Defining and Conceptualizing the Notion of Deviance in Combat Sports - Essay Example

Running Head: Deviance, Pain, and Injury Defining and Conceptualizing the Notion of Deviance in Combat Sports as it relates to Pain and Injury Abstract The notions of deviance, pain, and injury are often seen as foreign to sport. Athletes who continue to play despite injuries; competitors who tolerate and ignore pain; these are the ones who are seen in a problematic light. Is their behavior part of the sporting ethic? There are also athletes who intentionally inflict pain and injury to their opponents by violating the rules of the game, and such behavior are perhaps considered deviant. But the area becomes even more problematic when combat sports are examined. By nature, these activities demand the intentional infliction of pain and possible injury by a competitor on another. This implies certain transformations on the notions of pain and injury, and ultimately on the notion of deviance. This paper is an exploration on the said transformations as effected by factors such as the agonistic nature of society and the subjection of mixed martial arts to the disciplinary mechanisms of society. Pain, Injury, and Sport Pain and injury stemming from violent behavior in sport is often seen from a negative perspective, that is, physical violence and sport are often seen as exclusive from one another. Boxing is one such sport that has received criticisms for supposedly being unnecessarily violent (Poliakoff, 1987, pp 89-90). It might be argued of course that a degree of violence will always be present in sport because of its competitive nature. However, it can be argued still that the infliction of pain and injury to the opponent is behavior that borders on deviance, in the sense that society in general does not approve of harming one’s competitor, whether it be in business or other, just to promote oneself to a more advantageous position. An excessively violent or aggressive response to conflict is generally disapproved, and hence seen as somewhat deviant. More so in the sporting arena is aggression that inflicts physical and perhaps even mental pain or injury, perceived as disagreeable behavior. Sport, as conceived in relation to the concepts of play and games, is a social activity that presumably promotes certain ideals. When the Olympic Games were revived in 1896 by Baron Pierre de Coubertin, it was with the vision of instilling positive virtues in young men, such as camaraderie, sportsmanship, and excellence. To this day, the idea of Olympism, the view that sports is used to promote values that are held in high regard by society, appears to be dominant, albeit with evident difficulties itself. This is perhaps one of the reasons as well, why violent behavior in sport is often understood as somewhat deviant. What poses certain difficulties is the fact that deviance is defined and constituted by the norms and rules that govern a particular behavior. Pain and injury resulting from blatant violation of safety rules is certainly disagreeable. It then becomes an interesting problem when an activity, in particular a sporting activity, begins to operate with only minimal rules. The difficulties are highlighted further when the goal of winning is made visible only in the context of inflicting pain and possible injury to one’s competitor. Pain therefore, becomes a matter of serious consequence. This is made evident in the field of mixed martial arts competition, where competitors from various martial disciplines are pitted against one another. One such organized venue is the Ultimate Fighting Championship, a tournament that has gained worldwide popularity and has spawned similar contests in different countries in its twelve years of existence. This paper is an exploration into the transformations and reversals of the concept of deviance in sport, as it relates to pain and injury. This is within the context of combat sports, focusing on the Ultimate Fighting Championship or UFC as a model sport. The author aims to show that mixed martial arts competitions or MMA, while initially appearing to be deviant in nature, in fact becomes a kind of social critique on the notion of aggression as deviant behavior, as well as serving a “police” function in the Foucauldian sense. Positive Deviance, Lyotard, and Foucault Positive deviance is primarily characterized by overconformity, the unquestioning acquiescence of a specific ethos that results in possible excess or abuse. In the case of sport, positive deviance often comes in the form of athletes striving to outdo themselves in performing and competing because of the motivation to please, i.e. the coach, team, manager, or the spectators. This leads to possible problems in terms of behavior. The athlete in a sense tries to be an athlete, by having an overriding image of what it means to be one: being overly dedicated to the point of sacrificing the self for the sake of the sport, so to speak. This comes in the form of playing through injury, putting the interests of the team or the coach before the care of oneself, etc. There is a perceived pressure, whether real or imagined, to “give everything one has”, as spoken of in sport parlance. Athletes take risks. They also tend to feel a certain affinity towards