International Review for the Sociology of Sport http://irs.sagepub.

com/
The macho world of sport a forgotten realm? Some introductory remarks
Michael Klein International Review for the Sociology of Sport 1990 25: 175 DOI: 10.1177/101269029002500301 The online version of this article can be found at: http://irs.sagepub.com/content/25/3/175

Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:
International Sociology of Sport Association

Additional services and information for International Review for the Sociology of Sport can be found at: Email Alerts: http://irs.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://irs.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Citations: http://irs.sagepub.com/content/25/3/175.refs.html

>> Version of Record - Jan 1, 1990 What is This?

Downloaded from irs.sagepub.com at UNIV CALIFORNIA SAN DIEGO on May 10, 2013

The macho world of sport — a forgotten realm? Some introductory remarks
MICHAEL KLEIN

Remigiusstraße 41, 5000 Köln 41, FRG

Abstract This article gives an introduction to the intentions of this special topical issue of IRSS and how far these intentions are realised. The insufficient theoretical discussion of masculinity in sport corresponds to the uncertainty of the male role in modern society in general. This is all the more regrettable, as sport is undoubtedly connected with gender identity, and the favourite sport in society is determined by masculine patterns. In the following contributions some central and corresponding aspects of sport as a male preserve and of masculinity are discussed. This article emphasizes rather the dark sides because usually both are glorified and it is postulated that only the integration of the overt and the hidden polarities can move sport and masculinity from their contemporary desolate status.

1.

During the last few years the aspects of sexes in sport were usually discussed as quantitative representations of women in sport, sport activity in general, membership of sport clubs, participation in top-level sport, preferences of types of sport and so on. Differences with regard to the participation rates of men are usually interpreted as showing &dquo;inequality&dquo;, &dquo;underprivilege&dquo;, and the oppression of the wants, needs and demands of women. Within the light of such interpretation, the status of the sporting man is the undiscussed standard to which woman have to aspire. If qualitative and substantial dimensions may be perceived, then they are best provided when a cooperative and self-experience oriented &dquo;soft sport&dquo; is shown in contrast and as an alternative to the aggression und violence of competitive male
sport.
In consequence, most of the discussion is joyless, lacking in humour, and - even boring, whilst the practice of the dominant sport in society becomes devoid of imagination and creativity and instead becomes more and more determined by the arid desert of technocratic efficiency and commercial greed.
worse -

The arguments put forward and the corresponding sport practice almost totally exclude questions of cultural anchorage and the depth structure of sport and gender in a similar fashion beyond anything other than a superficial understanding of power and repression. This even means those deeply rooted social peculiarities, values and inherent characteristics of this specific sport which form the basis of its fascination, attraction, excitement-and suspense. I believe that the recollection of these aspects should especially include the integration of the dark sides which alone can give dignity to both a person and

Downloaded from irs.sagepub.com at UNIV CALIFORNIA SAN DIEGO on May 10, 2013

176

circumstances. This

meaning
sexes

and of what is

approach includes above all the question of the polarized and what is separated in the polarization

social of the

in sport.

Some of these points have already been discussed and one or two elaborated upon together with such topics as top-level sport and the ritualization of sport (Gebauer ed. 1988), the aspects of androgynity (Klein 1983), and the feministic

approach to sport (Theberge 1985, Hall 1985). The psychic mechanisms are emphasized by means of extremely risky behaviour (Aufmuth 1988) or by psychopathology in sport (Bcisscr 1967). It was the intention of this special topical issue of IRSS to deal with those nearly-forgotten peculiarities and fascinations of &dquo;masculine&dquo; sport which have now become overshadowed - if not eclipsed - by profit-seeking, stress, and success which are lacking in either feeling and/or spontaneous effects and during
which violence becomes domesticated to the level of mere business.
For this reason male scientists were first of all asked for contributions. Most of them retracted with different excuses and I am willing to interpret this as

symptom. In the past there had already been complaints that men had been analysed as workers, entrepreneurs, unemployed men, sportsmen, scientists or whatever,

they had never previously been considered as research objects simply as men. Within the last few years, &dquo;men scientists&dquo; have tried desperately to gain contact to the topics of the womens scene, adapting the fashion of research by means of self-exploration. But only those men who cannot accept their role as a man in the self-evident social manner are affected by the fact that they are male, and this is only a small number of social scientists, psychologists or social workers. The breach between unspoken self-evidence and awareness/self-exploration of being male remains a field of vision with many &dquo;blind spots&dquo;. But &dquo;a map with white spots of such size is not only incomplete, it is much more incorrect, misleading, wrong. For the cartographers are not aware that whole continents are unknown to thcm. They take that which is known to them to be the world itself and therefore distort thc lines in such a way that they cannot be corrected by only completing them&dquo; (Klinger 1986: 75). Once again, therefore, whilst this special topical issue can indeed add some missing links, it cannot claim to correct the lopsided frame, because the contributions and arguments mainly deal with reactions (especially womens
but

reactions) to thc macho world of sport.

