Violence in contact sport needs more critical examination
Graeme Severinsen, Lecturer in the School of Critical Studies in Education, comments on the need to re-examine the violence inherent in contact sport.
The recent brawl involving secondary rugby players and spectators highlights both the disturbing and paradoxical nature of our more popular contact sports. It is now timely to re-examine the sports that our children play and question the direction and values they advocate.
Consider the paradox in sport where spectators view and approve of the violent actions performed within the rules of our contact sports, such as rugby and league. These are actions that society condones in the sanctioned areas of sport, but condemns in other social situations where they would be illegal. We accept this violence in sport, and indeed come to expect it as a naturalised part of the game, as long as it is ritualised and controlled by rules and referees.
What is not so palatable for most people is when these lines are crossed and players punch or kick others outside the rules. Normally this would be dealt with by the officials both on and off the field, but in the case of the secondary schools rugby match this was the catalyst for a more extreme version of sporting violence involving spectators. There are a variety of reasons as to why up to 100 players and spectators becoming involved in such an abhorrent act.
The sports event itself was a precipitant to the brawl. Crowd hostility can be aggravated by player violence (in this case a punch), perceived unpopular decisions made by officials (players sent off), a losing score line, together with the collective behaviour of fans all producing tensions likely to spill onto the field. In professional sports there are systems in place to control the crowd, here there were not.
Coupled with this is that the organisation and structure of sport encourages expressive and aggressive behaviour by both the players and the fans. Part of this is the fanaticism that is encouraged, with fans having a supposed vested interest in the outcome of matches. This can be combined with aggregation; the physical closeness to each other and to rival fans, the tension and noise that crowds are exposed to, and the revelry that accompanies matches, all adding up to precipitate crowd aggression that can spill into violence.
A fractured society also produces disaffected groups who are able to re-establish forms of group identity, either under the banner of the old school, or vicariously through their son’s sporting team. This kinship can produce blinding loyalty and aggressive and distorted forms of masculinity as seen with football hooliganism. Challenges to this ‘sporting family’ and its hyper-reality, either through taunts, losing or having a team member attacked, can again lead to player and crowd violence. It can also lead to school leaders engaging in ‘them and us’ rhetoric rather than examining the larger issues of masculinity they espouse.
The young men playing rugby in this case are learning to engage in violence in sport and earn respect for and rewards for this violence. It is seen as part of their gendered self to view their bodies as machines and as weapons. Violence is perceived as an essential feature of being male, but more discerning men accept that it is a socially learned part of only a certain kind of maleness. Unfortunately many of the players and some of the spectators are yet to learn alternatives, or even realise that they exist.
Young men engage in sporting rituals where they are encouraged to rise above the pain and remain stoic. Buck Shelford’s torn and bloodied testicles and his ability to play on were seen by many as heroic, attributes of manliness, while more critical commentators would see this as a perverted ideal of manhood called hypermasculinity. The violence inherent in contact sport needs more critical examination as to the destructive forms of manliness it values.
The type of sports we play and enjoy watching, and the values they espouse, reflect our culture. In New Zealand sport reflects not only the problem of violence in society but also reproduces it by actively adding to the problem. More positively sport enjoys a privileged position in our society and as such can serve as a path for social change. Perhaps this recent brawl will spark debate and questions over the violence in sport and its role in shaping men.
Graeme Severinsen
Lecturer
School of Critical Studies in Education
Faculty of Education
University of Auckland
