Sport, Leisure and Social Justice

Jonathan Long, Thomas Fletcher, Beccy Watson, Jonathan Long, Thomas Fletcher, Beccy Watson

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2017
• Print ISBN: 9781138960459
• eBook ISBN: 9781317336822
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Sociology
• Index: Social Sciences

Social inequalities are often reproduced in sport and leisure contexts. However, sport and leisure can be sites of resistance as well as oppression; they can be repressive or promote positive social change. This challenging and important book brings together contemporary cases examining different dimensions of inequality in sport and leisure, ranging from race and ethnicity to gender, sexual orientation, disability, religion and class.

Presenting research-based strategies in support of social justice, this book places the experiences of disadvantaged communities centre stage. It addresses issues affecting participation, inclusion and engagement in sport, while discussing the challenges faced by specific groups such as Muslim women and LGBT young people. Including original theoretical and methodological insights, it argues that the experiences of these marginalised groups can shed a light on the political struggles taking place over the significance of sport and leisure in society today.

Sport, Leisure and Social Justice is fascinating reading for students and academics with an interest in sport and politics, sport and social problems, gender studies, race and ethnicity studies, or the sociology of sport.

Chapter 1
Introducing sport, leisure and social justice

Jonathan Long, Thomas Fletcher and Beccy Watson

The concern for social justice

We write at a time when the Sutton Trust has just produced its most recent report on the ability of the British elite to reproduce itself (Kirby, 2016). The work that underpinned The spirit level (Wilkinson and Pickett, 2009) and Dorling’s (2015) research on the 1 per cent emphasises the extent of inequality in our society. Although particularly marked in the United Kingdom (UK), the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) report on Trends in income inequality and its impact on economic growth (Cingano, 2014) demonstrates its presence around the world. We do not take income/wealth inequality as the sole focus of social justice, but as a marker for other concerns to do with fairness, equality, exclusion, discrimination, power differentials and privilege. There may well be legislation in place (for example, the Equality Act in the UK) designed to redress certain ‘imbalances’, but there are persistent inequalities on the basis of sociocultural and economic difference. Faced with this panoply of injustice, the challenge for academic researchers, practitioners and policy makers is how best to reduce the oppression and marginalisation of some of society’s most vulnerable people (Stewart, 2014). Research in pursuit of social justice reflects an ideological orientation about fairness and power differentials between groups of people.

Social justice research is more than simply assessing the existence of disadvantage, it is about embedding and assessing research influence and impact. There is a large body of sport and leisure research in the UK and elsewhere that claims a social justice lens. Our work is informed to varying degrees by much of this. We find useful Stewart’s (2014) metaphor that research to enhance social justice is like a stick that pokes and nudges for social change. Stewart asserts that for a social justice agenda, the influence of research ranges from weak to strong depending on its ability to shift social relations in the direction of a more just world. As Parry et al. (2013) point out, the most useful research goes beyond describing the oppression of different groups to focusing on the advocacy necessary to address power differences in society. Raising awareness is a necessary first step, but it is not sufficient in itself. Stewart also notes how explanations of the reasons why a group is oppressed or marginalised not only describe the existence of injustice, but identify culpability and suggest solutions for working towards social change. Explanatory research acknowledges a need for researchers to gain a deeper understanding of the meanings of injustice applied to sport and leisure and to address what future research and actions are needed if social change is to be realised. Despite its potential Stewart warns that explanatory research has historically under-delivered because ‘political action and academic theory, although compatible, are traditionally treated as two distinct end states’ (2014: 331).

When dealing with a normative concept like social justice it is easy to presume that our own norms (and indeed, the contexts in which we live) prevail. Those who occupy a position of relative power and influence (e.g. white, middle-class, able-bodied, heterosexual men) need to be wary of blindness towards their privileges. It is vital that these privileges are subject to critique, especially when a strong thrust of critical research is to promote social change with the aim of improving lives and reducing barriers to opportunities (Fletcher and Hylton, 2016). As reflected by the contributions here, we do not want to argue that social justice is an area of study that demands a singular ‘right’ approach, but like other critical researchers, endeavour to conduct research that, through its transformative potential (Parry, 2014; Stewart, 2014; Watson et al., 2013) will encourage social change.

Social justice, sport and leisure

An obvious aspect of social justice in the context of sport and leisure is access and participation: all people having the right to participate regardless of their ‘race’/ethnicity, gender, sexuality, class, (dis)ability or other identity markers (Henderson, 2014). Yet the view is often advanced that inequality is inevitable in sport because people have different ‘abilities’ and, from a meritocratic viewpoint, ‘get out what they put in’. The extension to the argument that the ‘success’ of some will help maximise the position of those who are worst off is reflected in assumptions that the trickle-down effects of consumption by the wealthy lead to benefits for others. This enables elite sports clubs/institutions, for example, to argue for the lion’s share of resources on the basis that their excellence will promote wider participation (in the arts the parallel is that it will ‘raise standards’) and the laissez-faire idea of rewarding individual resourcefulness and ‘the devil take the hindmost’ is commonplace.