2.

We

thus realize a curious &dquo;looping effect&dquo;; with regard to gender, obviously called upon, and male comments are, in this case, above all male only reactions to the reactions of women to the male preserve in cultural objectivisations. The arguments are then, however, mainly normative.
can

women are

Masculinity in sport is practised with all its implications, dark sides, historical origins, and psychological drives from which it lives and obtains its social fascination. However, masculinity in sport is not reflected and in this way it is split off from consciousness. The self-evidence of action remains implicit and offers
Downloaded from irs.sagepub.com at UNIV CALIFORNIA SAN DIEGO on May 10, 2013

177

its surface structure, but the &dquo;reality&dquo; operates underground. The typified interactions of everyday life are carried out by acting within the frame of selfevidence. Their implications and sense, however, are only rarely explicit and interpreted and they therefore usually remain of hidden from consciousness. The sense of everyday life does not lie within the field of our perception because it escapes our attention on account of its self-evidence. Especially its basic rules therefore stay unexplained and unproven. Social learning and the constitution of gender identity mainly result from participation in institutionalized interaction systems (Klein 1978: 397, according to Gerth and Mills 1953; McCall and

only

Simmons 1966).
The needs and bahaviour of individuals are defined and legitimated by membership to a social category (for example, gender) or by previously fixed action patterns. A persons motives are subsequent to action.

Particularly physical exercise and sport are part of the practical sense of social order and social place. The acquisition of this social order in the everyday practice sport occurs in a manner which is both expressive and presentative (Bourdieu 1987). The internalization of the social structure as a state of the body therefore remains unconscious, but for this reason it works all the more effectively, as it is withdrawn from wilful acknowledgment by arguments. Bourdieu (1987: 127) emphasizes that social necessities, which are transmuted into motoric schemes and automatic reactions of the body, are hidden from the view of their procreator. Just as those involved at no time know exactly what they are doing, actions always have greater significance than such persons are aware of. The empirical reality of sport is thus always connected with personal and/or collective experiences based on individual biography and the social structure likewise.

3.

Although it is seldom consciously intended, sporting activities are undoubtedly tightly connected with gender patterns and the social staging of gender. There are also certainly typical female manners of presentation in sport, such as for example composition, creating, self-expression and gracefulness. Men adopting this stylc run a great risk of being discriminated against as &dquo;cissies&dquo; (John Curry, Toller Cranston). Nevertheless, within the dominant sport in society, the techniques and the body symbolism, together with thc claims of performance underlie a male grammar, as well as the institutionalized realization of sport. Consequently, the practice of sport gives symbolic gains to the masculine habit, expecially to juveniles, and in this way confirms the social order of male superiority. Messncr (see this issue) emphasizes that sport in this way plays a
central role in the construction and reestablishment of the contemporary hierarchy of gender order because it is closely associated with a natural or &dquo;Godgiven&dquo; order.
&dquo;It is small wonder that the ... male has a strong affinity for sports. He has learned that that is one area where there is no doubt about sexual diffcrcncs and where his biology is not obsolete. Athletics help assure his difference from women in a world where his functions have come to resemble theirs&dquo; (Beisser

1967: 225)...
Downloaded from irs.sagepub.com at UNIV CALIFORNIA SAN DIEGO on May 10, 2013

178

All along it has been hard for women to succeed in those parts of sport which characerized to a great exent by masculine patterns: competition, achievement, aggression, strength or top performance sport in general. The more women accept and choose the dominant patterns of sport for themselves, the more they are confirmed as being inferior.
are

it is not accident that new dimensions of achievement in female only when women no longer automatically follow the wellestablished paths of men in sport, but bring in new components based on their identity as women, for example an understanding of athletics as art or body

Certainly

athletics

occur

performance (Klein 1983, 1987). Sport which is established and dominant in industrialized worldwide influence, involves privileges for men and conveys

societies exerts in its depth the structure of mens life patterns. However, it does not take human lifestyle into account - excepting, that is, the lifestyle of the socially privileged white male, which is taken to be life as a whole. Sport without history or gender, oriented only towards skills and increasing efficiency within given sports in an instrumental manner - this kind of sport deprives human beings of their social life and finally reduces them to functioning bodily machines.

