Research of socio-political roles of contemporary Physical
Education and Sport: Outlining a Master’s dissertation
Professor Adjunto na Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul (PUCRS),
Faculdade de Educação Física e Ciências do Desporto (FEFID)
Pesquisador Coordenador do Grupo de Pesquisa e Estudos Sociológicos
em Educação Física e Esporte (GPES), FEFID/PUCRS
Professor Adjunto na Instituição Educacional São Judas Tadeu, Curso de Educação Física
Prof. Dr. Marcelo Olivera Cavalli
The objectives of this Master’s dissertation outline are as follows: a) to demonstrate that there are not only socio-political roles being performed by PE and Sport, but that there are also other roles that are not being performed - or are less emphasized - by PE and Sport; b) to make clear the socio-political connections and relations existent between PE/Sport and society, as well as to make evident the social consequences derived from this interaction; c) do contribute a different sociological approach to the body, to society and to PE and Sport themselves. The paper concludes indicating that there is a misconception and an ideological misrepresentation of what emancipation and similar words, such as progress and development mean. They are erroneously stressed through the modernist ideology as meaning the improvement of the quality and standards of life and of freedom. Science, industrialization, research, speed, Sport, competition, modernization: all are expressed as if they are equivalent to emancipation, evolution, progress, and as if they are capable of producing a better world for all living creatures.
Keywords: Master’s dissertation. Socio-political roles. Physical Education and Sport
|http://www.efdeportes.com/ Revista Digital - Buenos Aires - Año 14 - Nº 141 - Febrero de 2010||
1 / 1
Introducing some thoughts
It is necessary to acknowledge that since the beginning of man's existence on this planet, the systematic practice of physical activities, which characterizes a wide range of physical movements, such as hunting, basic survival affairs, 'ludus', dance, sport and games, etc., is also present. That means that movement is not an exclusive manifestation of contemporary culture. Without doubt, it is after a certain degree of urban growth, socio-political ‘methodization’ and, principally, due to the development of scientific and industrial processes that this practice acquired special characteristics.
In this context, Physical Education (PE) and Sport deal directly with human beings, including their bodies, their possibilities of movement and many other internal and external structures. They, as well, help in the establishment of psychological, sociological and ideological relations, patterns and values. The study of the socio-political roles represents, on the one hand, a significant step towards the improvement on the teaching of PE; and, on the other hand, a way of putting forward an area that has been less emphasized over the past decades.
Hence, this paper has the following three aims: (1) to discuss the non-neutrality of PE and Sport; (2) to demonstrate that PE and Sport came to play important and vital roles in society itself; and as a consequence, (3) to show that PE and Sport are influenced by and in the characterization of patterns and values of social relations.
PE and Sport are placed inside the social system and both are represented in it. However, at the same time they are performing innumerable socio-political roles and not performing others. However it is not clear what social changes are being produced. Thus, it is of utmost importance to verify and analyze this situation and the wider context in which PE and Sport are present and to establish reasoned interpretations of the facts and factors that are being derived from the interaction and coexistence between society, PE and Sport.
Typical examples of the socio-political roles played/non-played by PE and Sport are present at any societal level and also throughout various complex relationships established within the social system. To mention some examples, we could think about the following:
The Olympic Games: How they are being used, by whom and for what purposes? Do they really represent the best of athletic excellence and fair-play, or there are other aspects hidden under their slogans and professed objectives?
What are the real principles established in PE classes and Sport events? Are they in accordance with the people's desires and wills, or do they just represent the intention of the presiding governing system?
How the use, appropriation and manipulation of the human body by innumerable entities, practices, fields of study, technology, PE and Sport are performed?; also, How is the body contributing to ideologically establish common sense and social practices that include physical activity?
The presence of PE and Sport in the society has caused a two-folded interaction. As PE and Sport absorbed and incorporated many of the principles of the hegemonic discourse at a certain historical moment, they were transformed and ruled by them, as well as they became dependent on these same principles. On the other hand, PE and Sport became to be used as a powerful ideological apparatus of many social structures such as politics and economy. There are many reasons for such a prompt acceptance of the appropriation and manipulation suffered by and imposed into PE. Two reasons can be cited. First, there was never much significant scientific research done in the area of PE and the available research was in accordance with the hegemonic ideology. Second, there was an imminent need to affirm the profession and its professionals and to achieve public recognition.
