Foucault in Action: Spectator Sports and Discipline
Note: This was written for an assignment in my social theory class. Consequently, it is rife with ‘scholarly bombast’ as Tony Morrison calls it. But I post it here because behind all that, there is a genuinely urgent critique of modern Consumption and how it prevents us from making sense of, and taking action in our world.
Foucault’s intellectual career was defined not by the pursuit of one singular question, but rather a variety of inquiries that together reveal certain unifying themes. While Marx and Durkheim both address directly the nature of man and proceed to propose grand theories of history, Foucault is less grandiose, or perhaps just more roundabout, confining his expositions to ‘genealogies’ of specific institutions over distinct periods of time. These genealogies however, generate certain themes that are useful lenses for those who seek to analyze complex social phenomenon. In this paper, Foucault’s theme of Discipline is applied to the institution of spectator sports in America.
Personally, I am fascinated by spectator sports. Growing up, my parents were strictly opposed to television and the only plasma screen I could plant myself in front of, was at a relative’s house on Saturdays once every few weeks. But sports permeated every aspect of my life regardless. Throughout my schooling career, a large majority of groups I found myself in talked extensively about sports. It’s ubiquitous and normalized. A casual inquiry as to whether one ‘saw the game’ is fairly standard in many interactions.
It is interesting to take a step back and interrogate the character of spectator sports and the reasons for its prevalence. Spectator sports has a long history, and while the scope of this paper does not allow for a genealogy of even the most basic kind, I lean on the basic observation that the consumption of sports in the twentieth century is of a radically different variety than that found in earlier points in history. With the rise of television and Internet, sports are broadcasted to innumerable homes with newfound frequency and ease.
Considering all this, I make the claim that the rise of spectator sports is a nascent, concrete feature of a modern, increasingly disciplinary society.
Amongst the various conceptual models used by Foucault, one of his central models describes how Power has changed in the last few centuries. Previously, Power in society was vested in specific bodies and entities, whether that be the feudal lord or community chief. He argues that in modern society however, power is no longer exercised in direct mandates issued by specific individual or party, and is instead exercised through new, less visible technologies that allow control of the masses in an efficient manner by various competing agents of the social body.
Discipline according to Foucault consists of hierarchical observation, normalization, and examination, a combination of the first two elements. The net effect of discipline is the control of the physical bodies of individuals, in their relationship to both space and time.***
Spectator sports is produced and delivered through a vast tele-communications network on a very precise, pre-determined schedule. Millions of fans arrange their lives around these broadcasts. Every day of the week is highlighted by a must see match, and professional marketers have refined the optimal length of matches and seasons to a science. The lives of countless individuals consist of work and then several ‘emancipatory’ hours in front of the television catching the game. Spectator sports is a profoundly passive activity yet stimulates viewers as if they were genuine participants themselves.
The relationship between ‘hierarchical observation’ and spectator sports is more clear when sports is located in the context of the larger encompassing institution of media. Media in American consists of six or seven large conglomerates all of whom have serious vested interests in creating a media climate that highlights and neglects certain issues. This perspective is heavily influenced by the ‘propaganda’ theory of media. Because media in American is so widespread and far reaching, and simultaneously incredibly non diverse in production, the relationship of the larger public to the media is one that mimics the panopticon. Millions of viewers are constantly attuned to one source of information. This monopoly on content produced and consumed has similar effects to the gaze. By controlling the type of content served, and thus the information available to individuals, the actions of the individuals are limited. This is done with minimal effort. A few stations producing a select number of programs can disproportionately impact vast multitudes. The energy exerted is relatively minimal in comparison to other techniques of control.
Additionally, it is difficult to perceive how this social behavior is a reflection of disciplinary power until one considers alternative activities that cannot occur due to the immense time that is allotted to sports in the daily rituals of consumers. There is an opportunity cost to extensive television consumption. A democratic society is structured in a way that theoretically allows for the will of the masses to be executed. This prevents an oligarchy in which a minority can legislate exclusively towards the interests of the few. Complex issues require lengthy analysis and thorough investigation of the hundreds of thousands of competing voices that cumulatively make up the ‘white noise.’ Citizens are obliged to engage critically with the media and incorporate the vital activity of debate and appraisal into their daily lives. Yet the average citizen’s life is structured in a way that completely prevents this kind of behavior. The result is a large collection of docile bodies that are incapable of independent thought and action. Critical thinking is not directly punished, but it is rather prevented by normalizing behaviors that indirectly remove the possibility of doing so. The normalization of spectator sports as an acceptable consumptive behavior and colloquial topic, contributes largely to the disciplinary character of a seemingly innocuous national hobby. Spectators of sports are precluded from the arena of politics simply as a consequence of where they spend their finite amount of time and intellectual energies. It has become acceptable to possess extensive knowledge of the many cities and their teams, while remaining only marginally aware of political issues.
The social phenomenon of spectator sports is one that requires extensive analysis out of the scope of this paper. In this paper, a basic attempt to introduce key connections between Foucault’s concept of Discipline and spectators sports has been made. Hierarchical observation and normalization are key characteristics of the system that regulates the relationship between general viewers and professional athletes. Many might cry that these suggestions are specious and only superficially plausible. To that, I imagine Foucault might respond in a manner similar to how he has written in the Birth of Prison: Discipline is ‘exercised through its invisibility.’ ‘It is not a triumphant power…it is a modest, suspicious power.’
***A quick note on my interpretations of the elements of discipline before more direct application to the chosen subject of spectator sports: Hierarchical observation can be understood as a literal, physical arrangement of space, but also metaphorically. It alludes to an arrangement in which the many are subject to the gaze of the few. Normalization refers to techniques of power that as opposed to specifically penalizing certain misbehavior, instead preempts this situation by creating an environment in which a narrow spectrum of alternative behaviors are exclusively encouraged.