Exemplarily typical male value and action patterns are represented in this modern-day style of sport. These are the masculine principles and myths of occidental rationality as they are comprised in the unmovable, non-correctable and unshiftable belief in exact calculation, permanent development, linear growth, and unlimited &dquo;progress&dquo;. In sport, this untiring fixation on apparently &dquo;value-neutral&dquo; and instrumental rationality, technological maximization and efficiency is realized in the obligatory standards &dquo;objective comparison&dquo;, &dquo;maximum efficiency&dquo; and &dquo;surpass&dquo;. Sporting activities are compressed to non-personal movement patterns under official control, which are determined by abstract measuring criteria. The male sport practice is dedicated to the abstract ideals and goals of the &dquo;faster, further, higher&dquo; - to success and to winnings, but it is independent of personal sense, means, emotions, hopes, expectations, anxieties and remembrance. But in this way even body-experience and movement become entirely instrumentalized. The body is no longer a vehicle for self-exploration, selfawareness and self-assurance; the dedication to solely an increase in functional achievement ultimately results in an understanding of body-as-weapon for violence against opponents (see Messner in this issue). It is obvious that women and female aspects can only disturb and cause trouble in this social context. Consequently, within the heart of &dquo;real sport&dquo; (which means male sport), where patterns of masculinity are celebrated, the hardest limits are set for women and they are confronted with rituals of worthlessness. In this way, the patterns of sexism and the demonstration and symbolization of male dominance are the most important elements for the continuity and stability of socially established sport.

4.

Sport therefore plays a central role in the development of the identity of boys either by participating or by identification or imagination. Sport can persistingly
Downloaded from irs.sagepub.com at UNIV CALIFORNIA SAN DIEGO on May 10, 2013

179

confirm and/or impair the role of man in society because it delivers plausible proof of the &dquo;natural&dquo; superiority of men over women. For this reason, sport is attributed to masculine abilities and associated with male characteristics not only in the understanding of boys but also in the understanding of girls.
a far greater extent than is the case with &dquo;femininity&dquo;, is a &dquo;masculinity&dquo; disparate and contradictory social category, and it is hard to say exactly what the characteristics of masculine properties or our masculine behaviour could be. The contemporary discussion of gender order and gender categories is already attempting a deconstruction and reconstruction of masculinity. Corresponding global and individual crisis of mens role have been identified (Astrachan 1988, Brod ed. 1988, David and Brannon ed. 1976, Hollstein 1988). In general the diagnosis is one of a fragile masculine identity, because the social as well as the personal definition of masculinity is rather vague and uncertain:

However,

to

&dquo;The earliest lesson: dont be like girls, kid, be like like well, not like girls&dquo; (David and Brannon 1976: 13). There is therefore a high level of rigidity but little substance, flexibility, changeability, adaptability, aim or purpose in the male sex role. In a sophisticated study, David and Brannon (1976) identify a &dquo;four part role&dquo;, where the male stereotypes and the expectations of men are crystallized into four
...
...

focal areas or dimesions:

-

&dquo;sissy stuff&dquo;: the stigma of anything vaguely feminine; the big wheel: success, status and the need to be looked up to; the sturdy oak: a manly air of toughness, confidence and self reliance; give em hell: the aura of aggression, violence and daring.
no

Above all, the central value in constructing men and in learning how to be a is competing for success and power. This then finally creates contexts in which violence and aggression become normative behaviour. The significant elements of such aggressive competition can already be observed in the games played by little boys (Avedon and Sutton-Smith 1971, Sutton-Smith 1978), thus establishing the important function of such games in the socialization process of sex roles. And sport is indeed the ideal social field to demonstrate exemplarily the central dimension of mans relationship with the world is constituting male identity; aggression and rivalry &dquo;within the rules&dquo;; violence and even injuries to gain masculine status - but all free from responsibility, because such injuries appear within a contextual morality as &dquo;a part of the game&dquo;.
man