Data from the Taking Part Survey and the Active People Survey demonstrate how social inequalities are reproduced in different forms of leisure and sport. For example, the Active People Survey 8 suggests that South Asian participation in sport (particularly among Pakistani and Bangladeshi women) falls consistently below other social groups (Hylton et al., 2015). A number of factors have been identified as contributing to this under-representation (Long et al., 2009), including: low incomes; long working hours; religious observance; shortage of facilities in areas with large minority ethnic populations; language barriers; and racism(s) (Hylton et al., 2015). It has also been suggested that there are barriers associated with cultural value systems (Fletcher et al., 2014; Long et al., 2015).

Despite the potential of sport and leisure practices to respond to a social justice agenda they may be overlooked as somehow apolitical. Carrington (2012: 4), for example, argues that it is sport’s

assumed innocence as a space … and a place … removed from everyday concerns of power, inequality, struggle and ideology, that has, paradoxically, allowed it to be filled with a range of contradictory assumptions that have inevitably spilled back over and into wider society.

He suggests that taking this contradiction seriously – that is the political nature of the apparently apolitical – helps us towards a deeper and richer understanding of politics. In various guises the theme of social justice has recurred through the forty years of the history of the Leisure Studies Association (Carnicelli et al., 2016), partly as a result of the promptings of this group of contributors, and tends to have wider currency in policy debates at times when inequality and hardship are recognised. Of the eight criteria Harvey (2009: 100) identifies for determining social justice, at least four have been frequently addressed by leisure scholars: inherent equality whereby all have an equal claim in matters of distribution; need; merit; and contribution to the common good. Leisure and sport remain thus influential fields in our pursuit of social justice.

Rather than passive mechanisms that merely reflect inequality, sport and leisure are also sources of conflict and resistance, acting as sites for the negotiation of individual and collective power struggles. Indeed, they are actively involved in producing, reproducing, sustaining and sometimes resisting various manifestations of, and discourses around, oppression and inequality (Dashper and Fletcher, 2013). There is a dialogic in which sport and leisure practices are a product of the society in which we live and, at the same time, can both be repressive and effect positive social change. One of the challenges for critical social researchers, therefore, is to encourage sports organisations and government agencies to subject their claims of fairness, merit, entitlement and inclusion to scrutiny (Long and Spracklen, 2011). The onus on sport in particular, but also the arts and other dimensions of leisure, to contribute to health initiatives, crime reduction or community development, stems from presumed virtuous characteristics. However, overlooking their less fortunate characteristics, for example elitism, corruption, partisanship and exclusion, may compromise the ability to deliver equality, inclusion and social justice. As claims appear about the contribution or challenge to personal wellbeing, social capital, community cohesion, integration or quality of life, we need to recognise the processes involved and arbitrate on them. As with any process of negotiation it is important to acknowledge the voices of multiple parties.

The Centre for Diversity, Equity and Inclusion developing research in sport and leisure

Whether examining sport, PE, recreation, leisure, culture, the arts or tourism we use ‘social justice’ as the motivation shaping much of the research at the Centre for Diversity, Equity and Inclusion through a desire for social change. Our concern is to use research to redress inequality within civic society and promote social justice, demonstrating that sport and leisure can make a real difference, and allowing people to be active citizens. It is founded on the proposition that a more equal society would mean individual and collective potential could be more easily realised. Since the 1980s there has been a succession of academics at Leeds Polytechnic/Metropolitan University/Beckett University who have had a strong interest in the socio-political dimensions of sport and leisure. Our work, and the very name of the research centre, Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI), stems from a sense of the importance of natural justice. The membership of the Centre is diverse: some are interested in sport, physical education, health and wellbeing, some in music, alcohol, events, tourism or the arts. It is not that we are uninterested in the development of elite sport or arts activity; rather, we acknowledge that oppression and inequality are most overtly experienced at the level of the everyday. ‘Sport’ is seen as a feature of wider social and cultural practices and processes associated with ‘leisure’ and we view leisure as a practice and context that is socially and culturally negotiated (not taken as given) within which sport is a matter of constrained choice or preference. Some researchers within the Centre focus on gender, some on ‘race’ and ethnicity, on disability, on sexual preference, and some assert the primacy of class. At no stage have we sought to impose a single paradigm, theoretical perspective or methodological framework and therefore there are a range of issues and questions in circulation. However, what binds us as researchers is a commitment to social justice, equality and fairness. There is a collective frustration regarding the unfulfilled potential of sport and leisure in tackling social injustices and some take the opportunity to project the significance of leisure and sport contexts onto social science analysis and debate more broadly.

