ARTICLES

Sociology of Sport Journal, 2007, 24, 20-36

2007 Human Kinetics, Inc.

Back to Basics:
Class, Social Theory, and Sport
Alan Bairner
Loughborough University
It is relatively easy to understand why Marxism has been increasingly discredited in
recent years both in the sociology of sport and in the social sciences more generally.
Guilty by association with the failed attempts to construct communist societies, it
has also come under attack from a variety of sources for its economic reductionism and its perceived inability to think beyond class. Even those Marxists such as
Gramsci, who are invoked within the sociology of sport by exponents of cultural
studies, are lauded not for their Marxism per se but rather for their (mistakenly
inferred) willingness to play down the significance of political economy. This essay
argues, however, that much has been lost as a result of the retreat from Marxism,
and specifically, the abandonment of the belief in the ultimate determinacy of the
economic realm and the importance of social class. This is not meant to imply
that other sources of identity, together with the various forms of discrimination
suffered by a host of different social groups, do not matter or that their materiality
cannot be linked effectively to class-based analysis. One might argue, however, that
the interests of those groups have been better served in recent years by academic
sociologists than have the interests of the poor. With that in mind, the time has
come, perhaps, for Marxist sociologists of sport to offer fewer apologies and to
replace these with a more robust defense of the subtleties of historical materialism
as properly understood. At the very least this means reviving the argument that
our identities can best be understood in terms of economics.
Il est relativement facile de comprendre pourquoi le marxisme a t rcemment
discrdit en sociologie du sport et dans les sciences sociales en gnral. Coupable
par association des tentatives manques de construction des socits communistes,
il a aussi t attaqu pour son rductionnisme conomique et son incapacit perue
de penser au-del des classes sociales. Mme les marxistes, tels Gramsci, qui sont
invoqus en sociologie du sport par les tenants des tudes culturelles ne sont pas
louangs cause de leur marxisme mais bien cause de leur volont (infre par
erreur) de minimiser limportance de lconomie politique. Dans cet essai, il est
propos que beaucoup a t perdu suite au recul devant le marxisme et labandon
dune croyance en la dtermination conomique et limportance de la classe
sociale. Cela ne signifie pas que dautres sources didentit et dautres formes de
Bairner is with Loughborough University, School of Sport and Exercise Sciences, Loughborough,
UK.
20

Class, Social Theory, and Sport

21

discrimination dont souffrent une varit de groupes sociaux ne comptent pas ou

ne peuvent pas tre lies une analyse fonde sur la classe. On pourrait suggrer,
cependant, que les intrts de ces groupes ont t mieux servis par les sociologues
que les intrts des pauvres. Il est peut-tre temps, donc, pour les sociologues
marxistes du sport doffrir moins dexcuses et de les remplacer par une dfense
robuste des subtilits du matrialisme historique. tout le moins, cela quivaut
faire revivre largument selon lequel nos identits peuvent tre le plus adquatement comprises en termes dconomie.

Introduction
Were it not for the influence of Pierre Bourdieu (and, to a lesser extent, Michel
Foucault), the concept of class would receive remarkably little individual attention
in the sociology of sport. I use the word remarkably having grown up in Britain at
a time when class was an ever-present reference point and having studied social
science as an undergraduate when the intellectual climate was still dominated by
Marxist ideas. As I hope to demonstrate in this article, I understand fully the reasons why Marxism in general has been increasingly discredited in the intervening
years. I intend to suggest, however, that much has been lost as a result, and that
the concept of social class in and of itself, as opposed to its use in association with
other signifiers of exploitation and oppression, is as useful today as it was in the
1950s through to the 1970s. For some this will appear to be a case of revisiting
old-fashioned and outdated debates, and perhaps it is. I would argue, however,
that it is no more dangerous to rehearse old arguments than it is to assume that the
latest idea is inevitably superior to what went before simply because it is of more
recent origin.
I wish to argue that many Marxist thinkers have undeservedly become casualties of the general assault on Marxism by having their ideas severely doctored
or simply ignored. Most notable in the former category is Antonio Gramsci, and
in the latter are Karl Korsch, Walter Benjamin, and many others. What concerns
me above all in this essay is that it would appear that all Marxists are expected
to be apologetic not only for their overall world view and for the failings of state
socialism but specifically for any insight that hints of economic determinism or of
a more generally materialist position that retains a central role for economics. What
also concerns me is that Marx himself is less likely to be mentioned in sociological
writings about sport and society than any number of considerably less innovative
and influential thinkers. Meanwhile the drive has been toward analyses that are
themselves often deterministic in tone and that attribute primary importance to a
variety of sources of personal identity other than that of class.