Therefore, the tasks of this paper are to debate, critique, and historically examine the way that the following topics have been conceived and perpetrated inside the social system:
What are the delimitations of the possibilities of movement?
For what purposes and by whom is the human body conceived? How is the body perceived by a society and other social structures?
What causes such appropriation and ideological manipulation?
What are the influences on the definition and stipulation of the theoretical and practical contents of PE at both formal and informal levels?
What are the socio-political roles played and non-played by PE and Sport?
What leads to the formation and institutionalization of the political objectives of PE and Sport?
Drawing on the ideas mentioned above, the objectives of this research paper are as follows:
To demonstrate that there are not only socio-political roles being performed by PE and Sport, but that there are also other roles that are not being performed - or are less emphasized - by PE and Sport;
To make clear the socio-political connections and relations existent between PE, Sport and society, as well as to make evident the social consequences derived from this interaction;
To contribute a different sociological approach to the body, to society and to PE and Sport themselves.
The development of this paper is to be based on four conceptual presuppositions. The first one is the institutionalization of the hegemonic ideology, as defined by Gramsci (1971); the second, the manipulation of public opinion, as affirmed by Bourdieu (1988); the third one, the appropriation of the 'physical body' by various social segments and entities; and the fourth one, the discipline and punishment through the individual's body, as expressed in Foucault's thinking.
In Chapter I, the objective is to introduce the main concerns that are going to be debated in this paper. The main idea is that besides being socio-politically compromised, PE and Sport should also demonstrate awareness of and conscious involvement in socio-political actions taking place inside the field. Also, the social conception of physical movement and the effectiveness of the Sport culture in determining social patterns and values will be analyzed.
In Chapters II and III, the socio-political role of PE and Sport will be demonstrated. The main difference between these two chapters is the directional vector, that is:
In Chapter II, the vector goes from the socio-political roles to their effects and consequences within the social system;
In Chapter III, the vector goes from society and its hegemonic ideology to a biased characterization of PE and Sport.
In Chapter IV, some final considerations on contemporary PE and Sport will be addressed. Also, some suggestions are offered at improving and changing PE and Sport. The aim is to provide people with awareness and conditions to make social transformations effective. To give less emphasis to competition and more emphasis to cooperative games and activities are within the scope of such suggestions. The importance of the field of PE and its professionals to act inside as well as outside of their professional environments has to be emphasized and effectively performed.
Chapter I. Socio-political involvement and compromise
Since PE and Sport are our subject matter, it is a good idea to relate some of the principles frequently professed in our field of study and bring them closer to more practical situations.
1. Social conception of physical movement
A generic profile of man, demanded and worshiped by contemporary society, is extensive to PE and Sport. Moreover, PE and Sport have responsibilities over socio-political and pedagogical actions inside the school environment, as well as in other social segments. Once PE is compromised with movement, which is present in its praxis, PE should study movement in its various dimensions: as mechanical functionality, motor learning, ways of moving, ways of productive force (work), expression, or even as political-social action. From there we can determine the importance of PE and Sport in developing and emphasizing these areas and their notions of movement. Also, the development of criticism, open-mindedness and awareness about social contradictions, as well as of the roles played/non played by PE and Sport should be present in the activities of those involved in PE. The acknowledgement of the ideological powers that influence man's life and society – and are strictly related to their actions and knowledge – suffer prejudice due to a unilateral process of physical, social and cultural information.
In such a unilateral context, PE, which was institutionalized as the area/field of study responsible and in charge of observing, developing and spreading physical manifestations, has gone and continues to go through many structural and ideological changes. In the end of the nineteenth century, PE started to be developed and seen as a necessary practice for the society. What was not clearly defined was the exact involvement and compromise of this 'practice'. Thus it can be presumed that various or different meanings were manifested, however the only one that was overly emphasized was the 'physical practice' meaning of movement, which is still acknowledged as physical activities, dance, gymnastics, Sport and games.