other athletes sometimes leading them to distance themselves from non-athletes. They tend to ignore pain, and instead play through injury presumably because that is what it means to be an athlete. There are however, certain issues accompanying the concept of positive deviance vis-à-vis negative deviance. What exactly is positive deviance? In Synergies in Deviance: Revisiting the Positive Deviance Debate, Brad West shared David Dodge’s view of positive deviance in “equating it to where deviation from normality brings about positive sanctions” (2003). By this, West argued that Dodge in effect included saints, traditional heroes, and geniuses (West, 2003). Positive deviance then, is any act which leads to a constructive result as far as society is concerned. In contrast, “negative deviance consequentially can be defined as when different forms of behaviour are socially condemned. Positive and negative deviance then can be thought to exist on a continuum.” (West, 2003). However, the distinction between positive and negative deviance is not as clear as it initially appears. The relationship between the two concepts is problematic, to say the least, because of the ambiguity that exists in social relations and behavior. In fact, it is at the heart of the debate whether or not there is indeed a relationship between the two in the first place. Robert Merton’s (1968) observation, as quoted in West (2003), that “the criminal of one era is the hero of the next” (Merton in West, 2003), is illustrative of the problem that accompanies the seemingly twin concepts of positive and negative deviance. How can an individual determine one from the other? If, at its base, it is a question of the acceptability or unacceptability of social behavior in relation to societal norms, won’t it lead inevitably to the problem of relativism? Or should the concepts be understood as one leading to the other, that is, positive deviance possibly leading to negative deviance and vice versa? This view is somehow consistent with West’s ideas as stated above. But the question posed still remains: How can the two be distinguished clearly from each other? West (2003) mentioned in his article the views held by both Erich Goode and Edward Sagarin that the term “positive deviance” was an oxymoron. West wrote: Goode argues that the question of the worth of positive deviance depends on whether you consider it from a reactive or normative definition of deviance, the reactive rejecting the notion, the normative viewing it as theoretically viable. Goode (1991), however, concludes that positive deviance is not a viable concept for the discipline. This is partly due to the “loose and sloppy” way that the concept had been defined, though importantly, like Sagarin (1985), he argues that there is little if no connection between positive and negative forms of deviance (2003). For Goode, the supposed relation between positive and negative deviance “is a matter of historical, situational, and cultural relativity” (Goode in West, 2003). It is clear that while this last statement seemed to put a brief end to the debate between positive and negative deviance, the question of relativity as posed earlier still lingers. In The Postmodern Condition, Jean-Francois Lyotard (1984) focused on how knowledge is constituted and formed in industrialized countries. He emphasized the condition of postmodernity, that is, an attitude of incredulity towards grand metanarratives (Lyotard, 1984). Instead of looking for a universal logos to legitimize a particular body of knowledge, it would be much more productive, theoretically and practically, to look at a local principle of legitimacy. Taking Wittgenstein’s notion of the plurality and dynamic nature of language games, Lyotard (1984) stated that social relations should likewise be understood as having a pluralistic and dynamic nature. He asserted: What is needed, if we are to understand social relations in this manner, on whatever scale we choose, is not only a theory of communication but a theory of games that accepts agonistics as a founding principle. In this context, it is easy to see that the essential element of newness is not simply “innovation.” (Lyotard, 1984, p.11). In contrast to the idea of consensus of Jurgen Habermas, Lyotard (1984) insisted on dissensus, or paralogy. It is not in reaching consensus that society is moved forward in progress, but in an endless interweaving of discourse formed by players throwing moves and countermoves that displace one’s positions in the discourse, hence eliciting further moves. A consensus is simply a phase in the discourse, and not an end (Lyotard, 1984, p.30). It can be noticed here that the essence of conflict theory is in consonance with Lyotard’s views on social relations. He perceived society as essentially agonistic, engaged as it were, on a continuous interplay of interwoven relations that is competitive and warlike. While there are rules in the discourse, thus making the establishment of norms possible, such rules are not fixed. In fact, it is the rules themselves that are at stake in the game, as the limits are constantly being tested (Lyotard, 1984, p.13). Michel Foucault was concerned primarily with the problem of the subject, that is, the political constitution of the individual