Marxism And Interactionism In Sport

For millions of people around the world sport appears to provide an escape from the toil of everyday life. In fact, sport has become so globalized and commercialized that it is often exempt from critique or thoughtful reflection. Therefore, I will analyze contemporary sport through the lenses of two contradictory yet profound theoretical approaches: Marxism and Interactionism.
Marxism is a philosophy that critiques class struggles under a capitalistic society. At the heart of this theory rests the Base-Superstructure Model in which everything can be explained in terms of economic relations. Society has an economic base upon which everything else is built and this hierarchical structure highlights the social injustices permeating in the modern
world. Sport, despite its ubiquitous admiration by millions of people, draws attention to this economic base, which sees the transformation of athletes into workers, managers into owners, and spectators into bystanders.
Marxist’s approach to sport is one that is both critical, yet simplistic: the bourgeoisie own the means of production while the proletariat owns the labor power. In other words, the wealthy class is able to utilize the working class, or athletes, as mere resources for their capitalistic endeavors. On the façade, athletes appear to be participants in this glorified activity; however, it becomes apparent that athletes are in fact just as powerless as the common factory workers. According to Marxism, in commercialized society, the goal of social institutions is to work towards profit maximization, which consequently protects the power of the upper class. As a result, proponents of such a belief argue that these workers lose control of their everyday lives and develop feelings of powerlessness, which culminate in their alienation. The Polish Marxist Franz Jakubowski agrees with this notion and argues, “Sport, despite the perception of participants and spectators, belongs to the realm of ‘unfree activity’. The rationality of capitalist production, based on commodity exchange, reduces all individuality to a minimum. It organizes and controls people not only in their work but in their leisure”. How can athletes be free if
they can not even dictate the terms of their own leisure? Moreover, athletes’ mental and physical shapes are often dictated by people, such as team owners and managers, who possess no vested interest in their long-term well-being. The physical and emotional strain that today’s competitive and commercialized sport demands of athlete’s affects their bodies long after their involvement.
However, what this theory fails to address is the core meritocratic structure upon which this society was founded. Social mobility – the movement of individuals between social strata’s - enables even those in the ‘proletariat’ class to rise to the level of the ‘bourgeoisie’ based on their individual merit. Therefore, the disparity in classes serves not as a mechanism to proliferate suppression, but serves rather as the impetus for those at the bottom to dream bigger and achieve more. In fact, many would argue that without profit maximization, the quality of products and services would diminish and the motivations to work harder would dwindle. For example, if sport was not a commoditized industry athletes would lack the personal or monetary motivation to excel, thereby suppressing their natural talent. Despite Marxist’s orthodox and extreme approach to sports and class struggle, at minimum this theory serves as an admonition of the potential consequences that may arise in a society with a singular focus on profit maximization.
Whereas Marxism’s approach to sport focuses on the exploitation of power in society, Interactionism focuses on the effects of language and behavior in shaping both individual and group identities.
Interactionism is a micro perspective focused on the study of society from the ground up. Paramount to this theory is an acute attention to identities and the social construct of a culture. Contradictory to Marxism, Interactionism explains society as a sphere that is constantly evolving and subsequently a tool to form identities. Sport, explained by the Dramaturgical Model, is seen as a series of ‘stage’ performances, whereby athletes play a scripted role based on their status in society and their perception of themselves. Sport can then be seen as distinctive cultural spaces that foster the formation of both individual and group identities. This notion is reinforced by the socialization of subcultures – a unique group that exists within a larger cultural grouping - through which members of a particular group conform to its norms and behaviors. According to the Marxist theory, socialization is the effect of social forces and institutions working on individuals. However, for the interactionist theory, socialization focuses on interpersonal processes whereby individuals are actively learning the ‘rules’ of an evolving social game. Individuals are not passive recipients of rules but rather they react, interpret, challenge and redefine the very rules that are established in society.
Sport socialization in particular can either contest or support cultural norms suggesting that there is no single outcome to this process. Therefore, it begs the question ‘is any athlete actually portraying their true self?’ Ostensibly, the answer is no; socialization by nature requires an individual to conform to certain norms, some of which they may agree and other which they oppose. However, the danger to society arises when the socialization process in sport promotes deviant behaviors within a subculture. For example, sports teams are often at the forefront of controversy for their initiation rituals, which socialize members against typical social norms.
In conclusion, the phenomenon of sport both informs and shapes our cultural and personal identities. Through the understanding of Marxism and Interactionism and their application to sport, society can better combat the problems affixed with sport and it’s surrounding ethos.