Societies in general can distinguish and recognize many different ways of performing physical activities. What is not very clear is whether they are capable of distinguishing between the different meanings of physical movement in regard to objectives, socio-political intentions, benefits or possible relation to other major social problems.
The present conceptions of PE and Sport and the ways they are being used and influenced is easily observed in both western and eastern countries. The strong influences that PE and Sport have over other social structures and their apparent disconnection to major social problems can also be considered as happening in most countries. These assumptions are true if one takes as a parameter the research that is being conducted by many different scholars worldwide. Based on scholarly research it is interesting to mention here that PE and Sport are considered as worldwide phenomena.
Associating these facts to the versatility, adaptability and influential characteristics of PE and Sport, they are both being used as tools to achieve other objectives than the ones that are perceived and practiced by the societies. Moreover, those objectives are many times in discordance with and disconnected from social, political and economic democracy. They oppose better living conditions, disrupt nature, and are contrary to educational and social objectives. They are also strictly connected to the PE political role as a powerful ideological and manipulative instrument. These may cause people's alienation, passiveness and impotence, but more importantly, halt operations that could originate the necessary and real changes to reformulate modern societies.
As a consequence of alienation and the non-awareness of the socio-political role of PE, which was emphasized over the past decades and can be easily verified in the PE historical background, PE has lost its original meaning and its objectivity. Another example of society's manipulation and ideological control is the ‘absolute hegemony’ of competitive Sport, or as some prefer to say, high-performance Sport.
The acknowledgment of contemporary PE expressed by PE teachers, other professionals, the literature, and the public in general reflects this situation of control exerted by the dominant ideology or by the dominant social class. This is what Gramsci defines as "hegemony".
It is the essence of ideological manipulation and the nature of hegemony that must be challenged by PE and other educational subjects. The objective of this challenge is to provide society with tools and conditions to acquire the necessary awareness and choose the right paths and methods to achieve the desired social transformation.
Because of this conceptual uncertainty, present-day PE has been in a state of disturbance since the beginning of the 1980's. Here, it could be and should be said that PE is going through a period of 'identity crisis' which has to be seen as an essential and extremely important period in its history. According to Gramsci (1971, p. 275), “the crisis consists precisely in the fact that the old is dying and the new cannot be born; in this interregnum a great variety of morbid symptoms appear”. It can be understood that the present moment may be seen as the ‘interregnum’, and that changes are to come. After, and only after, the birth of the 'new' will it be possible to effectively establish new social and individual patterns and values. To do that, it is necessary to let the 'new' be born. This involves complex agreements and arrangements between the mass of the people, the leading groups of society, and the hegemonic ideology and various other structural systems. What can be observed in the field of PE is that there are many teachers, scholars, citizens and students working on the “re-discussion” of the theme. This discussion will continue until redefinitions of the objectives and values of PE in societies are solved. It also asks questions related to effective changes at social-political-economic-environmental level.
Certainly this re-discussion of the objectives and values, not only of PE itself, but of all structures, did not originate by accident. It is a reflection of discussions that were taking place world-wide, and it assumed great potentiality and emphasis, especially in the PE scientific field, though manifestations have also occurred in non-scientific environments.
2. The existence of socio-political roles
When thinking about the political roles performed by PE and Sport, the first two questions that must come to mind are:
(1) Whose politics are PE and Sport working for?
(2) Whose politics are PE and Sport not working for?
If one is capable of expressing any answer to these questions, it is assumed that he is able to see political connections and/or is aware that some kind of political role is/is not being performed.
As many scholars state, and it is common knowledge that there is no action taken without a political intention, and that every person possesses a certain level of political power. By these two assertions it can be assumed that every single institution, school subject, speech or book presents a political ideology. In fact, even non-political positioning implies a political decision, which unfortunately, will support the dominant political ideology.