as both as object and subject at the same time. In examining how the individual is formed, it was inevitable to take into account the relations of power that influence the production of the subject. Problematizing the politics of the self meant precisely asking questions of governance: How is an individual governed? How does the individual like to be governed? How does an individual govern? More importantly, how does one govern oneself? All of these questions essentially operate on what Foucault termed the “gaze” (1973). In The Birth of the Clinic, he wrote, “This book is about space, about language, and about death; it is about the act of seeing, the gaze” (Foucault, 1973, p. ix). In this particular book, Foucault dealt with the formation of the Western notions of sickness and disease. He accounted for the formation of these notions by showing how a space for a discourse on disease was opened up towards the end of the eighteenth century. With the opening up of a space for such a discourse, it became possible to talk about sickness in a manner that linked empirical values with linguistic ones. He wrote: At the beginning of the nineteenth century, doctors described what for centuries had remained below the threshold of the visible and the expressible…; it meant that the relation between the visible and invisible – which is necessary to all concrete knowledge – changed its structure, revealing through gaze and language what had previously been below and beyond their domain. A new alliance was forged between words and things, enabling one to see and to say. (Foucault, 1973, p. xii). It is important to note that for Foucault (1973), sickness and disease came to be codified after being subjected to the “clinical gaze”, that is, after these conditions were made visible. There is an underlying premise in operation here, that whatever can be made visible can be understood or, in the case of pathology, can be cured. Herein lies the value of Foucault’s theories to the current problematization of pain, injury, and deviance in mixed martial arts. Sociology of Mixed Martial Arts Competition In a July 17, 2004 interview, UFC fighter Tito Ortiz disclosed upon being asked about the condition of his back: Of course my back’s a little sore. When you have one of your disks that are bulging out, that’s what I had is a bulging disk when I fought Couture. It’s not 100 percent, but it’s like 99 percent or 98 percent. It’s still sore when I wake up in the morning, I guess it’s just pretty much beating my body down. I’ve been fighting now for six years straight; people don’t understand how much pain I put on myself and how much wear and tear is on my body. I feel sore in my back, but it’s not bad, it doesn’t stop me from training at all, it’s just something that I’ve got to kind of suck up and push through. (Ortiz, 2004). What’s interesting about it is that Ortiz didn’t get injured during the fight. It was during training that he hurt himself, as he disclosed in the following interview: I injured my back training in Big Bear for three months. I herniated a disk. I pushed myself too hard doing six to seven hour days every day. My doctor said its pretty common to get such an injury the way I was pushing myself. The disk slipped and a month before the fight, I couldnt walk. I couldnt do leg workouts or work on my takedowns for two and a half weeks. I just pushed too hard. (Ortiz, 2003). What pushed Ortiz to fight with an injury? Obviously, a lot of things could be said about it: 1) if he lost in the match, which incidentally did happen, the loss could always be attributed to his injured condition; 2) it was a championship match, and hence an important one, one that he could not afford to miss for whatever reason; 3) playing through the pain is what champions are made of; 4) fighting injured gave an inspiration to others; 5) it is expected of a Tito Ortiz to be a tough guy, given is nickname, “Huntington Beach Bad Boy”. Notice how each of the items point to a common concept: masculinity. The items above can be understood in the following manner: 1) If a fighter loses, it is not because he is a lesser man, but it is simply because he had a disadvantage by being injured in the first place. 2) If the fight is important, the manly thing to do is to just “suck up and push through”, showing that courage and the determination to succeed despite the odds are admirable qualities. 3) Getting hurt and playing through it are all part of the game, and to be a champion is to make certain sacrifices, in order to succeed over trials and hardships. 4) Because of this image of a champion or real athlete being an overcomer, high level competitors feel a responsibility to be a model to others, to both fellow competitors and spectators alike. 