Especially Since Arjun Appadurai Himself Admits That Cricket Has?


From this perspective, the question would then no longer be whether such an activity is or is not a sport, but whether or not the way in which it is practiced is part of the sports system – that is to say whether the requirements of the latter are respected or not. The fact of not enrolling in the sports system obviously does not make an activity less interesting to study; but from a concrete, social and cultural point of view, “it is not the same activity”. For example, when I jog in the morning before going to work, I may resort to common sense by pretending that “I work out”, but no matter how hard I try to improve my breath and efficiency of my stride, I do not fit into the constraints of the sports system. In the analysis oftiyu. Which can be translated as “physical culture” and which was introduced by the Chinese authorities after the Second World War, then represented an alternative to the conceptual framework of the sports system and the constraints associated with it.

The question of the evolutionary dimension of certain approaches in terms of diffusion was frequently raised – and denounced. In the debates within the group, in particular with reference to the work of Norbert Elias [Elias and Dunning, 1994] and the hypothesis of Civilizing Process leading to a lowering of the threshold of tolerance for violence. Beyond the fact that it has been noticed that the contemporary evolution of many sports practices refers to an exactly opposite reality.

See the embarrassment expressed in Eric Dunning’s response. It is not clear how the analysis of the criteria accompanying the emergence of the sports system would necessarily require that the reduction of violence be an integral part of it in the same way as the processes of normalization of space and time or the universalization of the rules of the game.

Not to mention that the very notion of violence is not very easy to use.

In the same vein, the spectacular dimension of sports was addressed; Frédéric Saumade pointing out that it is consubstantial with the emergence of the sports system. From the moment a distinction is made between players and spectators and the latter are excluded from the playing field, an increasingly elaborate spatial device, represented in its most complete form by the modern stadium, is implemented. To materialize the separation.

The status of spectator is reinforced by the requirements of profitability most often linked to the development of professionalism (remuneration of players, maintenance of infrastructure). By paying for entry to the stadium, one attends a match as one attends a concert or a theatrical performance. It remains that in sporting matters, the notion of spectator is marked by certain diversity, both from a diachronic and synchronic point of view. Is there an absolute similarity between the tens of thousands of paying spectators at Wembley attending the spectacle given by the Cup final and the hundreds of friends or relatives cheering on the players on the edge of the pitch during a match regional series?

Between the spectators of the Stade de France invited by Max Guazzini for a Stade Français / Clermont match and the students of the Rugby College watching their friends do battle on the Big Side? Between the traveling spectators of the Saint Andrews golf course and those attending the Super Bowl final? Especially since, since the advent of 무료스포츠중계, then television, and now via the Internet,

The question of the definition of sport was also an opportunity to address a point which remains contentious and which concerns the status of bullfighting. For Frédéric Saumade, bullfighting meets all the requirements of the sports system, including in terms of respect for equality between participants. He believes that the bullfighting spectacle, whether or not it leads to the killing of the bull, remains a confrontation between bullfighters competing for pre-eminence, in particular through devices of the escalafón type.

This term, which can be translated as “hierarchy”, designates the. To the argument that it is essential to make the difference between the animal instrumentalized to serve the competition “between human beings” (like horse racing).

Device that refers to that of so-called mechanical sports, to…

And the animal instrumentalized to serve as adversary “to the human being” (like bullfighting with killing), he replies that bullfighting, in its multiple variations, in fact achieves both types of instrumentalization. But the question of equality between participants, which is one of the foundations of the sports system, remains a stumbling block that is difficult to avoid. Gavin Kitching has also noted that the category of “sport” took on, at least originally, a moral dimension and not simply a factual or descriptive one, which was formed in the wake of a Victorian sensitivity to treatment, considered brutal and barbaric, which animals were subjected to and which resulted in “reducing humans to the rank of animals”.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here