We do after all really know that aggression is the only empirical difference between men and women which is significant (Maccoby and Jacklin 1975). These are probably not genetic differences but more a result of the confrontation with constantly repeated exercise situations. Such situations provoke the setting up of typical problem-solving strategies, and these strategies then become stabilized to form habits because they are connotated with the highly generalized image of masculinity. This effect works to such an extent that finally only an aggressive and dominating man appears to be a &dquo;real&dquo; man, and men who are not aggressive and power-seeking seem to be rather strange (Kipnis 1985). We find this eroticism of power and greed or desire for power from Shakespeares Macbeth up to the aphrodisiacs of the shoot-downs in Westerns and the orgasms in volley-firing submachine guns of all those modern Rambos.
Downloaded from irs.sagepub.com at UNIV CALIFORNIA SAN DIEGO on May 10, 2013

180 The

development

of the

identity

of

boys

and

men

is

consequently extremely
appear

biased, directed towards autonomy, separation, individuality and the rivalryorientation based upon this. On the other hand, the ability to form relationships,
contact, connexion and solidarity to be threatening and dangerous.
are

not

only undesirable but may even

It is often stated that men have profound problems in developing and maintaining stable, emotive and especially intimate relationships with women or with other men. This certainly results from the over-accentuation of identity by separation. The desire for contact within the existing but repulsed dependency of relationship can only be realized by selfish complacency and by dominating

others, best of all in a world which is apart from women. Partners are maltreated to compensate for lacking self-confidence and inner emptiness. But in order to
find security in such relationships it is necessary to have perfect control over persons, emotions and situations. Much psycho-social research has shown that it is exactly those extremely successful and success or power-seeking persons who are characterised by deep fears, especially by the fear of being abandoned or forlorn. To compensate for such fears they try to dominate, to control and to command. Usually in their early childhood they felt extremely dependent and helpless and did not receive the love and confirmation needed at that time. The biographical consequence is an extreme need for autonomy, independence, power, control and confirmation through achievement (for the field of sport see: Aufmuth 1988, Klein 1987).
are not only individual properties but and properties typical for masculinity in our society.

However, these

are

even

social

The production of masculinity in patriarchal societies is an introduction to domination and training in aggression and violence, and this includes partial depersonalization and the splitting-off of social attributes. Some social theories consider the destructive manner of masculine action where it superficially appears to be constructive - to be reactions to the unsatisfactory position of man in the gender-specific division of labour. This situation has occurred on the one hand through the separation of public and personal affairs in industrialized societies, and, even more so, as a result of the effects of sexual envy on the unsure and fragile situation in the production/ reproduction balance of the sexes (Easlea 1985).
even

Since men cannot give birth, they need instruments or weapons to demonstrate their energy and creative power. Because men feel dependent from women and inferior in relation to them, they try to gain collective magnitude by belitting women and to achieve masculine status by surpassing other men. Women and nature likewise are imagined to be in need of conquest. However, the creative power of man is not characterised by care and protection but instead by domination, control, command and submission, and therefore hate, violence and destruction occupy the fields of male predominance. In consideration of all of these points, masculinity is not, in its socialised manner, a manifestation of self-assurance and authentic competence. Masculinc values, attitudes, habits and action patterns are rather built-in jealous reactions and compensation for fellings of privation and deficiency. Masculinity is designed to prevent the threatening feelings of weakness, impotence, anxiety, loneliness,

Downloaded from irs.sagepub.com at UNIV CALIFORNIA SAN DIEGO on May 10, 2013

181

insecurity and inner emptiness and to stablilize a fragile male identity. However, it creates &dquo;bonsai characters&dquo; (which means that their personality is not cut at the shoots but at the roots) who essentially try to gain confirmation and selfconfidence by winning power and overcoming other persons. This character places its trust in the destructive eroticism of power, status and money.
5.
These characters are quite common in progressive industrialized societies, and sport is a favourite playground of such profile-neurotic people. Its purest blueprint is the &dquo;macho&dquo;.

Macho is the social idea of masculine superiority and dominance in every but especially with regard to women. It is connected with contempt of women and everything else associated as being weak.

possible respect,

Should the myth of masculine superiority become doubtful, the word is reduced to cover those domains where masculine superiority seems to be obvious. This is then ordinarily the end of machos imagination.
Since this theory of life is so simple, macho-men have not yet learned conflicts constructively or to master a crisis.
to

handle

The hallucination of macho is potency and omnipotency. The result of this is a manic search for control - control of both his own emotions and of other people, especially women. The place otherwise occupied by emotions or cooperative interaction is then replaced by a kind of primitive communication: rituals of aggression, suppression, dominance, toughness and violence.
The central position of this primitive communication is held by the Ego, and the sole right of everything else is to be exploited full to the y in advantage of this Ego.