Therefore it is necessary to prove that the statements implicit in these two questions are true, that is:
(1) That PE and Sport are being used as political tools to achieve other objectives than the professed ones; and that there are some possible linkages between their educational structures and other structures; and
(2) That PE and Sport are lacking in consideration on some other political objectives; that they are under nourishing equity, fairness and socio-political awareness.
3. The Sport 'world' and its social repercussion
Without considering any philosophical theory in special, let's consider a division of the world in which there are inanimate things and living beings that belong to the physical world. Some philosophers such as Karl Popper distinguish between this world, what they call "world 1", and the world of emotions, what they call "world 2". Other philosophers consider world 1 and 2 as part of the same one, the world of the human beings. However, an interesting alternative is the formation of another world, "world 3", that is, an objective, abstract, autonomous, and simultaneously real and acting world. It is to this distinct world that other social structures, institutions, PE and Sport belong. They were created and developed in accordance with man's 'needs and desires', and their presumed function is to promote better living conditions and to technologically 'develop' the present world. However, this does not seem to be exactly what is happening.
The idea of analyzing PE and Sport through a prism is here introduced to determine many of the structures mentioned above. The common and widespread idea that is considered by society as the 'ideal' is represented in the following figure:
These five social components are the main ones perceived by societies in general, and the ones through which PE and Sport assume such important and essential positions in contemporary societies. PE and Sport 'accepted' and incorporated them in their daily social practices, and they are conceptualized or based on these five components regardless of the presiding political system.
The following figure characterizes another way of analyzing PE and Sport. It is much more critical and contains some components that also belong to world 3. The social components defined here are connected to some of the various problems that our world is suffering from, and which PE and Sport are still emphasizing during their daily practices.
According to its historical background, present PE pedagogical methods are basically characterized by the 'Sport Model'. Once this presupposition is clear, the critique to PE will be also carried out indirectly through a direct critique of the Olympic Games. The Games must be understood as Sport's most representative event and a top objective of PE and Sport.
4. The sociological study of PE and Sport
Regarding the sociological study of PE and Sport, as well as of cultural studies, much research work has been conducted throughout the world, especially in North America and Britain. The lack of homogeneity within the field suggests an ongoing struggle over definitions and meanings. Moreover, theories tend to contest each other both internally among the field itself as well as externally at practical levels. The contestation does not produce effective changes at practical levels. This 'disconnection' between PE's discourse and practice, plus the achievement of misrepresented objectives are some of the reasons that lead those involved and interested in PE – with or without 'political' interests – to make effective Betti's (1991) "pyramidal model" of PE and Sport. What Betti states in his work is in accordance with the contemporary society and resembles its internal structure when referring, for example, to social climbing, economic ascension, individuality and personal victory.
In this context, PE and leisure are subordinated to the objectives of high performance sport. It is difficult for people to acknowledge PE and Sport as autonomous areas, that is, disciplines that are independent and have their own objectives. It is quite obvious that there are plenty of reasons to contest the terrain of the social, cultural and political construction, as well as the embodiment and meaning of PE and Sport. Establishing better connections between PE's theory and practice is also important. Based on these many assertions, the necessity to develop this line of research became evident.
Chapter II. Socio-political role of PE and Sport
What we have is an ideological misrepresentation of what emancipation and similar words, such as progress and development mean. They are erroneously stressed through the modernist ideology as meaning the improvement of the quality and standards of life and of freedom. Science, industrialization, research, speed, Sport, competition, modernization: all are expressed as if they are equivalent to emancipation, evolution, progress, and as if they are capable of producing a better world for all living creatures.
1. Political Objectives of PE
Many connections between PE and other social structures (politics, economy, society, culture) – as they are to be called in this paper – have been widely debated by many scholars, and they are also present in civil movements that originated and were activated inside society itself. It is necessary to differentiate the various ways in which PE has contributed and continues to contribute to the maintenance of certain forms of Sport or social practices of Sport activities. As we go up in the scale, the environment becomes more professionally-oriented and the relations tend to assume characteristics of strict business. Leisure then assumes characteristics of work, fun of seriousness, and friendship becomes just an external manifestation to keep good harmony and internal coalition.
