Freedomain Radio

I looked through the other genres and couldnt really find one specifically suited to the topic of violence which I am interested in exploring so I hope this fits into the general discussions. This is my first post so please advise me if I have made any sort of mistake in posting this. I have only been exposed to the FDR materials for about a month now so I am just beginning to scratch the surface of the abundance of issue which are discussed through these brilliant recourses.

This morning while I was at work I was listening to an FDR podcast discusing violence which had been taking place between a father and son. While slightly off the topic, this got me thinking about violence in sports such as football, hockey, rugby, etc. I am not speaking about the fighting which does occur in some games as that is clearly aggression from one person to another. I am more interested in the act of body contact which is a routine activity in all of these sports, and a number of others. I assume that some of the members on this board are sports fans and also have participated in one of the many contact sports available to them throughout the lifecourse and I am wondering what the anarchist stance on this kind of violence would be?

In my personal experiece, hockey and rugby have been two sports which I have chosen to participate in and so I have a good amount of experience in sports which involve contact. I beleive that although these are clear acts of aggression which can be viewed as violent, is participating in such sports contradictory to an anarchist non-violent ifestyle? Is it possible to participate in such activities and still remain a peaceful non-violent person? I have always tried and avoid violence and conflict throughout my life and I beleive I have been rather successful in doing so. But can I consider myself a non-violent person if I have partaken in these kinds of activities which require conflict between two teams or individuals?

I am sorry that I have to leave this so short but I have to go and meet a friend who is leaving the province soon but I really wanted to get this question out there and get some feedback which could perhaps guide the discussion further or could help clarify this issue for me.Thanks for taking the time to read my ramblings and I look forward to hearing what others ont he boards have to say about this and many of the other questions which I have always looked to discuss with a wider audience.

Cheers

titmouse:

is participating in such sports contradictory to an anarchist non-violent ifestyle?

No.

From a psychological and parenting perspective, many of the participants in sports that are violent or overly competitive (i.e. where a person can pass out from exhaustion) might be participating in such sports because they were abused as children.  Or they have overbearing parents that are pressuring them to "be the best", etc.  I played sports growing up all the time, many were physical sports like american football.  Fortunately I never got hurt.

I think in a free society with peaceful parenting, people would not take "winning" at sports games as seriously as they do today and there were probably be a lot less participating sports with physical contact.  Also people probably wouldn't take them as seriously spending their entire lives on them like professionals do today.  Stadiums wouldn't be subsidized, etc. as well.

This is just a brief explanation.  Hope it helps.

Stef's done a podcast on the state and sports.  Here it is.

After searching (Ctrl + F) the Podcast Feed, he did a sunday show talking about sports addiction, among other topics.

I think it is contradictory if you want to lead a "non-violent" lifestyle.

Not all anarchists are "non-violent" though. To me that term implies pacifism.

Contact sports are inherently violent but not inherently aggressive, if that makes any sense. Aggressive violence in really competitive sports is more based the drive to be the best as well as being part of violent culture. I suspect that a hyper-inflated ego may have something to do with it as well, sports people can get away with a lot of horrible things, such as rape, simply because they're a member of a popular sports team. They just good ole boys, never meanin' no harm.

There's some ramblin' for ya.

Let's say that if the coach or team is trying to engender a sense of team work and sense of fairplay (gracious loss and gracious winning) as well as a betterment in physical and mental endurance.  If this is the case the participation in such sports is not supportive of aggression and is generally positive.

If the coach, parents, etc are trying to inculcate a sense of win at all costs, smash the other team and overt aggression then perhaps not.

There may be some grey area with regard to the use of intimidation tactics used in wrestling, etc which may fall into the latter category of aggression expressed through sports.

With regard to Stef's assertions of fans that support a team because of their physical location or other reasons and that this support has a tendency to reinforce blind nationalism, I would agree completely.

Friendly competition and trying your best to improve yourself in solo and team sports I believe can be positive.  

Disclosure: I played soccer and rugby and a small amount of football growing up.

Florida youth football brawl probed by cops (with video)

Sheriff's investigators are reviewing a video of a brawl at a youth football game last weekend in which a referee was tackled by a player and then attacked while he was on the ground.

Attacking an athletic official is a felony in Florida, and a Sarasota Sheriff's Office spokesman said two or three people could be facing criminal charges as a result of the melee that broke out Saturday during a game between teams of 13- and 14-year-old boys.

A video made by someone in the stands and released by the sheriff's office shows a coach from the Sarasota Gators scuffling with a referee in an end zone before a helmetless player comes flying in and levels the official. Others join in the attack after the referee is on the ground.

I suppose we would have to define violence to best determine its philisophical implications on sport.

dlouismartin:

I suppose we would have to define violence to best determine its philisophical implications on sport.

 

Violence is the use of physical force to impose a state on others contrary to their wishes.

RuddODragonFear:

dlouismartin:

I suppose we would have to define violence to best determine its philisophical implications on sport.

 

Violence is the use of physical force to impose a state on others contrary to their wishes.

Are people that enter a stadium (as sport participants)  who are intent on casuing violence to each other mutually waiving their contrary wishes to not be imposed upon?