In summary, this macho-type is nothing more than a blueprint of deeply disturbed masculinity - one which is also quite common. The strong, destructive and sexist macho is not the creative man full of energy; he is the man as a domesticated product of civilisation, who is characterised by sexual envy and contempt of everything which in his hallucinations he sees as weak. He needs suppressed, weak and impotent women because he is without his own energy.. In terms of relevance for the field of sport, the fascination of sport does not result from technocratic perfection or from the amount of money conceivably to be earned through sport - this, on the contrary, leads to that awful desert and the boredom of modern sport.

Sport derives its creative power and dignity from imagination, phantasy, incalculability and from its fine balance between the wild and the civilised. In order for this this realized, autonomous and non-adjusted but nevertheless sensitive men are required, capable of deep, emotive and intimate connexion and relationships and even able to suffer conflicts and contradictions; men who do not disown or repress their dark sides but who integrate the polarities in their personality. The genuine energies of man lie neither in the desolate masculinity of machismo nor in a mere copy of fcmininity, but in the revitalization of the dark depths of the painfully repressed and separated feelings of men.

Downloaded from irs.sagepub.com at UNIV CALIFORNIA SAN DIEGO on May 10, 2013

182

References:

ASTRACHAN, A., 1988: How Men Feel. New York.

AUFMUTH, U. , 1988: Zur Psychologie des Bergsteigens. Frankfurt. AVEDON, E. M.; SUTTON-SMITH, B.,1971: The Study of Games. New York. BEISSER, A. B., 1967: The Madness in Sport. New York. BROD, H. (ed.), 1987: The Making of Masculinities. The New Mens Studies. Winchester,
Ma.

DAVID, D. S.; BRANNON, R. (eds.), 1976: The Forty-Nine Percent Majority: The Male
Sex Role. Reading, Mass. DAVID, D. S.; BRANNON, R. 1976: The Male Sex Role: Our Cultures Blueprint of Manhood, and What its Done for Us Lately. In: DAVID, D. S.; BRANNON, R. (eds.),

pp.1-45.
EASLEA, B., 1985: Fathering the Unthinkable. Masculinity, Scientists, and the Nuclear
Arms Race. London.

GEBAUER, G. (ed.), 1988: Körper- und Einbildungskraft. Inszenierung des Helden im

Sport. Berlin.
GERTH, H.; MILLS, C. W., 1953: Character and Social Structure. New York. HALL, M. A.; 1987: Masculinity as Culture. The Discourse of Gender and Sport. Paper

presented at the Congress on Movement and Sport in Womens Life. Jyväskylä, Finland. kräftig - Die Zukunft der Männer. Hamburg. KIPNIS, D., 1985: The Powerholders, Chicago. KLEIN, M., 1978: Alltagstheorien und Handlungsselbstverständlichkeiten. In: Materialien zur Soziologie des Alltags, hg. v. K. HAMMERICH und M. KLEIN, Opladen, pp. 389-419. KLEIN, M., 1983: Polarization of the Sexes in Sport and the Androgynous Yearning of Human Beings. In: IRSS 18 (2). pp. 37-54.
HOLLSTEIN, W., 1988: Nicht Herrscher, aber

KLEIN, M., 1987: Was wir sind und suchen, können wir nicht finden: Zur Identität und
Motivation des Hochleistungssportlers. In: Sport und Höchstleistung, hg. v. P. BECKER, Reinbek, pp. 83-103. KLINGER, C., 1986: Das Bild der Frau in der Philosophie und die Reflexion von Frauen auf die Philosophie. In: Wie männlich ist die Wissenschaft? hg. v. K. HAUSEN und H. NOWOTNY, Frankfurt, pp. 62-84 McCALL, G.; SIMMONS, J. L., 1966: Identities and Interactions. New York. MACCOBY, E. E.; JACKLIN, C. N., 1975: The Psychology of Sex Differences. London. SUTTON-SMITH, B., 1978: Die Dialektik des Spiels. Schorndorf. THEBERGE, N., 1985: Toward a Feminist Alternative to Sport as a Male Preserve. In: Quest 37 pp. 193-202.

Le monde macho du sport

- un royaume oubtie? Quelques remarques dintroduction.

R6sume
une introduction explicative aux intentions et la realisation de la pr6publication sp6ciale de 1IRES. Linsuffisance de la discussion th6orique au sujet de la masculinite dans le sport correspond a lincertitude caract6risant le r6le masculin dans la soci6t6 en general. Cest dautant plus regrettable que le sport est sans aucun doute lie a 1iden-

Cet article constitue

sente

tit6 suxuelle, et que le sport favori dune societe est d6termin6 par des mod~les masculins. Larticle contient en outre une discussion de certains aspects centraux et correspondants du sport en tant que domaine r6serv6 aux males et de la masculinit6. Cet article souligne plut6t les aspects sombres parce que les deux sont g6n6ralement glorifies et il est postul6 que seule lint6gration des polarit6s visibles et cach6es est susceptible de faire sortir le sport et la masculinit6 de leur deplorable statut actuel.