2. Neutrality versus external involvement and intervention
The socio-political function of PE and Sport and how that function is accomplished reflects the existence of a powerful system of socio-political and ideological control.
It is very important to associate the ideas mentioned above to all fields of study, not only to PE and Sport. If society is being considered, attracting the intense interest of organizations and institutions and being targeted by them, it is very probable that society has something that “they” want. It is not associated only to economic power – which is so much desired by our market-oriented societies. It is more than having access to large amounts of money. It deals with control and domination in all possible levels, spheres and settings.
PE and Sport provide only one of the settings in which this phenomenon occurs. Why does external intervention happen? That is due largely because “PE and Sport presented specific characteristics that could not be found in any other area or activity. In addition, there was “a need for the profession and its professionals to affirm themselves within society” (Cavalli, 1994, p. 44). Besides these two factors, the following may also be considered as possible reasons for allowing external intervention and involvement to occur within the field:
The relationship between the political influences of PE and Sport and the political formation of PE and Sport. “They are always connected, interrelated, interdependent, inter-supported and they tend to reinforce each other. There is a cycle in which the discourses of the interaction between PE/Sport and society tend to affirm and support the prevailing structural system” (Cavalli, 1994, p. 37);
The acknowledgement of the ideological powers that influence man’s life and society – and are strictly related to their actions and knowledge – suffer prejudice due to a unilateral process of physical, social, political and cultural information;
PE and Sport have strong influences over other socio-political structures and are apparently disconnected to major social problems;
PE and Sport present many useful, different and “easy-to-deal-with” characteristics such as versatility, adaptability and capacity to influence and cause changes in society;
Society perceives PE and Sport superficially or PE and Sport only show themselves as hygiene, competition (as a natural phenomenon), education, leisure and peace;
PE and Sport perform a very significant political function in contributing to the determination of social values and patterns;
PE and Sport present an appropriate site for the development of (discriminatory) values and patterns.
3. A new conceptualization of PE and Sport
The concept of human emancipation defended in this paper is guided by the idea that humanity is facing a big gap in its history. Humanity should directly or indirectly benefit more from decisions, acts and results originated from PE, Sport and social related activities.
As previously mentioned, the eminent danger of highlighting negative aspects of PE and Sport is usually obfuscated by the fact that there are also positive aspects involved. At this point it seems necessary to make a distinction between positive and negative political, economic, social and emancipating aspects. The point that many of those “in favor” of Sport (i.e., the way present-day Sport is managed) often tend to maintain is the existence of many positive aspects. Is not that exactly what has been done so far? Positive political and economic decisions do not necessarily mean or result in positive social and emancipating aspects. On the same hand, positive social and emancipating decisions are not synonyms of positive political and economic decisions. Many of the aspects present in or originated from contemporary PE or Sport can be said to be positive if considered only from a political and economic standpoint. From a social and humanitarian standpoint they may or may not be considered so. This is exactly the theme that has to be more concretely analyzed and stressed in future sociological research. This is a task that should be performed not only by the field of sociology, but by other fields of study inside and outside the field of PE and Sport. Government or company decisions do not necessarily represent or contain the best choices for society and humanity.
In the field of PE and Sport, this type of criticism tends to be vehemently refused as if it is a threat to the stability of the hegemonic and present way Sport activities and PE classes and research are being conducted. In many situations, there are insinuations that the criticisms to PE and Sport are not being constructive, creative or positive. Although some criticism may not present any of these three factors at all, much of the criticism does contain all of the three factors. An important point that should not be forgotten is that it is not only the criticism that has to be creative, constructive and positive. The hegemonic discourse should also have these three characteristics. Thus, what is being emphasized here is not the abolition or annihilation of all forms of competition, but just that it is necessary to analyze more deeply the theory, practice and discourse of PE and Sport. An important question than is, "Is present-day PE and Sport being creative, constructive and positive to humanity?"