It's my impression (having worked through a number of issues concerning violence done against me in childhood) that contact sports are a symptom of underlying unprocessed trauma. In other words, they are a symptom of an underlying problem, they are not the problem itself.

titmouse:

I looked through the other genres and couldnt really find one specifically suited to the topic of violence which I am interested in exploring so I hope this fits into the general discussions. This is my first post so please advise me if I have made any sort of mistake in posting this. I have only been exposed to the FDR materials for about a month now so I am just beginning to scratch the surface of the abundance of issue which are discussed through these brilliant recourses.

This morning while I was at work I was listening to an FDR podcast discusing violence which had been taking place between a father and son. While slightly off the topic, this got me thinking about violence in sports such as football, hockey, rugby, etc. I am not speaking about the fighting which does occur in some games as that is clearly aggression from one person to another. I am more interested in the act of body contact which is a routine activity in all of these sports, and a number of others. I assume that some of the members on this board are sports fans and also have participated in one of the many contact sports available to them throughout the lifecourse and I am wondering what the anarchist stance on this kind of violence would be?

In my personal experiece, hockey and rugby have been two sports which I have chosen to participate in and so I have a good amount of experience in sports which involve contact. I beleive that although these are clear acts of aggression which can be viewed as violent, is participating in such sports contradictory to an anarchist non-violent ifestyle? Is it possible to participate in such activities and still remain a peaceful non-violent person? I have always tried and avoid violence and conflict throughout my life and I beleive I have been rather successful in doing so. But can I consider myself a non-violent person if I have partaken in these kinds of activities which require conflict between two teams or individuals?

I am sorry that I have to leave this so short but I have to go and meet a friend who is leaving the province soon but I really wanted to get this question out there and get some feedback which could perhaps guide the discussion further or could help clarify this issue for me.Thanks for taking the time to read my ramblings and I look forward to hearing what others ont he boards have to say about this and many of the other questions which I have always looked to discuss with a wider audience.

Cheers

dlouismartin:

Are people that enter a stadium (as sport participants)  who are intent on casuing violence to each other mutually waiving their contrary wishes to not be imposed upon? 

Most likely not inflict it directly but support it being done by "their team".  Remember, contact sports: MMA, UFC, boxing, American handegg, hockey, these have all a massive violence component and the fans enjoy it.  Verifying method: ask ten fans of these sports if they'd go and watch if there was zero force involved or only force involved as an unfortunate coincidence.

RuddODragonFear:

dlouismartin:

Are people that enter a stadium (as sport participants)  who are intent on casuing violence to each other mutually waiving their contrary wishes to not be imposed upon? 

Most likely not inflict it directly but support it being done by "their team".  Remember, contact sports: MMA, UFC, boxing, American handegg, hockey, these have all a massive violence component and the fans enjoy it.  Verifying method: ask ten fans of these sports if they'd go and watch if there was zero force involved or only force involved as an unfortunate coincidence.

I am going to go on the assumption that "force" is synonymous with "violence".

I am onboard with what you are saying in that fans wouldn't watch it, but I think that we would have to agree that sports, especially some of the contact sports you mention, wouldn't be the sports that they are without the, in my opinion, consensual and mutual understanding that violence is possible, necessary (assuming victory is the goal), and encouraged. I would also argue that a lot of sports that aren't considered "violent" employ violence at times, violence in the traditional sense. That traditional sense being: "Using physical force to force someone into a state that is contrary to their wishes." 

In basketball, for example, if you are driving to the basket and someone steps in front of you to defend you, you- as the ball carrier- will continue to physically assert yourself by trying to go through the defender and to the basket.

Even in Football (not American) violence is inherent. A defender that slide-tackles a forward who is moving to the net, assuming the slide tackle is legal to the rule of the sport, is using violence to force a state contrary to the forward's wishes. This, of course, assumes the forward doesn't want to be slide-tackled.  

So my point here. Is it possible to be a supporter of freedom and non-aggression, and still be a sports fan? I am asking, because I am very interested in these philosophies and principles, but am also an avid sport's fan. Specifically, American Football, Football, Hockey, and Baseball. I also personally studied Brazilian Jiu-Jitusu for several years.

Dave Bockman:

It's my impression (having worked through a number of issues concerning violence done against me in childhood) that contact sports are a symptom of underlying unprocessed trauma. In other words, they are a symptom of an underlying problem, they are not the problem itself. 

I am interested in hearing more of what you think. I was also hoping you could clarify a few things. For example-- can you define "trauma" & "problem"?

Trauma would in a broad sense refer to any unmet emotional or physical need of the child, and move forward through that spectrum to the more commonly accepted forms of violence like physical, sexual, verbal, & psychological abuses.

By 'problem' I meant the unresolved trauma.

Dave Bockman:

It's my impression (having worked through a number of issues concerning violence done against me in childhood) that contact sports are a symptom of underlying unprocessed trauma. In other words, they are a symptom of an underlying problem, they are not the problem itself.

 

Again, pardon me being obtuse, but are you concluding that fans (or practitioners) of contact sports are working through unprocessed trauma?