5) Finally, there is an expectation on the fighter to be always in fighting condition and readiness, an expectation that is imposed in a sense by the spectators, especially if the image is to be perpetuated. In a recent journal article entitled, Masculinity on Display in the Squared Circle: Constructing Masculinity in Professional Wrestling, Danielle Soulliere (2005) noted how masculinity is defined for society and for men by the World Wrestling Entertainment or WWE. The latter showcases in almost all its shows a type of masculinity that is characterized by anger, aggression, conflict resolution through violent recourse, and other similar behavior traditionally attributed and connected to the concept of manhood. It is interesting to note that the wrestlers are not the only ones responsible for defining this type of masculinity; the commentators and the spectators all contribute in large part to this conceptualization by way of descriptions by the announcers, and crowd approval or disapproval by the spectators (Soulliere, 2005). All these factors send clear messages to everyone who, either directly or indirectly, participate in these shows. Masculinity is also defined in these shows by contrasting the masculine image with the feminine. This is done by portraying the women in highly defined roles: they “wrestle” only to seemingly showcase their bodies, as in the Bikini Match and the Lingerie Match. In short, a specific type of femininity is constructed that serves to highlight the masculine (Soulliere, 2005). Such a construction of masculinity defines in an oblique way the concept of deviance. It is acceptable in such an arena to be excessively violent and aggressive. If the effects on society are as claimed by Soulliere, then society’s views on aggressive behavior as being deviant is normalized. However, a construction of masculinity in MMA competition is different from that of WWE. For one thing, the former is a legitimate contest, while the latter is pure show. MMA tournaments, interestingly enough, while obviously much more real and hence, highly open to real injury, are much more “feminine” in the traditional sense because of the possibility of “tapping out” or signaling by tapping that one submits thus ending the contest. Respect and sportsmanlike character are emphasized in the rules themselves. It is also noteworthy that there are no MMA competitions for women. Perhaps this is a matter of historical ties with the origins of MMA. A look at the combat sports of ancient Greco-Roman society reveals an interesting ethos. The ancient Greek combat sports that were included in the ancient Olympics were wrestling, boxing, and pankration. Modern wrestling is similar to ancient wrestling, but ancient boxing more closely resembled modern kickboxing, wherein the fighters used kicks alongside punches. Pankration, which means “complete strength” or “complete victory” in Greek, is the forerunner of modern MMA (Poliakoff, 1987, p. 54). In this ancient sport, all holds are allowed: punches, kicks, strangleholds, chokes, and throws. Everything is allowed with the exception of only two tactics: biting and gouging. This is the root of modern MMA. While this set of rules seems too violent, it is noteworthy that ancient fighters considered boxing to be much more brutal and devastating. In fact, fighters who will compete in both events are said to request that the pankration event be held first so that they will not be hurt too much by the time they compete in the boxing event (Poliakoff, 1987, p. 63). The inception of the UFC saw a return to this ancient set of rules. UFC 1 – 5 are especially striking examples. In UFC 4 held in December 16, 1994, the match between Keith Hackney and Joe Son saw Hackney delivering multiple groin shots to Son while both were grappling on the ground. Such a tactic was described by one commentator as unpopular, though perfectly legal in the UFC. This unpopularity was definitely due to society’s view that a groin shot is essentially a “cheap” shot. But in the culture of martial arts, there are no such notions of fairness, as compared with notions of respect. This return to the ancient rules of pankration was said to be meant to provide a venue for fighters of all styles to participate unhindered, using their skills to the utmost, and not to promote violence and injury (Montgomery, 2005). This is once again indicative of the competitive attitude that marks the real athlete, one who pushes himself or herself to the limits. The tournament proceeded with eight competitors fighting in elimination bouts until only one is left as the “Ultimate Fighter”. There were no weight classes and no time limits then, but pay-per-view factors as well as political pressure soon forced UFC management to reformat (Montgomery, 2005). Two aspects of MMA are made evident at this point. First, as with the ancient Greco-Roman games, MMA seems to serve a certain social function. The ancient Roman games served as a spectacle for the people, solidifying the Roman ruler’s power over his subjects in the sense that he was able to provide for a luxury that most did not have the means to acquire by themselves (Auguet, 1994, p. 184), and the Greek games served to address the need for an agonistic society to manifest itself (Poliakoff, 1987, pp. 104-107). In modern times, MMA competitions such as the UFC serve as social critiques on the notion of acceptable behavior. There is ambiguity in its nature, considering that it showcases an arena where the infliction of pain and injury to one’s opponent is the goal, yet at the same time it manifests a certain level of civility, if the latter is placed in contrast to violence. Undeniably, the two concepts are often placed in opposition to one another, that a civilized society has no place for an expressly