Sport and Anthropology: Late to the Game
Play, games and sport are culturally constructed behaviours. The performance of such activities highlights traditions, customs and ways of acting and provides insights into the cultures of a group, how they relate, share boundaries and rules, deviate, punish and indeed draw attention to a whole host of social interactions. The point of studying sport and play here is not only to observe culturally constructed behaviours but to distinguish participants and the subcultural groups that they form. Anthropology has long considered the study of religion, kinship, economics and political and social institutions but, the consideration of sport and games remained peripheral until recently. As Sands argues, âPrimitive play and games were rarely considered by anthropologists, it is only in the last 50 years that the study of sport and culture has emerged and this has been accomplished in academic fields other than anthropologyâ (2002, p. 1).
One of the first social scientists to make the connection between the significance of games and anthropology was Sir Edward Burnett Tylor, who in 1879 published an article titled âThe History of Gamesâ. Not only was he able to justify the importance of games and their significance to linguistics, culture, evolution and civilisations but he also pointed out the weakness of ethnographies which did not pursue further investigation into unique styles of play. He used the example of Cookâs âThird Voyageâ:
It is mentioned that the Sandwich Islanders played a game like draughts with black and white pebbles on a board of fourteen by seventeen squares. Had the explorer spent an hour in learning it, we should perhaps have known whether it was the Chinese or the Malay game, or what it was; and this might have been the very clue, lost to native memory, to the connection of the Polynesians with a higher Asiatic culture in ages before a European ship had come within their coral reefs. (Tylor 1879)
His consideration of sport and games within ethnographic fieldwork identified possible links between cultural groupings and their contact with others. Few anthropologists took his advice over the next century.
The study of sport and culture has been rigorously explored by sociologists; many consider such activities as an ideal method to study social systems. Yet, arguably, anthropology and its methods allow for greater insights and reflection into the practice of sport, games and play as an indicator of culture, social organisations and practices. This was eventually recognised during the 1970s. Play theorist Brian Sutton-Smith stated: âWhen it comes to explaining play, including games and sports, anthropology has a distinct advantage over most other disciplines because it must deal with strange play materials which simply do not fit our own twentieth-century preconceptionsâ (cited in Blanchard 1995, p. xi). Anthropology could follow sociologyâs lead when identifying a subject area.
It was Edward Norbeck who advocated as follows:
In view of the objectives of anthropology of learning the nature of man as a living organism and the nature of his culture, the learned and socially transmitted ways of human life, the anthropological neglect of the study of play seems astonishing. (1974, p. 267)
Instead of considering play as a disconnected superfluous behaviour to social reality Norbeck believed that âmodern anthropologists now view play as universal and strikingly conspicuous human behaviour that must be studied to reach the goal of understanding man and his cultureâ (ibid). This enthusiasm received what might be considered official recognition in 1974 with the creation of The Anthropological Association for the Study of Play (TAASP). This collection of scholars drawn from multiple disciplines held annual meetings in conjunction with Popular Culture Associations throughout the 1980s; yearly edited volumes were produced as a result. As a consequence, sport was acknowledged by anthropologists and as Blanchard stated in the mid 1980s: âNo longer is sport simply a topic of idle conversation and pastime activity among anthropologists; it has become a legitimate subject of serious studyâ (1985, p. 293).
TAASP was an important forum for academics to share their views and ideas on the concept of play and use this opportunity to promote its significance to multiple disciplines, including anthropology. For some âplayâ had been ignored due to, in the eyes of one academic, âa protestant ethicâ which devalued games as somehow âsinfulâ and trivial in favour of âvirtuousâ, serious work (Norbeck 1974, p. 267). Others believed that the very label âplayâ was too broad and not specific enough to engage serious academics. The theories of play and its function were however under much scrutiny, most notably via the question âwhat made an activity play or ânot playâ?â (Bateson 1955). By way of reply many gave their individual theories: Huizinga placed play at the forefront of human endeavours (1950). Norbeck (1974)) reduced the scope of play. Carlton (1975)) considered sports as art forms and highlighted the role of the spectator. There was much to debate.
As one can tell from the question, play and sport was and remains a contested area for research. This contest, however, has allowed much flexibility in ethnographic fieldwork. Play by definition is not particularly structured, predictable or rehearsed. Agreed ritual, rules and hierarchy are all important aspects of play but play itself, due to its very nature, is not a theme to be rigidly defined. Research on play and sport amongst specific populations will inevitably produce numerous conflicting observations and entail many variations of the above elements. This above all is what separates play, games and sports from other research focuses and facilitates culturally specific observations.