Another important point is that the criticisms to PE and Sport, and facts that are inclusive in them are not critically analyzed. It is very easy to refute a criticism based on its anti-discourse, that is, for example, what usually happens when negative aspects of PE and Sport are brought into discussion. It is neither the consequences and results nor possible ways to solve or improve these negative aspects that are debated. On the contrary, the affirmation of the existence of positive aspects seems to be much more important than losing time on negative aspects. It is here at this point that Gramsci’s conceptualization of hegemonic ideology seems to be strongly encrusted in our research, practice, discourse and daily activities. As Gramsci says, "the dominant group is coordinated concretely with the general interests of the subordinate groups". It is not through affirming the leisure and pleasure benefits achieved through physical activities that we will acquire enough knowledge and maturity to perceive what is behind it all. Having fun and pleasure while performing physical activities or playing games or Sport, even when the objective is not competition, does not mean that we are free from social, political, cultural, economic or ideological control. One thing is certain, we are always doing things coherent to the system and the danger resides exactly in not being aware of this manipulation.
The problem seems to reside in the setting of objectives, since there are 'Objectives' and 'objectives' to be achieved. Both represent a set of goals, however 'Objectives' contains the ideologically and politically dominant class's goals, and 'objectives' express the people's goals. In other words, they represent different ideas, intentions and philosophies of each group. Their directions are often opposed to each other. It is very important to consider and recognize this distinction.
There is a big difference and often contradictions between them. The government-objectives are in tune with the modernist conception expressed above, but the people-objectives differ from those aims of the hegemonic system. This should be taken into account in order to avoid wrong feelings of evolution and so as not to misconceive social and political aims.
Ideological use and control has been perpetrated through various areas of study of developmental and modernist ideas, economic and industrial developments, as well as competitive sport and activities. A great deal of false information and ideas have been transmitted by non-neutral political discourses and practices. Mass communication has played an important role in spreading this unilateral information so quickly, intensively, and successfully. Since many people do not have the time, interest or faculty to perceive the facts, unawareness has spread throughout societies. Even worse, many claim as truth assertions that they heard or read somewhere. Ironically, societies are being controlled by many ideologies that we think were created to avoid such control. Instead, these ideologies should represent people's objectives, wills and hopes for emancipation. Many other interesting questions need to be asked and answered. What is the relation between PE and Sport and human emancipation? What is the point in jumping higher and higher, or running, swimming and cycling faster and faster? What good use are we making of the time we save?
As previously mentioned, the critique to PE and Sport seems not to be well accepted by those involved in the field.
Some tend to refute the critique based on their professional background and experience within the field. They have the tendency of perpetrating knowledge without accepting interferences or advances in the line of thinking. 'Things have worked well so far' is one of the encrusted ideas. In addition to that, changes offer a certain level of uncertainty. Changes may have "dangerous" results and lead to a more critical sociological approach to both fields as well as to society.
Some refute the critique based on the affirmation of the positive aspects within the field. The problem with insisting on the positive aspects and not properly considering the negative ones is that people come to approach PE and Sport through a biased and unreal standpoint. It is necessary to unmask the dark faces of PE and Sport, so people can judge by themselves what is good and what is not good for them.
Some seem to feel uncomfortable when the existence of negative aspects is brought into discussion. This kind of debate creates a state of unbalance, a situation in which all the prevailing terms, definitions and values are to be contested. Hypothetically thinking, after the discussion is over and the system has been reconstructed, the hierarchical order may probably change a little. The "new" social order would probably favor a larger group of people which may not include the few that have been benefitted so far. In other words, this uncomfortable feeling of some may be understood as fear of losing power, control, stability and social reconnaissance, despite the state of misery of a large part of society.
Change within a field of study or a social structure seems quite impossible. Professionals acting inside or outside the structure in question are not able and cannot cause changes. Changes can only occur through resolutions taken by the ruling class and (softly or firmly) imposed over the dominated classes, or through manifestations derived from popular classes. Affirmations such as these bring into discussion the role of those involved within the field of PE and Sport. Although we cannot cause changes, it does not mean that our involvement is unnecessary. On the contrary, it is exactly our active involvement and participation that reinforce and maintain the status; that is, we (teachers, instructors, professionals, coaches, athletes, students) are the ones responsible for institutionalizing, supervising, evaluating and spreading the ideology contained in the present way physical activities are performed. Consequently, it should be a matter of common sense to determine our role within this process and evaluate both causes and consequences (social, political, economic and cultural) originated or derived from our interaction. It is necessary for us not only to rethink and contest some of the values, but also to establish new approaches to society, PE, Sport and alternative physical practices.