The goal of the Centre is to produce research that will help to counter marginalisation and oppression and we argue that if sport and leisure institutions are to realise their potential for improving people’s quality of life and promoting positive social change, they have to remain open to alternative voices and avoid the temptation to ‘speak for’ those who are ‘othered’. The experiences of marginalised groups offer insights to explain contemporary political struggles over what sport and leisure mean, who has access to sport and leisure spaces, and their place within wider society. We benefit from the contributions of different disciplinary backgrounds and experiences of members as they help to ensure that our work is subjected to continual internal scrutiny, allowing nothing to be taken for granted. It requires a measure of reflexivity and an intersectional appreciation of the situatedness of what we study, adapting approaches from critical theory in problematising issues and concepts.

As several members of the Centre had been involved with the Leisure Studies Association since the mid-1970s it was perhaps not surprising that we took a lead from the critical theory (Marxism and feminism) that was conspicuous there in the 1980s. This was subsequently developed into a more general approach using critical thinking to dissect and analyse contemporary and emergent issues and concepts. In addition to the early focus on class and gender the Centre now boasts a critical mass of scholars interested in ‘race’/ethnicity, dis(ability), sexuality and embodiment. Much of the work within the Centre examines the interrelationships between social identities and power. Ironically sport and leisure is an area that was all too easily overlooked by critical theorists in mainstream disciplines and came more into its own with the emergence of post-modernist theories which drew attention to cultural formulations, lifestyles and the construction of personal identities (Scraton and Watson, 2015).

Just as we have witnessed shifts in the academic environment so there have been shifts in the political environment and consequent policies for sport and leisure. Within such shifting contexts we identify some common features of the work of the Centre:

1. We share a common concern to make sure that the views and lives of those involved in our research are not trivialised. It is not unusual for policy research to cast disadvantaged groups as a problem, whether through their lack of resources or demand for services, as people who refuse to integrate or as a persecuted minority (Hylton and Long, 2015). There are undoubtedly issues that need to be addressed among those, but we also need more fundamental research that will introduce to the policy arena a nuanced understanding of the lives of disadvantaged people, problematising disadvantage without using a deficit model that makes them the problem.
2. We try to avoid the temptation to ‘speak for’ others. Spivak (1988) asked, ‘Can the subaltern speak?’, taking issue with Western researchers who purport to ‘speak for’ (or even who listen to) those who have been already constructed in discourse, but who have had limited opportunity to define their own identities. Spivak (1988: 295) advocates ‘speaking to’ those who have been marginalised or silenced in this way, arguing that, otherwise, we will merely reproduce the ‘Other’ as our own ‘self’s shadow’ (ibid.: 280).
3. Just as the contribution of different disciplinary perspectives is appreciated, so too there is a growing appreciation of the intersectionality of different facets of people’s lives/identities, and a willingness to critique the concept (Watson and Scraton, 2013).
4. We subscribe to the view that our interest in the lifeworlds of individuals and their embodied experiences should not be at the expense of ignoring the wider body politic.
5. Without prescribing particular methods and techniques we recognise that these are not neutral.
6. We link theory to practice with a strong interest in praxis, the complexity of the enactment of theory.

The goal of creating a socially inclusive world of sport and leisure cannot be simply a response to a particular problem at a particular time (Carrington et al., 2016), yet sensitivity to context is crucial. Indeed, as Hylton and Long (2015: 2) argue in relation to ethnicity, ‘In an equal society policies should be devised and administered without recourse to considerations of ethnicity, but that condition will not be achieved without corrective action to remedy the current disadvantage of certain segments of society’. If inequalities are to cease to be of significance, and if promises such as ‘sport for all’ are to be realised, then the analysis of policy needs to be related to broader relations of power in the culture of both sport and society. Equal opportunities will remain unobtainable if the central tenets of the reproduction of privilege are allowed to remain uncontested (Channon et al., 2016).

This collection

Representing as it does the work of th...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• Notes on contributors
• Foreword
• Acknowledgements
• 1 Introducing sport, leisure and social justice
• 2 Principles of social justice for sport and leisure
• 3 The British Labour Party, social justice and the politics of leisure 1945–2015
• 4 Gender justice and leisure and sport feminisms
• 5 Feminist leisure research: shifts and developments
• 6 Gender justice? Muslim women’s experiences of sport and physical activity in the UK
• 7 Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender young people’s experiences of PE and the implications for youth sport participation and engagement
• 8 Working towards social justice through participatory research with young people in sport and leisure
• 9 Cypher Wild: leisure, hip-hop and battles for social justice
• 10 Integration or special provision? Positioning disabled people in sport and leisure
• 11 ‘Knowing me, knowing you’: biographies and subjectivities in the study of ‘race’
• 12 Black women, Black voices: The contribution of a Spivakian and Black feminist analysis to studies of sport and leisure
• 13 Researching the wrong in sport and leisure: ethical reflections on mapping whiteness, racism and the far-right
• 14 ‘Problems at the boundary’? South Asians, coaching and cricket
• 15 The policy and provision landscape for racial and gender equality in sport coaching
• 16 Moving forward: critical reflections on doing social justice research
• Index