St Louis wrote that “the arguments for naturalized racial athletic aptitudes might be summarized as based upon an observable and measurable physical and physiological genetic advantage among black athletes” (78). In other words, scientific explanation refers to the differences in athletic performance purely based on racial factors. Black athletes are believed to be more successful in sports compared to their white counterparts. However, St Louis suggests that this explanation is not right because there are other factors, including social, which affect the performance of an athlete in addition to or despite race.
Undoubtedly, there are specific physical differences among black and white athletes. In particular, the skeletal structure and musculature (physical factors), muscles, and cell structures (physiological factors) differ among white and black athletes. Nevertheless, there is no established link between race and success in sports. These differences emerge from a genetic basis. In other words, these differences are encoded in the genes. It does not mean, though, the all-black people are inherently born to be more successful in sports than whites. The argument of St Louis is based on the statement that phenotypical characteristics which are derived from the articulation of genotype and environment are the foundation for sporting advantage while racial differences play a minor role.
From standpoint of physiology, genotypes are responsible for generating specific physiological characteristics that may facilitate or slow down the specific physical capabilities. For example, sporting practices oriented towards speed or endurance can depends on physiological factors. However, St Louis argues that the success of black athletes should be understood with the consideration of an “atmosphere charged with direct racism and ‘unconscious’ racist attitudes” (79). Thus, St Louis adds social arguments into the explanation of the phenomenon of blacks’ extraordinary performance in sports.
It is hardly possible to deny the importance or influence of race on the lives of people. Throughout American history, African Americans had to deal with social oppression and prejudices. While the current government and social norms do protect the equality of all citizens despite their physical characteristics, including race and ethnicity, race-based judgments are not fully eliminated. The mere fact that scientists are looking for an explanation of the success of blacks in sports concerning race reveals that even scientists and researchers are not blind to racial differences. Race, therefore, cannot be denied.
The scientific explanation of athletic success in terms of racial characteristics is not valuable because “the problematic reduction of sporting ability and performance to racial genotype is transparent in its presentation of definitive outcomes from generalized observations and theorization” (St Louis 80). It means that racial attributes are referred to in scientific research on sports due to generalization and excessive theorization. Thus, St Louis argues that science on race and sports is not viable as it limits the explanation to physiological factors ignoring the importance of social and economic variables.
Special attention should be paid to the scientific research on the sporting performance of men and women. St Louis suggests that the initial social factors of gendered roles blocking women’s participation in organized sports are of primary importance to understanding why women are underrepresented and are, consequently, less successful than men. Interestingly, St Louis notes that “the symbolic positioning of men as sporting role models – and black men as racial representatives – restricted the opportunities for black women” (81). Furthermore, women are expected to fulfill their ‘feminine’ domestic and social roles as mothers, wives, etc.
The black supremacy in sports has resulted in a situation when pharmaceutical sporting laboratories are working on improving the performances of their sportsmen. Opportunity and the synthetic intervention of drug use are social factors that influence sporting performance. The reliance on performance-enhancing substances is often abused by athletes. Even if the substance is proven to be non-harmful to the physical health of an athlete, it should be banned by governing athletic institutions because it creates unfair advantages for athletes. The world of sports is based on the natural abilities and skills of athletes as well as training and desire to become successful. Drugs and pharmaceutical substances undermine the efforts of honest athletes.
“The correlation between race and athletic ability is not observed by a value-free scientific eye, but that preexisting ideas about racial physical and moral capacities frame the very question and investigation of innate athleticism and athletic propensity” (St Louis 84). In this statement, St Louis refers to morality. It is important to note that the morality of scientific research on race and athletic performance is subject to moral consideration. The legal and moral law does not support any distinction based on racial or other physical characteristics. However, the “value-free scientific eye” does not see any distinction between race and athletic ability. In other words, scientists exploring the connection between race and performance in sports maintain outdated stereotypes.
The final argument of St Louis is based on the assumption that over-representation of certain racial groups within sports is a result of socially constructed tradition according to which individuals gravitate towards certain sports and athletic events because of an innate desire to emulate role models within their ethnic groups. St Louis titled this approach “biocultural” as it combines biological (physiological) as well as cultural factors. The scientific explanation for blacks’ superiority in sports is an exaggeration of biological factors and minimization of contributory cultural ones.
Lastly, St Louis writes that “Arguments for the racial basis of athletic propensity are presented as examples of scientific truth that are misunderstood and distorted by ideological dogmas of politically correct notions of social justice. However, an attempt is made to reconcile this conflict between the scientifically true and the socially good” (89). St Louis does not condemn the scientific approach to explaining the importance of race in athletic performance; however, he argues in favor of balance between scientific truth and social morality.
