Study Notes on Sports Violence and Structural Violence

Introduction to Sports Violence

  • Media Influence on Aggression
    • Spectators of violent sports (e.g., football, boxing) often report increased aggression.
    • Contrary to popular belief, scientific findings do not support increased aggression due to media exposure.
    • Key Challenge for Sports Officials:
    • Minimize participant violence while maintaining social benefits of sports.
    • Complexity of this challenge is significant given the global popularity of violent sports.

Further Reading on Sports Violence

  • Key References
    • Giulianotti, R., Bonney, N., and Hepworth, M. (eds.) (1994). Football, Violence and Social Identity, London: Routledge.
    • Goldstein, J. H. (1983). Sports Violence, New York: Springer-Verlag.
    • Guttmann, A. (1998). The appeal of violent sports in Why We Watch: The Attractions of Violent Entertainment (pp. 7–26), New York: Oxford University Press.
    • Kerr, J. H. (2007). Zidane’s head-butt: Anger violence in the 2007 Football World Cup Final, Sport and Exercise Psychology Review, 3, 32–39.
    • Mann, L. (1989). Sports crowds and collective behavior in Sports, Games, and Play (2nd ed.), (pp. 299–331), Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
    • Phillips, D. P. (1986). Effects of mass media violence on aggression, in Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, vol. 19, (pp. 207–250), New York: Academic Press.
    • Russell, G. W. (2004). Sports riots: A social–psychological review, Aggression and Violent Behavior, 9, 353–378.
    • Savage, J. (2004). Does viewing violent media cause criminal violence? A methodological review, Aggression and Violent Behavior, 10, 99–128.
    • Smith, M. D. (1983). Violence and Sport, Toronto: Butterworths.
    • Zillmann, D., Bryant, J., and Sapolsky, B. (1989). Enjoyment from sports spectatorship in Sports, Games, and Play (2nd ed.), (pp. 241–278), Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Structural Violence

Definition and Explanation

  • Structural Violence:
    • Also known as indirect or institutionalized violence.
    • Refers to preventable harm where no direct actor is identified.
    • Arises from unequal distribution of power and resources.
    • Notable for being systematic and built into social structures.
  • Distinction from Direct Personal Violence:
    • Where concrete actors inflict harm on others (e.g., physical assault).

Origins

  • Introduced by Johan Galtung in 1969, aimed at enriching peace and conflict studies.
  • Conceptualized to highlight the need for evaluating structures that perpetuate harm indirectly.
  • Early discussions highlighted the debate between subjectivists (who focus on perception of conflicting interests) and objectivists (who assert that conflict exists independently of awareness).

Dimensions of Structural Violence

  • Conflicts often arise from embedded structural factors rather than isolated actions of individuals.
  • Positive vs. Negative Peace:
    • Negative Peace: Absence of violence or war.
    • Positive Peace: Establishment of social justice and equitable structures essential for cooperation.
  • Cultural Violence:
    • Defined as cultural elements that legitimize violent or oppressive behavior.
    • Serves as a theoretical matrix connecting direct, structural, and cultural violence.

Examples of Structural Violence

  • Hunger and Poverty:
    • Hunger is a form of structural violence when it is preventable.
    • Example: If systems create food scarcity despite availability, it is considered violence.
    • Comparison made with direct violence, such as domestic abuse—where one abusive husband compared to a structural backdrop of millions lacking resources or education is illustrative.

Concept Development and Use

  • Galtung's work highlighted empirical studies linking structural violence to life expectancy data and its implications in societal structures, advocating for a holistic analysis of violence in peace research.
  • Critique and support have flowed from frontiers of economics, public health, and humanitarian studies, revealing the multidimensionality of the issues caused by structural violence.

Relationships between Direct and Structural Violence

  • Galtung advocated for understanding both as interconnected to overcome social injustices.
  • Criticized reductionism that separates personal violence from structural causes.
    • Introduced a typology combining direct violence, structural violence, and cultural violence, emphasizing their interplays.

Implications for Peace Research

  • Importance of integrating both positive and negative peace in studies to avoid narrow perspectives that may omit critical dynamics.
  • Structural violence as a lens necessitates a shift towards addressing systemic inequalities to promote peace.

Concluding Thoughts and Applications in Action

  • While structural violence emphasizes systemic critiques, it raises questions about human agency and the scope of individual versus collective action.
  • Future considerations must include justice, empowerment, and incisiveness in recognizing the complexities of peace-building efforts through collaborative action.