The Retreat From Marxism

(and Social Class)
It is probably safe to say that the intellectual communitys retreat from Marxism
owes much to politics, as well as to philosophical concerns. As Frederic Jameson
(1996) commented in 1996,

22

Bairner

the end of the Soviet state has been the occasion for celebrations of the death of
Marxism in quarters not particularly scrupulous about distinguishing Marxism
itself as a mode of thought and analysis, socialism as a political and societal
aim and vision, and Communism as a historical movement. (p. 14)
It should be added, however, that this is also true of many who might have been
expected to be more scrupulous in such matters. Thus, the failings of Soviet-style
communism led many on the political left to reassess their faith in Marxist ideas
in their entirety and to search for alternative forms of radical struggle. As a consequence, they were increasingly attracted to the politics of identity and, in an
attempt to offer theoretical justification for this in the face of criticism from what
remained of the Marxist tradition, they invoked the claim that Marxism is based on
a reductionist, specifically an economic determinist, view of social development.
The end result was the phenomenon described by some as post-Marxism:
a series of hostile and/or revisionary responses to classical Marxism from the
poststructuralist/postmodernist/feminist direction, by figures who at one time
in their lives would have considered themselves as Marxists, or whose thought
processes had been significantly shaped by the classical Marxist tradition.
(Sim, 1998, p. 2)
These figures include, without reservation, Jean Baudrillard and JeanFranois Lyotard, but the description might also apply to Ernesto Laclau and
Chantal Mouffe, who have sought to graft more recent theoretical innovations on
to Marxism.1 The irony of this is that as a challenge to reductionism this enterprise
has been largely unsuccessful, with most proponents of identitarian analyses and
of new social movements being just as likely as any Marxist to adopt reductionist
and essentialist positions in relation to identifying the location of oppression and
promoting social change. Where they have differed from Marxists is with regard
to what they have taken to be the key determinants in this process. What they were
really reacting against, therefore, was not determinism per se but Marxisms claim
that in the final analysis, as we seek to understand society, the material base is the
fundamental determining factor.
The end result has been that Marxists have spent many years apologizing for
or seeking to qualify what were once their core beliefs. I believe that the time for
such apologies is over. To those critics who view Marxism as nothing more than
a crude form of economic reductionism, one is tempted to respond in either of
two potentially contradictory ways. First, one can adopt the approach taken by
exponents of other sociological perspectives in the face of criticism and contend
that the critics have simply failed to understand.2 This means arguing that, far from
being an expression of economic determinism, Marxism actually possesses a much
broader conceptualization of the material and/or that it fully appreciates the wide
range of alternative determinants that affect the human condition. Second, one can
simply go on the attack, accept that Marxism does reduce everything to economics, and argue that there is nothing at all wrong with such an approach. My own
inclination is to take something from each response so long as it is made absolutely
clear that the latter should not ignore the importance of factors other than those
that are purely economic but, nevertheless, insist that the economic realm remains
of primary importance.

