Post-Sport Musings

Perhaps provocatively, David Andrews (Handbook of Sports Studies, 2000) posits an argument that "the focus and goal of a post-structuralist sociology of sport is, and indeed should be, post-sport" (p.116, emphasis in original).

The question is, what does such a post-sport look like? Andrews stresses that, like post-structuralism itself, the prefix "post-" doesn't necessarily refer to something that chronologically follows or obsolesces sport.

Rather, post-structuralism compels researchers to problematize sport's implicit relation to the modern project; a brief which involves developing politically subversive readings of sport which seek to take it beyond — or post — the oppressive, symbolically violent and exclusionary vices of its modern incarnations (p.116).

I would suggest that sportsBabel is chock full of politically subversive readings of the modern sport project. Indeed, I take great pleasure in creating these readings. But is there a danger of spectacularizing the subversive elements of the critique to such an extent that it mirrors that which it seeks to subvert? If so — and in asking, I do not refer to the dry and dusty echo chamber of academe, but rather the bustling cacophony of everyday lived experience — can the revolutionary elements contained therein be communicated any other way?

Comments

Comments are closed.