Assignment 1 +

name

UTW2001M: Sport and Socialisation

Lecturer: Dr. Mark Brooke
 Introduction and linking of papers

Lareau’s (2011) paper proposes differences between the ways higher and lower socioeconomic
status (SES) parents plan the lives of their children, while Stuij (2013) provides theoretical
grounding on such a premise. While there are other demographic variables to consider,
literature has revealed that class often confounds these variables, leading to higher SES children
being better predisposed to succeed in sports, particularly ones that have higher capital,
allowing them access into positions of power. My paper is an investigation of such claims in
modern day Singapore. McNeil, Sproule and Horton (2003) contextualize the role of sports in
the Singapore society, where there is prevalent government support for sports participation for
all social classes. Synder and Purdy’s (1982) paper proposes that socialisation is
multidimensional, and a child’s participation in sports has reciprocal effects on his/ her parent.
With the latter two papers we understand that while class may be a critical factor for a child’s
socialisation into sports, context and other socialization factors must be brought into the picture
for a complete understanding.

1. Lareau, A. (2011). Unequal childhoods: class, race, and family life. Berkeley: Univ.
of California Press.
Lareau confronts social stratification and its manifestation in parenting styles, mainly through
practices of “concerted cultivation”, by the middle class, and “natural growth”, by working
class families. She highlights that the distinction between different SES parents lie in their
mindsets toward the role of the various socialising agents. While the middle-class parent
assumes full responsibility for the child, the working-class parent sees the school as the main
institution for education with minimal support required from the parents. This is an interesting
finding to investigate in Singapore, where there is active government support in social
institutions. If it were indeed true that lower SES parents entrust their children to schools, such
a support system from Singapore schools may in fact be able to provide a levelling ground and
opportunities for working class children to succeed even with less parental support.

2. Stuij, M. (2013). Habitus and social class: a case study on socialisation into sports
and exercise. Sport, Education and Society, 20(6), 780-798.
doi:10.1080/13573322.2013.827568
Stuij’s paper on Habitus and social class elaborates on Bourdieu’s notion of social and cultural
capital, which is also the theoretical basis on which Lareau bases her research. According to
Bourdieu, the acquisition of class-specific habitus produces capital, which allows for access
into powerful social positions (Bourdieu, 1990b). Again, the findings point toward the fact that
higher SES parents are more involved in the deliberate planning of their children’s lives, while
lower SES parents leave their children to be largely influenced by other social forces such as
teachers or their peers. Stuij concludes by arguing that this distinction in the socialisation
process leads to social structures being reproduced, which hints toward a structural perspective
and proposes that children in lower SES are unable to break out of their social class. Again, I
question this premise in the context of Singapore, as the next paper reveals opportunities and
agency for lower SES children.

3. McNeill, M., Sproule, J., & Horton, P. (2003). The Changing Face of Sport and
Physical Education in Post-Colonial Singapore. Sport, Education and Society, 8(1),
35-56. doi:10.1080/1357332032000050051
Through a historical introduction, this paper characterizes sports as the “cornerstone of nation
building”, and discusses the political significance of sports in Singapore. Socially, sports is
viewed by many parents and children as a doorway to “enhance applications for scholarships
and bursaries and admission to pre-university classes”. These political and social reasons
weave a web of meaning for sports in the Singapore society, leading it to gain a considerable
amount of social importance. Expounding on this paper, I will attempt to further investigate
the possibility that such supportive social institutions may help individuals from lower social
class overcome class limitations and succeed in sports.

4. Snyder, E. E., & Purdy, D. A. (1982). Socialization into Sport: Parent and Child
Reverse and Reciprocal Effects. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 53(3),
263-266. doi:10.1080/02701367.1982.10609352
Synder and Purdy's paper contrasts traditional views that socialization into sport is
unidirectional, and instead argues for "reverse socialization" where social interaction is
reciprocal, negotiable and emergent. This is useful for understanding how socialization is not
a one-sided process, allowing me to understand the myriad of factors that affect socialisation
into sports. Furthermore, while the first two papers on class seemingly argue for “radical
behaviourism which proclaims that the conditioning in early years of life is directed by adults
and determines the personality for the entire life span of the individual”, the exploratory data
in this paper highlights the reciprocal nature of the socialization process, which is what I hope
to highlight in my own paper.
References

Bairner, A. (2007). Back to Basics: Class, Social Theory, and Sport. Sociology of Sport
Journal, 24(1), 20-36. doi:10.1123/ssj.24.1.20

Elling, A., & Knoppers, A. (2005). Sport, Gender and Ethnicity: Practises of Symbolic
Inclusion/Exclusion. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 34(3), 257-268.
doi:10.1007/s10964-005-4311-6

Snyder, E. E., & Spreitzer, E. (1975). Basic Assumptions in the World of Sports. Quest, 24(1),
3-9. doi:10.1080/00336297.1975.10519839