Class, Social Theory, and Sport

23

Some Marxist ideas, most notably those of Antonio Gramsci, have been salvaged by those who have condemned classical Marxism. Indeed, one can argue
that Gramsci became the favorite author of social scientists who had lost faith
in orthodox Marxism and were looking for theoretical insights that would allow
them to retain a radical impulse while simultaneously rejecting both (economic)
deterministic analysis, which they believed to be intrinsic to orthodox Marxism,
and Stalinist politics, which they appeared to regard as the inevitable consequence
of orthodox Marxism. Gramsci was particularly useful in the latter respect for the
simple reason that, having died in 1937, he had not been forced to address the failings of Soviet style communism, a recognition of which was largely responsible for
a widespread rejection by others of Marxist ideas in general. Inspired by a perceived
need to replace official MarxismLeninism, many on the political left sought out
versions of Marxism that, on the one hand, embraced the concept of democracy as
understood in liberal political debate and that, on the other hand, did not espouse
dogmatic economic determinism. For this reason, social scietists seized upon the
work of Gramsci and other supposedly unorthodox western Marxists (Anderson,
1976a; McInnes, 1972). Increasingly, however, what is Marxist in the writings of
such thinkers has been pushed to one side or else, if this could not be successfully
achieved, as in the case of Karl Korsch of whom we will hear more later, their
work has been ignored almost completely.
In the case of Gramsci, it was on the basis of perceptions of his understanding
of the relationship between base and superstructure that his contribution was so
enthusiastically seized upon by the less economistic of the neo-Marxist sociologists
and cultural studies theorists.3 It became widely believed that Gramsci saw more
scope for human agency than had been permitted by orthodox Marxist theory and
that, as the theoretician of the superstructures (Texier, 1979), he may have recognized that factors other than those rooted in the economic base of society have
at least equal social significance. In addition, it was argued that Gramscis concept
of hegemony, although proposed originally to explain how ruling elites govern in
western societies, points to the very real possibility of resistance not only in relation
to the politics of class but also within the context of race, gender, nationalism, and
so on (Mouffe, 1979). Furthermore, Gramscis ideas made it possible for Marxist
and socialist intellectuals to begin to take seriously all forms of popular culture,
sport included (Williams, 1977).
Some sociologists and historians, including ones who were writing about
sport, retained Gramscis own interest in class politics. For example, the work of
John Hargreaves (1986) and of Stephen G. Jones (1986, 1988) on the development
of sport in Britain clearly recognizes the central importance of class in terms of
the exercise of hegemonic power and the concomitant construction of counterhegemonic strategies. Although Hargreaves, together with Richard Gruneau (1983),
are frequently cited as having introduced Gramsci and, in particular, the concept of
hegemony to the sociology of sport, in fact neither scholar, as we shall see, makes
much direct reference to Gramsci, and both, in their different ways, appear eager to
distance themselves from Marxism as it had been commonly understood. This might
help to explain why, in most textbooks that deal with the social sciences of sport,
sections on Marxism are dominated by references to crude determinism, to sport
as a superstructural epiphenomenon, and so on, whereas a separate section, more
often than not an entire chapter, is devoted to Gramsci, who can then be presented

