The following are notes and discussion questions for some of the films we will see during the semester:
On the ropesThe film highlights the power of sports as cultural practices to influence ideas about what is masculine and what is feminine in society. In other words, sports are sites for producing, reproducing, opposing and resisting, and even transforming ideology.
At the same time, athletes themselves are influenced by ideology as they make choices and develop and express identities on and off the field. Men's locker rooms are classic in this regard. Male locker room culture has its own set of norms that emphasize macho presentations of self at the same time that they permit expressions of "guarded intimacy." Therefore men express their intimate bonds with each other through hand slapping, fist bumping, and punching each other rather than sitting around holding hands! To test the tensions associated with "guarded intimacy," just go into an NFL locker room and call a defensive lineman a lady or a fag. Then look for the closest door -- not a closet door!
The film shows that athletes' bodies in certain cultures, especially consumer cultures, have been related to definitions of excellence, success, vitality, sex appeal, and beauty in society. This is why corporations use athletes' bodies in commercials about their products and why they turn athletes uniforms into logo billboards. They want their products and logos associated with these positive athletic images, especially in the case of corporations that sell products that have questionable value for personal health and society's well-being.
Sports in the US and other societies have been the sites for reproducing dominant ideas about masculinity and femininity. However, as shown in the film, these ideas are not always accepted without question. In the case of women, who have been clearly disadvantaged by dominant gender ideology, sports have been sites for challenging ideas about traditional femininity. In the case of men, who have been clearly privileged by the ideology represented and reproduced in sports, sports are sites at which men are careful to avoid challenging ideas about traditional masculinity. In fact, many male athletes actively "police" the normative boundaries of what constitutes masculinity and manhood in the culture.
It might be argued that male heavyweight boxers are the highest paid of all athletes because they do the most explicit job of all male athletes when it comes to reproducing the traditional ideas about gender that have privileged men. This is probably why Evander Holyfield or Mike Tyson make more money in 5 minutes than all the women in the professional soccer league make in an entire season. Of course, the relatively high rewards received by women figure skaters and gymnasts exist for the same reason -- these athletes reproduce traditional gender ideology, and people are willing to pay to see them do it.
A key point was made in the film as Magic Johnson was shown as he discussed being HIV+. Note that he received a standing ovation when he said he didn't contract the HIV virus through homosexual contact! People were obviously relieved to have their notions about sports and heterosexual masculinity reaffirmed.
The film shows that women did play a range of sports, even contact sports, in the years between 1910 and the 1940s. It was not until the 1950s that new forms of gender ideology emphasized women as "makers of homes" to the exclusion of other roles and identities. This was challenged in the late-1960s as women resisted norms that limited their participation in sports. Note that women at the end of the 19th century and early 20th century played very rough games (and even full court basketball). The combination of sport events with beauty pageants for the players showed that gender tensions were alive and well back then as well.
Through the 20th century women's participation in sports was also constrained by homophobia. In fact, homophobia affects heterosexuals as much or even more than gay men and lesbians. Fears among heterosexuals of being labeled as gay or lesbian sometimes are as strong as the fears that lead gay and lesbian athletes to stay in the closet.
Some gay men have used sports as a "sexuality cover" because they know that others are unlikely to label them as gay if they participate in a "manly" sport.
The film suggests, and I agree, that lesbians over the years have played a key role in promoting sports for women through the 20th century. If it were not for lesbians, Title IX would not have been an issue as early as it came to the political table. Now, of course, the claim made by some people is that lesbians hold sports for women back. This is ironic given the history of women's sports.
The double standard is still alive and well in sports. If a woman athlete said that she had multiple male sexual partners or punched someone in a bar fight, or posed with men hanging all over them, they would not receive the same response as men who brag about sexual partners, get into fights, or pose in magazine ads with women fawning over them in various states of undress..
In the case of men's sport teams, especially in contact sports, locker room culture is not friendly to women. In fact, women frequently are demeaning and "dissed." Woman are not respected because male athletes think that women do not have the foggiest idea of what it means to go out and pay the price, make the sacrifice, and be willing to "take a bullet" for teammates.
The progress in changing ideas about femininity in and through sport has been impressive over the past 30 years. However, the speed at which Brandi Chastain's body was sexualized when she took off her jersey shows clearly that women's bodies are more likely to be objectified and sexualized than is the case for men, even men who are defined by people as attractive.
[My sense is that just as Brandi Chastain was sexualized, black men will be racialized when they engage in conspicuous displays of celebration that do not fit with the expectations of whites in the culture. This occurred in the case of the 4 sprinters who won the gold medal in the 4x100 relay in the 2000 Olympics in Sydney. When they preened and walked around flexing and acting cocky, many people resented it. This is a complex issue, but race played a factor in the response.]
Finally, the film did not deal with issues related to social class and race, but they were there in the subtext of the narratives and behind some of the images.
Notes on the film, Playing to Extremes:
The film highlights organized, competitive, adult controlled youth sports in terms of how they are organized and in terms of the experiences of selected participants in highly competitive programs. It illustrates the impact of youth sport participation on family life, relationships with parents, identity, time, and peer relations. It stresses the number of hours that children devote to youth sports, the extent to which these sports are adult controlled, and the fact that participation demands specialization and year round commitments. (I wonder if there should not be child labor laws to protect children from parents and coaches who may be motivated by financial returns associated with the performances of children).