Downloaded from irs.sagepub.com at UNIV CALIFORNIA SAN DIEGO on May 10, 2013

183

Die Macho-Welt des Sports-eine vergessene Wirklichkeit? Einige einfuhrende Anmerkungen

Zusammenfassung Der Beitrag gibt eine Einfuhrung in Absichten und Realisierung des vorliegenden Spezialheftes der IRSS. Dabei wird festgestellt, daB die unbefriedigende theoretische Diskussion zum Thema Mann und Sport mit der generellen Unbestimmtheit der mdnnlichen Rolle in der Gesellschaft korrespondiert. Dies ist umso bedauerlicher, da Sport unzweifelhaft mit der Geschlechtsidentitat zusammenhangt und der gesellschaftlich favorisierte Sport von mdnnlichen Mustern bestimmt wird. Im Folgenden werden einige zentrale Aspekte des m5nnlich dominierten Sports und des Mann-Seins diskutiert. Dieser Artikel widmet sich dabei primr den dunklen Seiten, da im allgemeinen beides eher glorifiziert wird, hier aber davon ausgegangen wird, daB nur die Integration der offenbaren wie der verborgenen Polarit5ten Sport und Mann-Sein aus ihrem derzeit desolaten Zustand bewegen kann.
El mundo machista del deporte. urn reino olvidado?. de introduccion Re.sumen El presente articulo expone los objetivos de este numero monografico asi como la forma en que ha sido realizado. La falta de debate te6rico sobre la masculinidad en el deporte se corresponde con la incertidumbre del rol masculino en la sociedad moderna. Todo ello es de lamentar porque no hay duda que el deporte esti conectado con la cuesti6n del g6nero y que el modelo dominante actual esta determinado por esquemas masculinos. El articulo tambien trata sobre es deporte como reserva de los hombres y de la masculinidad. Se abordan losaspectos poco claros porque se considera que tan solo integr5ndolos a los si gozan de claridad ser6 posible liberar el deport y la masculinidad del estatus desolador en que se encuentran actualmente.

Algunas consideraciones a modo

Downloaded from irs.sagepub.com at UNIV CALIFORNIA SAN DIEGO on May 10, 2013

184

CTaTbR CO,I~ep7RaeT BCTYnXTexbHYIO

LIaCTb
H

no

nOCT3BJIeHH0i7t KPCC
3THX

cneqmaxbHO9 Teme,

onxmeT

e6 qenx
He mmeet

ocyqecTBneHnx

nejien.

My7KeCTBeHHOCTb

cnopTe

no~xo~~ee, TeopeTxuecKoe

BbiRcHeHxe HMeHHO TaK, KaK HeRCHa

pOJIb MyxUHHU cnopT

COBpeMeHHOM
cBx3aH

o6mecTBe. TeM 6onee

C
B

xanKo,
H

TaK KaK

6eccnopHO

nOXOBOr4 mAeHTMqHOCTbM,

nn6xMuh BHA cnopTa oIIpe,I~eJIAeTCA

...

o6mecTBe

no

myxeCTBeHHbim

o6pa3naM.

BnocneAcTBHH 6YAYT

HeKOTopMe

n#6neMu

cnopTa

KaK

MCKRIDqHTeRbHOM TeppHTOpHH My-

7KeCTBeHHoCTZ H

camog My?K2CTBeHHOCTH
B

o6cyx~eHH.
T6mHbie cTopoHu nOTOMy,
x

CTaTbR
qTO

noq2pKHBaeT

nepBO9 ouepegw
IIpOCJI3BJI2Hbi
H

Boo6me o6a

ABJIAIOTCA

IIpe,I~II0JI0raeTCFi,

14TO

TOJIbKO KHTeHCHBHOCTb

BM~HHX

CKpHTHX KpaAHOCTeg ymeet

c xx

C,I~BHP3Tb cnopT
Horo nOROaeeHHR.

my7KeCTBeHHoCTb

HaCTO.f~~~0,

6e3H~~-

Downloaded from irs.sagepub.com at UNIV CALIFORNIA SAN DIEGO on May 10, 2013