Describe in detail how the nature and perception of women’s participation in sport has changed over the 20th century. How, as has been argued, are black female athletes represented differently than non-black athletes? What is your position regarding women competing in men’s athletic competitions?
Sport is a traditional area of society that oppresses women by limiting their opportunity to participate. In other word, women have fewer chances to participate in sport and even fewer chances to become successful. Sport is not free of gender-based discrimination. Nevertheless, over the last century, the nature and perception of women’s participation in sports has significantly changed. Today women’s rights are equally protected by law as well as moral values. Leaving aside the arguments about equality of women is Muslim countries; developed societies ensure equality in all social and professional spheres including sports.
Victoria Carty summarized the progress achieved in women’s participation in sport as follows, “Since the implementation of Title IX in 1971, women and girls’ participation has increased dramatically in sports and fitness, accompanied by broadening public support” (132). Women’s participation in team and individual sports has increased. Even the purely male sports started to include female athletes. Moreover, women broke out of the stereotyped female sports (tennis, gymnastics) and started playing football, wrestle and box on professional level.
In addition to equality, female athletes have managed to achieve material benefits of opportunities and rewards. Increasing participation has resulted in the change of ideology of gender difference. Nevertheless, mass media (print ads and television commercial) tend to focus more on sexual appeal of female athletes and their feminine qualities rather than achievements in sports. Thus, the increased participation, equality of opportunities and rewards did not fully eliminate the socially-imposed gender stereotypes.
“As number of women participating in sports grows; the media coverage of their events has increased, generating considerable visibility and respect for female athletes” (Carty 135). Today female athletes sign contacts to establish professional leagues with the salaries equivalent to their male counterparts. However, it is important to add that women are granted an opportunity to sign professional contracts only after impressive victories in significant national and international contests. In other words, it is still easier for men to achieve success in sports as society is not absolutely free of gender-based discrimination.
Carty makes an interesting point arguing that there is visible shift in commercial featuring female athletes. While more endorsement contacts are signed with female athletes, the issue of how gender appeals to consumers becomes complex when professional sports and popularity come into play. For example, in culture industry, bodies of even have traditionally served as the most important sites for the accumulation of revenues by cultural institutions. However, the portrayals of femininity have come to represent new strategies to capture the attention of potential customers. Female athletes represent new notions of femininity including fitness, strength and competitiveness which replace the outdated vulnerability and subservience. While women’s bodies attract the attention, their bodies also represent training, performance, and physical fitness rather than sexuality. It is undoubtedly one of the major contributions made by female athletes to shifting the focus from sexual objects to professional athletes.
The special attention should be paid to the representation of black athletes. Carty argues that “black female athletes must prove themselves as athletes first, and sexuality is either marginalized or framed very differently” (14). Furthermore, black women in sports as well as other social spheres have always been stereotyped as more physical than intellectual. Their natural abilities have been praised more than intelligence. Thus, black women have been historically situated outside cultural definition of acceptable, mostly white, femininity. Black femininity is viewed very differently by modern society as well. Moreover, black female athletes are perceived as more athletic than white women and their femininity is seen as irrelevant.
Women’s participation is sport “may serve as a harbinger of challenges to patriarchal hegemony” (Carty 143). While the society used to distinguish the physical capabilities of men and women, the current achievements of women in professional sport has almost erased physical differences. Both men and women can compete with the same requirements and expectations. It is absolutely normal for women to compete with men in athletic competitions. There is limited research to show that women are weaker than men (just another gender-based stereotype). It would be wrong to state that men and women have equal physical characteristics; however, when the argument is related to sport, gender should not be the factor of importance.
Welch Suggs commented on Title IX stating that “mandating that women athletes be treated the same as men, the law encouraged women’s sports to develop in the hypercompetitive, highly commercialized model that evolved in men’s sports over the past century and a half” (3). In other words, Title IX did not fulfill its primary objective to ensure equal opportunities for men and women in sports. Moreover, Title XI created the environment in which women had to deal intense competition; women are put under additional pressure to achieve success in male-dominated sphere of sports. Thus, Title XI had two-sided effect on women’s participation in sports. From one side, it opened new opportunities. From the other side, it made it even harder for women to compete with men.
In conclusion, significant progress has been achieved by women in the world of sports. Today women have their rights protected as government ensures equal distribution of participative opportunities in sport. However, it should not be ignored that mass media which reflects on culture is still focused on feminine qualities of female athletes rather than their achievement. Finally, the racial differences shape the perception of black and white female athletes.
References
- St Louis, Brett. Sport, Genetics and the Natural Athlete: The Resurgence of Racial Science. Body & Society, vol. 9 (2): 75-95
- Carty, Victoria. Textual Portrayals of Female Athletes. Frontiers, vol. 26 (3): 132-155
- Suggs, Welch. A Place on the Team. Princeton University Press, 2005.