While we often think about deviance as being a negative for society, there are many sociologists who recognize
a purpose for it. Durkhiem says that one of the four functions of deviance is to release tension, and while sporting events shouldn’t be deviant, fans do participate in deviant acts during sporting events like they wouldn’t any other place. The negative interactions that fans can have with players (like the events which led to the brawl at The Palace or Charles Barkley and the Miami fans or with each other (the Giants fan beat up in Dodgers stadium, the little kid in the Jets uniform tackled by a Browns fan represent, what we hope, is abnormal behavior in the non-sports life of sports fans. One hopes that because they have the release of the game, and the drinks and the rowdiness (or in other cultures, the hooliganism), they can control those urges in other places. I think the big question here is why are sporting events an allowable place for this? It seems as though there is historical precedence for this—the amount of rowdiness displayed by the Greek during arena fights comes to mind—but is this really why Jet fans at Gate D at Giants Stadium used to grope women and request flashing during halftime?
Relax…Release…
Its all relative…
I know I’m a little late to the game (its been an insane month) but we are showing more and more how deviance is relative and how, as times changes, what outrages us changes too. Twenty years ago (maybe even 15 years ago) would the slurs of Joakim Noah and Kobe Bryant had the reactions that they did? Would the bigger reactions be against Sean Avery’s and Steve Nash’s support of the gay marriage bill in New York or Avery’s agent who chastised him for making his opinion known?
I don’t know if, as Charles Barkley claimed, current male athletes would be perfectly fine with openly gay teammates but the players, owners and managers who have come out recently also haven’t gotten the backlash that they may have years ago. The line that separates what is deviant from what is not for much of mainstream America (or at least mainstream sporting America) seems to have shifted…I’m looking forward to seeing where it is in another 2o years.
Tiger Trials
The M
asters this weekend seemed to bring up a lot people’s feelings about Tiger Woods. His up and down play ended up in discussions on many a sports radio show about whether people were rooting for him or rooting against him. I recall one radio personality saying that since so many golfers have extra-marital affairs, why should Tiger be the person who is not forgiven. There are a couple of potential reasons for this. First, there is the racial aspect. Is it easier to forgive someone who is more like you? Who you can relate to? Assuming that most golf fans are not African Americans (or that the African Americans who do watch golf are more likely to forgive Tiger), those who cannot let him back in to their fandoms may have done so because of that difference.
For others, it may be the persona he created and the long fall from that to where he ended up. What we saw, in viewing Tiger’s “front stage”, was this perfect icon. Unfortunately, his “back” and “off stage” were less forgiving. He did such a good job at impression management that his acts shocked us so much more than anyone whose back stage we had seen peaks of over the course of their careers.
Finally, it is the idea of deviance in general. Deviance is not absolute. Every society defines what is deviant through the lens of the culture of that society. There are several factors which define deviance and separate Tiger, to some extent, from people who have done similar deviant things. To begin with, there is the degree. Cheating on your wife with one woman is a particular level of deviance, cheating on your wife with 10, 11 or 12 women is another level of deviance, juggling many of those mistresses at the same time is still another level. Similarly, the size and the power of the group deciding what is deviant is important. While much of the population (and apparently many golfers) may have had dalliances, the fact that we think of Tiger’s many indiscretions to be representative of a minority of people, and, despite his fame, coming from a member of a minority population, what he does becomes deviant because it is different from what the power majority do. Finally, we often think of deviance as part of a socially patterned process. Someone who cheats once and crashes their car has committed a deviant act (or two) but is not necessarily a deviant. Someone who shows us that cheating is a pattern, an insanely complex pattern, makes us see him as a deviant.
So, that makes him different, and for many, more difficult to forgive. Not being much of a golf fan myself, I cheer for him because I’m tired of the story and I just want golf to go back to normal and stop interrupting my other sports stories.