violent activity. Hence, the latter is labeled as deviance. But if Lyotard’s perspective on society (1984) is once again considered, then there must be an agonistic aspect to society after all that finds expression in organized competition, a space that is filled by MMA tournaments. The second aspect of MMA that is made manifest in this discussion is the manner with which the transformations of the notions of deviance, as it pertains to pain and injury, are brought about by the subjection of MMA to the regulating mechanisms of society. In the history of the UFC, the desire to be recognized as a legitimate sporting event demanded radical changes in its rules. It had to compromise certain subcultural norms, yet at the same time it retained a high degree of intensity by virtue of being codified and legitimized. Additional restrictions, weight classes, and time limits were introduced. As such, society is then able to define violence, and consequently deviant behavior in sport, by bringing MMA out in the open, subjected to the disciplinary gaze. The initially seeming deviant behavior in the MMA subculture - the infliction and acceptance of pain and injury on purpose - is, as it were, normalized. As Foucault (1973) noted, what is made visible can be mastered. In the case of deviance, once it was subjected to the gaze of mainstream disciplinary society, it was in effect, “cured” by being normalized. Conclusion The basic notion of deviance, understood as behavior that is against societal norms, is revealed to be of an ambiguous and dynamic nature in the specific context of mixed martial arts. Notions of positive and negative deviance find manifestations in the sport, as do transformations in the concepts of pain and injury. As regards the question of the definition and conceptualization of deviance in this particular sport, it appears that as with society in general, the rules and limits that govern this activity make possible the definition of deviant behavior. However, in the interesting case of MMA, pain and injury become staple elements because of its combative nature. As such, the infliction of pain and possible injury become normalized, as are the tolerance and acceptance of the latter concepts. This is not to deny the fact though, that because of the ethos of the martial arts themselves – characterized by respect, protection, and high self-esteem – MMA competitions are highly organized and relatively safe by societal standards. There is nothing unmanly in tapping out, or submitting to one’s opponent. The observance of fighter safety in fact led to instances of premature stoppages (Kazushi Sakuraba vs. Marcus Silveira 1, December 21, 1997 UFC Japan). The subjection of MMA tournaments to the regulating gaze of society contributed significantly to the codification, and consequent normalization, of the views on deviance and the part played by pain and injury. As such, what is made evident at this point is the possibility of combat sport, as a social activity, to continually have its notions and concepts changed and transformed under the disciplinary gaze. References Auguet, R. (1994). Cruelty and Civilization: The Roman Games. London and New York: Routledge. Foucault, M. (1973). The Birth of the Clinic (A. Sheridan, Trans.). New York: Vintage Books. (Original work published 1963). Hazard Forum Kasynowe. (2005). Tito Ortiz interview. Interview posted to http://www.kasyno.org.uk/vbforum/showthread.php?t=986 Iranian Ultimate Fighting Championship. (2001). History of the UFC. Retrieved December 30, 2005, from http://ufciran.20m.com/whats_new.html Messner, M. (1997). Politics of Masculinities. USA: Sage Publications. Montgomery, C. (2005). The History of the UFC. Extreme Pro Sports. Retrieved December 30, 2005, from http://www.extremeprosports.com/full_contact_fighting/history_of_ufc.html Ortiz, T. (2004). Interview with Tito Ortiz. Interview posted to http://www.titoortiz.com Poliakoff, M. (1987). Combat Sports in the Ancient World. New Haven and London: Yale University Press. Retzinger, S. & Scheff, T. (200 October). Shame as the Master Emotion of Everyday Life. Journal of Mundane Behavior, 1-3. Retrieved December 29, 2005, from http://mundanebehavior.org/issues/v1n3/scheff-retzinger.htm Sapp, S. (2005). The Sociological Perspective. Retrieved December 29, 2005, from Iowa State University, Dept. of Sociology, web site: http://www.soc.iastate.edu/sapp/SocPhilo130.html Scheff, T. (2001, October). Male Emotions and Violence. Journal of Mundane Behavior, 2-3. Retrieved December 29, 2005, from http://mundanebehavior.org/issues/v2n3/scheff.htm Soulliere, D. (2005). Masculinity on Display in the Squared Circle: Constructing Masculinity in Professional Wrestling. Electronic Journal of Sociology. Retrieved December 29, 2005, from web site: http://www.sociology.org/content/2005/tier1/soulliere.html Ultimate Fighting Championship. (2005). UFC Rules. Retrieved December 30, 2005, from http://www.ufc.tv/index.cfm?fa=LearnUFC.Rules Weiss, P. (1969). Sport: A Philosophic Inquiry. USA: Southern Illinois University Press. West, B. (2003). Synergies in Deviance: Revisiting the Positive Deviance Debate. Electronic Journal of Sociology, vol. 7-4. Retrieved December 29, 2005, from http://www.sociology.org/content/vol7.4/west.html Read More