Also, space should be created for those minority groups that have been contesting in one way or another present social, political, cultural and economic organization. They should be given voice, and attention should be paid to what they are professing. We all know that they are not wrong. They neither cause any damage nor try to attain socio-political power, at least not the socio-political power desired by present-day politicians and organizations.
A possibility to stimulate or cause effective social change is the development of a critical pedagogy. There are many reasons why a critical pedagogy is necessary. Three reasons are indicated as follows:
To promote critical considerations on the socio-political functions of institutions, values, discourses and objectives.
To establish critical considerations on the institutionalization of institutions, values, discourses and objectives.
To promote critical considerations on the influence of institutions, values, discourses and objectives over society.
BOURDIEU, P. 1988. Program for a Sociology of Sport. In: Sociology of Sport Journal, 5: p. 153-161.
BOURDIEU, P. 1973. A opinião pública não existe.
CAVALLI, M. O.; CAVALLI, A. S. Sociopolitical appropriation of the human body in Physical Education and Sport: from A to Q.
CAVALLI, M. O.; CAVALLI, A.S. Social function and formation of the body: should Physical Education and Sport be considerate?
CAVALLI, M. O.; CAVALLI, A.S. Organization of Brazilian Physical Education and Sport: Critical considerations on Betti's "physical education and society".
CAVALLI, Marcelo O. 1994. Critical Considerations on Contemporary PE and Sport: Research of Socio-Political Roles. In: Master's Thesis. Physical Education Sciences Dept. Aichi University of Education, Japan.
COAKLEY, Jay J. 1994. Sports in the Twenty-First Century: What Can We Expect? In: COAKLEY, J.J., ed. Sport in Society: Issues and Controversies. Fifth edition. USA: Mosby: p. 444-460.
COAKLEY, Jay J. 1990. Sport and Politics: Can They Be Kept Separate? In: COAKLEY, J.J., ed. Sport in Society: Issues and Controversies. Fourth edition. USA: p. 302-321.
COUSINS, M.; HUSSAIN, A. 1984. The Asylum, the Clinic and the Prison. In: COUSINS, M.; HUSSAIN, A., eds. Michel Foucault - Theoretical Traditions in the Social Sciences. London: MacMillan Education Ltd.: p. 100-198.
CURTIS, T. 1994. Cultural Aspects of Wideband Communication. In: Lecture presented at Chukyo University, Toyota City, Japan.
DONNELY, P. Sport as a Site for "Popular" Resistance. In: Popular Cultures and Political Practices, p. 69-82.
GRAMSCI, A. 1989. A Formação dos Intelectuais. In: Os Intelectuais e a Organização da Cultura. Quarta edição. Brasil: Civilização Brasileira: p. 3-23.
GRAMSCI, A. 1971.
HARGREAVES, J. 1992. Sport and Socialism in Britain. In: Sociology of Sport Journal, 9: p. 131-153.
KAGEYAMA, K.; OKAZAKI, M.; CAVALLI, M. O. 1993.
MOUFFE, C. 1981. Hegemony and Ideology in Gramsci. In: BENNETT, T.; MARTIN, G.; MERCER, C.; WOOLLACOTT, J., eds. Culture, Ideology and Social Process, A Reader. The Open University Press: p. 219-234.
OKAZAKI, M.; KAGEYAMA, K.; CAVALLI, M. O. 1993.
ROSE, D. 1988. Should The Games Be Abolished? In: Segrave, J.; Chu, D., eds. The Olympic Games in Transition. Campaign: Human Kinetics Books: p. 393-405.
WHITSON, D. 1984. Sport and Hegemony: On the Construction of the Dominant Culture. In: Sociology of Sport Journal, 1: p. 64-78.
Another articles in English
digital · Año 14 · N° 141 | Buenos Aires,
Febrero de 2010