Yet, the evolution of anthropological thought represented by the formation of TAASP seemed to be short-lived and remained a superficial inclusion in ethnographies. Although some noted anthropologists have been adamant supporters of the study of sport, games and play, with some tangible success, the teaching of anthropology and ethnographic research continues to follow the more traditional anthropological methods and focuses on conventional topics, to the detriment of the study of sport. As Sands argues, âFor anthropology to survive and prosper, the student must be able to connect this very traditional discipline, with contemporary and extensive research on the modern human conditionâ (1999, p. 9). That sentiment informs this inquiry.
One cannot deny the global phenomenon that is sport. Its presence in culture is ever visible, accessible and reflective of society and its people. The justification of sport and its inclusion in this ethnography is clear: sport, play and games are participated in regularly by huge numbers of Liberiansâboth formally and informally. Excluding an activity of such importance and with such high levels of participation would be naive and unrepresentative of Liberian social life. It is true in this case that the research is centred within the area of sport yet more is considered than just the game itself and its practice, delivery and effects. Football, whilst the focus of this book, is also a medium for accessing other pressing social concerns (Rollason 2011), namely the status and prospects of youth in relation to Sport for Development and Peace (SDP). What emerge are groups of youths who create a separate subculture and arrangement based on the game of football that reflects and rejects the social structures around them (Davies 2008; Hebdige 1979). Here playing football is a lens through which to understand the construction and place of youths in social life.
My Journey
In this section I offer an account of my research methodology in the form of a personal narrative of the work completed in Liberia. This book is supported throughout by personal stories that Liberian colleagues and friends volunteered to share. Upon reflection I thought it only fair to reveal my journey in the same manner.
My undergraduate degree in Sports Science satisfied a number of my interests as a developing academic, sportswoman and multi-sports coach. In the first 2 years I found success in the areas I enjoyed, namely sociology, history, philosophy and coaching. I found the scientific aspects of my programme far less engaging and much more challenging. In my final year I pursued my dissertation subject with real vigour and discovered my real passion for the notion of SDP. In many ways this book represents my transition from final year advocate to post-doctoral sceptic. SDP in international contexts combined my interests in history, politics, sociology and philosophy. I was rightly told by my dissertation supervisor that I was taking the wrong degree! Whilst studying I pursued my interests with work experience; I gained employment as a youth worker and member of the sports development team for my local authority. Although not an exact match it confirmed my key interests: development, youth and sport. Upon completing my undergraduate degree I was keen to develop my academic interests in post-conflict developmentâwithin the appropriate academic departmentâand incorporate my coaching and youth work skill set. Fortunately, my supervisor shared and supported my interest; he had experience of Liberia and suggested a short trip there to see if I could find research potential. I returned determined to pursue the topic and sought supervision and learning support from the anthropology department. My initial ideas were welcomed and for the next 3 years I kept going back to Liberia and developing my academic knowledge.
Liberia ticked all the SDP boxes: post-conflict, a majority youth population central to Liberiaâs violent past and present challenges, a strong football heritage and a hub for international and national development agencies. I planned to have a three-pronged enquiry: governing body, local non-governmental organisation (NGO) and grassroots. My supervisor had given me contact details for a first division CoachâCoach Cooperâand a Liberian-managed NGO called Don Bosco Homes (DBH). I contacted both over phone and they agreed to help in any way they could. Coach Cooper was a well-respected man in the game and an invaluable employee of the Liberia Football Association (LFA); he facilitated all manner of access to meetings, matches and ministries. I learnt a great deal about the Liberian game, its structures, footballâs place in Liberian society and the status that comes with the game. However, despite the doors this opened, the LFA operated in the relative absence of youth, development and community programmes. The LFAâs programming limitations were my research limitations. I stayed close to the LFA and in particular to Coach Cooper and Head of Liberia Football Coaches Association (LIFOCA), Coach Tamba, who continued to include me in their work with the Coachesâ Association, but this area ceased to be a key contributor to the research focus.