The film suggests that youth sports have changed in recent years: today the stakes are higher than ever before in the minds of parents and players, and expectations are higher. The myths that "anything is possible" and "you can do anything you want to do" inform both the stakes and the expectations. Children are seduced into making commitments and setting goals with no knowledge of what they are doing.
The film shows that video cameras are used to critique performance (and they influence memories about performances; children are no longer free to remember as the wish, and most of them hate the cameras). Competition is related to identity issues; equipment and technology are seen as essential to success; encouragement often is perceived as pressure by children; and there are a growing number of overuse and over-training injuries as children learn to "suck it up" to the point that it damages their health and well being (meanwhile, coaches and parents define sucking it up as a sign of character).
Fun in the youth sports highlighted in the film is defined in terms of dominating others, records, winning championships, and getting good exposure that enables players to move up to the next level. The emphasis on camaraderie among peers has shifted to an emphasis on performance and domination.
Soccer program: The travel and money spent is excessive; parents take the games seriously, and see their children's futures as being tied to their performances today. The players don't look like they are having much fun, although appearances may be deceiving. Social class issues are clearly apparent in the soccer scenes and the soccer experience; and all the players are white.
Figure skating: Again, travel and commitment is great. When parents are coaches, children never escape their athlete identities. The emphasis on jumping in the new, commodified form of figure skating is leading to injuries on young developing joints and bones; hips, spines, ankles, and knees are especially vulnerable (the 2001 US National Championships had three of the top 6 "women" skaters out with stress fractures and spinal injuries; most of the men fell as they tried quads to meet emerging expectations that they must put their bodies on the line to score well). For girls the emphasis is on a petite body, the use of makeup, costumes, and smiles. Mom in the film dresses her daughter as if she is playing with a Barbie doll. The daughter is excited when one of her weekend exhibitions is cancelled, but the mother quickly rules out any spontaneous fun as an option for their weekend. The gender issues in figure skating are clear.
Basketball: How can someone say a basketball scholarship is worth $130,000?! (only if you go to the most exclusive of private colleges in the US). This is the myth that Nike and other pimp-like organizations use to encourage commitments from youngsters who don't have enough information to raise questions about what they are dedicating themselves to. Players now have websites to tout themselves to recruiters, junior high and elementary school players are being contacted by colleges − often through programs sponsored by shoe and apparel companies. Athletes become known as Nike or Reebok, or Addidas athletes before they are 16, and it now affects where they choose to attend college: can a Nike player go to a university that has sold its athletic department and all its athletes to Addidas? The shirt that says, "I have no life − my daughter plays AAU basketball" is telling. It could also say, "My daughter has no life − she plays AAU basketball." Children are very quick to understand what it is that elicits approval from parents and other influential adults in their lives. When children learn that "if you are going to play, you should work to be the best you can be" tends to create many dropouts and a few stars − is this what excellence is all about? Large transnational corporations want us to think this is so. When excellence is defined as being good in a highly specialized niche, who benefits?
Hockey: This is a good example of how a working class African American father sees sports as a way for his sons to have things that he never has been able to enjoy or achieve. His wife disagrees with him as he spends many family resources going to tournaments and buying equipment. If he invested that $5000 per year that he spends on hockey he could pay for his sons to go to college; instead, he sees hockey as the investment, and his sons have no choice in the matter even though they see what's going on. The goal is Harvard and the NHL − if his sons don't burn out and tell him to stick their hockey sticks and pads. Social class and race operate in sports in subtle ways.
Burnout: The 16-year old former figure skater has insightful things to say about her "career." Disability issues entered into this story (skating was a way for a hearing impaired girl to be known in terms of what she could do rather than what she could not do). The mom talks about how she became caught up in the whole youth sport "thing;" the demands increased progressively in a way that led her to be caught up at the same time she realized she and her daughter were in too deep. Her daughter still wrestles with the things that she says her coaches "put in her head": the statement, "pigs don't fly and cows don't jump" sticks with her as she thinks about body issues. The issues related to being an athlete with a disability are not discussed as much as they could be.
IN WHOSE HONOR? AMERICAN INDIAN MASCOTS IN SPORTS
This is a documentary about Charlene Teeters, a Spokane Indian and a mother of two. As a beginning graduate student at the University of Illinois she became concerned about the way the University athletic teams were using images and rituals related to Native American culture. Her protests at the University gave rise to a nationwide movement that fights to preserve the integrity of portrayals of Native American cultures in the US today.
The documentary takes a critical look at how Native American images, mascots, and nicknames are used in sports. It examines issues of racism, stereotypes, minority representation, and the effects of mass-media imagery. It also highlights the ways that power operates in ethnic relations, and how backlash occurs around the controversy associated with Chief Illiniwek at the University of Illinois.
The documentary raises many discussion topics:
As you watch the film, pay attention to the stories behind the hoop dreams and the basketball action. Get a feel for the people, the families, the neighborhood, the general context in which the Gates and Agees live their lives.