Dear Fatha,
In order for you (or me) to analyse and contrast these two approaches,
we have first to understand them.
The structural approach - as its name suggests - examines the place of
sports in a wider system and structured relations. This means, that
the structural approach "is concerned with the ways in which the mode
of production of sports is organized to socialize the costs of
production while the profits are privatized." (Source: T. R. Young,
1986 "Sociology of Sport: Structural and Cultural Approaches", Red
Feather Institute for Advanced Studies in Sociology
<http://www.rf-institute.com/archives/108sports.html>).
The current sports scene in the UK is certainly much commercialised,
which could call for structural analysis on its impact on consumption
(See: John Hudson, "Critically examining the commercialisation of
English football: A case for government intervention?" Sociology of
Sport Online, Volume 4, issue 1, 2001,
<http://physed.otago.ac.nz/sosol/v4i1/v4i1hud.htm>).
The Cultural approach, on the other hand, views the culture of sports
and the place of sports in culture as a hegemonic attempt to disguise
lack of equality and discrimination under a charade of unity. This
approach "... involves the concepts of legitimation, ideological
culture, alienation, false consciousness, solidarity, massification,
character, structure, surplus production and the realization problem.
Cultural Marxism studies how commodity sports creates a false
solidarity between and among workers and owners, Blacks and Anglos,
rich and poor, East and West, North and South as well as between
nations within the world capitalist system and between the socialist
bloc and the non-socialist bloc. ?(Young, Op cit.).
A good example for that, is the linkage between social and cultural
identities, and sports in the UK, and especially in Northern Ireland
and Scotland, where religious identity is closely linked to sports
(See: Daniel Burdsey and Robert Chappell , "Soldiers, sashes and
shamrocks: Football and social identity in Scotland and Northern
Ireland" Sociology of Sport Online, Volume 6, issue 1
2003 <http://physed.otago.ac.nz/sosol/v6i1/v6i1_1.html).
Now, considering our understanding of British society and sports, we
could understand how the two approaches actually compliment, and not
contrast, each other.
At first, it seems that there is a contrast. While one approach
centres itself on cultural elements of domination, the other examines
structural patterns in the same field. In the UK, this reflects itself
in the place of sports in society as interpreted by the different
approaches - as a tool of cultural domination (to present a unified
picture of racial and class equality in the UK); or as commodity in an
ever-commercialising sector, that is part of leisure consumption.
However, these could be complimentary analyses, not contradictory
ones. The leisure commodity described in the structural approach, but
in a combined analysis, it also serves as a cultural oppressive tool -
to maintain social forms and contain class-violence. For example,
football fans could be interpreted as consumers of a cultural illusion
that keeps them from acting politically or socially.
Further Reading
===============
Laboratory for Leisure, Tourism & Sport -
http://www.sp.uconn.edu/~yian/frl/19viol.htm - Articles on the
structural and cultural approaches
Sports-Culture-Society -
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/sport-culture-society.html - academic
discussion list on the subject.
I hope this answered your question. I searched the Web and academic
databases for relevant terms.
Please contact me if you need any clarifications on this answer before
you tip/rate it. |