Before arriving in Liberia I spent time researching DBH, and the work they promoted on their web site. They endorsed the game as part of their development and youth strategy. This NGO appeared to suit the research topic; they were a youth-focused Liberian-run organisation who had a well-known and widely promoted history with SDP. I observed their work in peace-building projects, reconciliation and reintegration, and vocational training but there was a distinct lack of football or any sporting intervention. SDP was a factor in their development image but was not evident in its delivery and practice strategy. Many of the staff were active youth workers throughout the years of civil conflict and were heavily involved in the Disarmament, Demobilisation, Rehabilitation and Reintegration (DDRR) programmes after the conflict. They had a wealth of knowledge, skill sets and had gained the trust of difficult populations. Through them I learnt about youth and children during the conflict, post-conflict challenges for the young, adultâyouth relationships and community social structures. I remained a loyal intern with them for 3 years. They enabled me to travel and experience Liberia outside of Monrovia and gave me insight into areas that would otherwise have been off-limits to an outsider. Despite the knowledge and experience I was gaining I was still unable to pursue the key theme under considerationâwhat SDP did and how it worked in practice.
Initially I lived in the capital city of Monrovia, firstly for my safety as I had been advised and secondly because I had no idea where else to start. I would sit on the pavement watching young boys fix cars, carry water and generally loiter about without purpose. I would also observe the many large, bright white United Nations (UN) and other aid agency vehicles filled with white men and women travelling from expensive hotels to their sites of work. Their separation from the Liberian peopleâespecially the youthâwas obvious. I did not want to be one of these outsiders, a white person who does not engage and seems forever distant and unreachable. I needed to remove myself from the city centre where such outsiders gathered and where I could not escape association with them. The guest house was ideal but proved too restrictive as strict curfews were in place; visitors to the hostel were not allowed and washing and cooking had to be done by young boys employed there. These same employees were not allowed to communicate with guests. It would have been impossible to conduct the research from such a setting.
A chance visit to a community called Matadi inspired a move outside of the city centre that combined rural and urban living. Initially a suburb of the capital, Matadi grew throughout the conflict as people migrated from their rural homes seeking the safety of the capital. This was an example of the post-conflict living structure and condition in and around Monrovia; families from all corners of Liberia cohabited in limited space creating a multi-ethnic population. Matadi is split into two sections divided by a crossroad: Old Matadi and New Matadi. I chose to place myself in the New Matadi area, which was more recently developed and had a more diverse population as a consequence of the conflict. This was ideal and I instantly felt at home as I was welcomed by my neighbours and encouraged to attend and pursue community events and traditions. I felt a sense of openness and familiarity that was absent in the city.
The main attraction in Matadi, both for its residents and me, was the Don Bosco Youth Centre. As a visiting intern with DBH I was welcomed by the youth centre staff and I immediately recognised the potential for research there. I had finally found a place where people of all ages gathered daily and played sport. Moreover, the youth centre used this to achieve its various aims of reconciliation, rehabilitation and education, a clear reflection of SDP goals and practices.
Building an Identity
My principal gatekeeper and key informant was Richie, the captain of the Matadi youth football team (see Chap. 3). His role in my research is well captured by OâReillyâs description of gatekeepers as âsponsors or individuals who smooth access to the group. They are key people who let us in, give us permission, or grant accessâ (2009, p. 132). He worked in the compound where I first resided. Unable to afford schooling he sought work to save money for tuition fees. He also worked for an American man, washing clothes, cooking meals, cleaning his home, fetching water and buying him supplies from the market. I would regularly talk to Richie and we would wash clothes together. He advised me on how to cook on charcoal and what ingredients I should buy; in turn, I would invite him to eat with me if he was still working in the evening. As our friendship formed he began calling me âsisterâ. Richie could be considered, according to what James Spradley (1979) described, as an âencultured informantâ. Such people âare consciously reflexive about their culture, and enjoy sharing local knowledgeâ (OâReilly 2009, p. 133). Richie asked questions and immediately saw a role for himself in the research, often suggesting, âYou should talk toâŠâ and âIâll take you toâŠâ. He enjoyed passing on his knowledge and finding himself a role within my research experience.
Richie introduced me to the youth centre Fatherhood, players on the team and his family, of which I was to become a member. When I returned to Liberia in 2010, 2011 and 2012, Richie lived with me in Matadi. He wanted to make sure I was looked after, alth ough I still insisted on doing my own chores; he made sure the place was always secured and accompanied me regularly to interviews to help me understand the Liberian colloquia.
Diary entry 20 April 2009
Richie took me to his football practice at the youth centre. We arrived 10 minutes before the practice began but the security staff let us in before the other queuing childrenâI presumed because heâs captain and I was with him we were given special treatment. He told me to sit on the concrete steps while he went to team bench and changed. The players arrived late and casually, acknowledging me with side glances, sly smiles and polite handshakes from bolder players. I over-heard them refer to me as âwhite womanâ. Some think Iâm a talent scout and start doing tricks in my eye line (I donât want them to perform to me). Others think Iâm a journalist reporting on the youth centre and regard me wit...