest initiatives, but the establishment is often unresponsive. Thus, in both cases, the current role of sociology might be described as “on the sidelines” and not, as Sorokin envisaged, as a “quarterback” of sorts, playing from a strategic position at the core of the game.

The status and role of sociology of sport have similar characteristics within the context of sociology. The trajectory of general sociology is, of course, longer than that of sociology of sport and it covers different historical eras. Like general sociology somewhat earlier, the promise of the sociology of sport was remarkable 50 years ago. Sport was developing as a noteworthy field of society in which countless questions were open to study and the level of existing knowledge was low. The potential and need for research were noticed in many countries and academic departments, and research chairs were founded. Education and research in the field found a place in many countries all over the world. But in the long run, like general sociology, the sociology of sport did not manage to establish a comprehensive approach to the “big questions” of sport (such as its contributions to humankind and wider society).

Overall, both sociology and sociology of sport have potential, which have not yet been realized because of the low status of sociology amongst other scientific disciplines and its lack of emphasis on key societal issues.

Assessing the challenges for the sociology of sport

At present, the social status of a branch of science highly depends on how its research results are made available to practitioners. Decision-makers, those who determine the resources for research and the measuring tools that are created for them, are typically interested in simplified evidence-based results. In addition, they want to have results without delay. Roughly speaking, their main focus is on empirical analytical enquiry and universal pragmatics: above all, to use Habermas’s (1972) term, an interest in controlling nature. In other words, hermeneutic and emancipatory interests are not the main focus. Arguably, instead of those interests, developments in the academic world, along with the ideas of New Public Management, have strengthened interest in technical research – at least this seems to be the case in Finland.

The trend described means that the status of sociological enquiry is not strong, partly because of its emphasis on hermeneutic and critical approaches. However, it has enhanced its role of “the barking dog” – for example, drawing attention to issues such as inequity and abuse. With these words, I do not, of course, mean that the approaches are not of sociological or societal importance.

Here it is worth pointing out that the production of knowledge about social issues is more ambiguous when compared with engineering or medicine. The differentiation of the social science of sport is a part of this development. In many countries – especially because of the emphasis on utilitarian and economic perspectives – the sociology of sport continues to struggle to survive. Increasingly specialized subfields have been created and institutionalized (e.g. sport management, sport development, sport economics). These processes and developments of course affect the position of the sociology of sport. At present, the borderlines and boundaries of the discipline are tattered and the core is leaking.

One of the core ideals of science – namely, cumulativeness – is therefore not tuned-in very well in the sociology of sport. The field, at present, is an assemblage of different approaches, forming a set of small subfields. Such complexity could be seen as richness, but at the same time the general public and the other external evaluators have difficulty in picturing what it is all about. The identity and the façade of the field are relatively shapeless and that is one reason for the limited status of the sociology of sport.

With respect to ranking of social sectors, “sport” is not at the top, although it is perhaps the biggest of the small social sectors. In addition, sport sociologists have too often focused on small issues in the field. Researchers often pounce on interesting but narrowly focused questions related to particular sports, events, and celebrities. However, such choices do not enhance the status of the field within an interdisciplinary competition; nor do they increase its social status, because findings, theorizing, and interpretations tend to remain within the confines of the field’s own small corner.

Nevertheless, the promise of sociology of sport could be fulfilled if it were used as a pathway to address the larger questions of general society. This could be accomplished if sport were approached through broader frameworks. As well as the status of general sociology, the role of sociology of sport could be enhanced if the “N+1” approach were used more often and the social world of sport regarded more widely as a mirror of society (cf. Koski, 2012).

Future directions for the sociology of sport

Johan Galtung (1991), in “The sport system as a metaphor of the world system,” said that sport is one of the most powerful cultural transmission mechanisms and cultural structures that mankind has ever known or produced. The topic and the statement offer sport sociologists two ideas worth seizing and exploring. First, the analysis of sport and its various dimensions provides not just knowledge of a small social world; through the analysis of sport we can gain a broader understanding of humans and society. Second, sport comprises a relatively exclusive and, at the same time, culturally powerful unity: a microcosm that offers an interesting and relatively easy target for research; and the approach – especially from the cultural perspective – could be fruitful.

The cultural perspective is apposite because, as citizens of the mediatized and marketized information society, we live in a world flooded with different meanings. From this perspective, a useful tool is the Weberian idea of culture – where culture is viewed as a web of meanings created by human beings (see Geertz, 1973) – in which meaning is the central concept and the essential process is the process of achieving meaningfulness.

In this context, “meaning” has two essential dimensions (see Grossberg, 1992): first is the linguistic or symbolic dimension, which refers to what a thing means. To get into, for example, the culture of a certain sport, one has to understand both the concrete elements of that sport and its particular terminology (e.g. in golf – bogey, birdie, spoon, green, etc.). The second dimension of meaning is significance. If something has meaning for us, we are referring to some order of priority, where one thing is more important than another. For example, many of us have favorite sport teams – hence, for a particular individual, Manchester United might be more valuable than Chelsea, or vice versa (Koski, 2008). When analyzing the social worlds of sports, its meanings, and processes of meaningfulness, we are in the realm of big sociological issues such as cultural transmission mechanisms. Questions such as “How do cultural meanings take root and strengthen?” and “How do individual meanings come to be collective?” are examples of “big questions” that could be analyzed concretely through sport. Understanding issues of that kind could make a great contribution to sociology, society, and even to the whole of humankind.

One way of applying Sorokin’s “N+1” idea through a cultural perspective would be to engage in more multidisciplinary, cooperative research projects. When applying the cultural approach to a sociologically interesting sport target, we could include in the research group – along with sport sociologists – experts from fields such as marketing, religious science, media science, cultural history, and education. In addition, international co-operation could be more used when the “big questions” are investigated.

The promise of sociology could be fulfilled through the cultural approach and multidisciplinary co-operation. The approach should cover micro, meso, and macro levels and physical culture (including sport) could be a social world which offers a channel for analysis and understanding.

According to Comte’s classic idea of epochs, each era is dominated by some mainstream line of thinking which is dictated by some dominant profession. Thus, there was a time of philosophers and priests, then the era of engineers. Arguably, we currently live in the time of economists and lawyers. If we start to apply Sorokin’s idea of N+1 through the cultural perspective, could there someday be the era of sociologists?