Mon, 15 Aug 1994 11:09:05 -0700 for <socgrad@ucsd.edu>
From: estrayer@cats.ucsc.edu
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 1994 11:09:02 -0700
To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU
Subject: rply to michael on sports
>From mgibbons@cwis.unomaha.edu Mon Aug 15 08:00:30 1994
>Status: R
>
>the whole concept of professional sports is one that i have a little
>trouble fitting into the scheme of things.  the only way it makes sense
>for me is to view it in the same light as entertainment.  now, that still
>raises questions for me as to why we are willing as a populace to make
>both wade boggs and michael jackson outrageously wealthy. 

This MAY be because of our (capitalistic &/or highly materialistic
country) inclination to equate merit with money. Sounds simple, but
as a BASE, underlining most (if not all) of our goal incentives, this
would be at least one explanation. 

I suspect that sports, more than music & film, appeals to a 
visceral element of our psyche so that large matches are
appealing. (Teams could represent tribes or towns or what-have-you)
Of course, our need to WIN is kinf of a drag. (Do y'all recall
the Trobriand Islanders method of playing cricket? Great!
The home team ALWAYS wins. There are some injuries as it is 
a pretty rough sport, and VERY macho. Lots of magic too.)

>
>sports woujld be very much more stomachable for me were we to have
>something a little more low scale, such as eric suggested.  that way one
>would not have to bemajor league quality to play it, and neither would
>coke and nike be creating millions of dollars off of our relaxation budgets.

Yeah, the idea of scale is important. I fear that America (USA) is
so large that as long as attempts to appeal to the population as
a whole (or exploit it, sell to it, etc.) continue, participants
will be extremely exclusive and rewards will be high.
>
>the most important question this all raises is what, why, and where are
>americans willing to spend their dollars?  for instance, why do our public
>school teachers begin at 18000 and maybe if they are lucky break 40000? 
>why is it that private schools suffer a stigma because they have to be
>paid for?  it seems to me that neither are we willing to spend our money
>in taxes on our children, nor are we willing to spend it directly as
>income, but we are more than willing to spend 5 or 20 dollars on a
>baseball or football game.  it seems to me that thes are the same people
>copping attitudes about taxes or private schools that are making boggs
>rich; ie everybody.
>
>michael

School teachers are far to close in status to middle-class and
what was blue-collar workers insofar as they are in constant
contact with this class's children and (sometimes) their parents.
Higher in status parents often have children in private schools,
or, and in addition, tend to look at teachers as equals in education
and therefore the difference in status is one of money only.
	I realize the tatuological nature of this argument and
appologize for my hasty posting of impressions. But there may be
some truth to the fact that teachers get paid poorly because
they always have. And that the profession has remained (in
appearance only) static compared to the dynamics of business,
especially during the last forty years.

Also, we can see teachers for free, and have been forced to
for a good portion of our lives. A football game... well,
that's leisure: what one does to get away from obligations.
	Here is a good place to start talking about post-
modernist elements of leisure and the commodification of
free time by the same hegemonic elements that control our
work time.

But it's someone else's turn.

eric