24

Bairner

as offering a way of seeing the world that differs from orthodox Marxism and that
challenges the belief in the primacy of economics and social class.
In countless books on the sociology of sport, Gramsci has simply been detached
from Marxism. For example, in Jay Coakley and Eric Dunnings Handbook of
Sports Studies (2000), Gramsci warrants only a brief mention in Bero Rigauers
chapter on Marxist theories (Rigauer, 2000) but figures prominently in the chapter
that follows, written by Jennifer Hargreaves and Ian McDonald and concerned
with cultural studies and the sociology of sport (Hargreaves and McDonald, 2000).
Jarvie and Maguire (1994) devote an entire chapter to Gramsci in addition to one
titled Classical Marxism, Political Economy and Beyond. Similarly, in his Sport
and Modern Social Theorists, Giulianotti (2004a) includes separate chapters on
Gramsci (as well as Adorno and C. L. R. James) in addition to one that discusses
Marx together with Weber, Durkheim, and Freud. More recently still, in his Sport.
A Critical Sociology, Giulianotti (2005) devotes a chapter to Marx and the neoMarxists and one to cultural studies during the discussion of which Gramsci is
bracketed alongside Louis Althusser and the words Marx and Marxism do not
merit a mention. At one level this reflects the disproportionately large influence
that Gramsci has had on the study of sport and leisure when compared with most
other Marxists. Nevertheless, it also opens up the distinct possibility that students
will form the impression that Gramsci does not fit into the categories of classical
Marxism or even beyond classical Marxism, and that his work can, and perhaps
should, be detached from its Marxists roots.
As regards the commentaries that are devoted solely to Marxist theories of
sport, there is little but confirmation of the so-called factsthat all Marxist analysis,
such as that of Hoch (1972) and Brohm (1978), is crudely deterministic and that
sport is regarded by all real Marxists (as opposed to those such as Gramsci who,
by implication, had strayed from the orthodoxy) as either a mere reflection of the
economic base of society or an agency of social control or, more commonly, both
of these things. That these Marxists also talked in terms of social class is taken as
further evidence of their irrelevance in relation to highly developed societies at the
start of the 21st century. Indeed, this might explain why their work is almost totally
ignored even in a recent work directly concerned with the relationship between
sport and social theory (Giulianotti, 2004a).
According to Boyne (2002),
Class appears to be less unrecognizably determinant of social action now than
was the case just a quarter of a century ago. It has even been overtaken in the
ranks of social-structural influences by ethnicity, economic geography, gender
andquite possiblygenetic inheritance. (p. 121)
Students constantly tell me that class is not a factor in their lives and then
proceed to describe material conditions to which they have been accustomed and
which are at such variance with the experiences of the majority of their contemporaries in the UK today. In one sense, however, they have a point. The industrial
proletariat described by Marx is undeniably a threatened species, particularly in
western societies, in which heavy manual labor is increasingly a thing of the past.
To the extent that most adults can be described as workers in terms of their relationship to the means of production, Marxs original understanding of the idea of a
working class becomes less tenable. Students relate how their parents have worked

Class, Social Theory, and Sport

25

all their lives. That they also earn large amounts of money and acquire considerable
social status from their occupations does not necessarily invalidate the claim that
they are, therefore, workers.
Much of this might appear to undermine claims that Marxist analysis remains
relevant. Indeed, it is telling that both Gramsci (1971) and Korsch (1923/1970)
make a strong case from applying a materialist perspective, associating ideas
inextricably with the material conditions out of which and in response to which
they first emerged, to Marxism itself and, thereby, argue the case for the historical specificity of certain theories (Morera, 1990). It could be proposed, therefore,
that as the nature of capitalism has changed, Marxisms analytical relevance, so
apparent in the context of 19th century industrial capitalism, has been greatly
diminished. That said, it is equally apparent that there exist massive differences in
terms of material resources in virtually all western societies and indeed, that these
differentials have actually grown in some countries in recent times. Furthermore,
when one takes into account the gap between rich countries and poor countries, the
extent of economic difference becomes even more apparent. That exploitation and
alienation continue to be prominent features of social life, and specifically of the
sporting life, is unquestionable. To that extent, indeed, the so-called neo-Marxists
were strikingly prophetic.
Despite this, however, the retreat from class as a viable explanatory concept
has continued unabated. The debate about the Foucauldian turn is instructive in this
respect (Gruneau, 1993; Cole, Giardina, & Andrews, 2004). Is Foucaults popularity among sociologists of sport the consequence of the growth of opposition to
Marxism? Or does his significance lie in the fact that his conception of power has
allowed more scope to discuss a range of issues, many of which have been and
remain central concerns for Marxists? Similar issues arise with regard to the later
work of Jean Baudrillard (Giulianotti, 2004b). Does he reject Marxism or simply
address aspects of its perceived inability to make sense of a rapidly changing social
universe? What troubles me about all of these debates is that the more we engage
with those other thinkers, the less likely it is that we and our students will take the
time to consider Marx and the self-proclaimed Marxists. As a result, we are increasingly unlikely to understand fully the implications of a historical materialism in
general and the central importance of political economy in particular.
At present what were once regarded as Marxist concepts are nowadays more
likely to be mentioned in relation to specific identity groups rather than social
classes. A good example of this is the way in which Gramscis concept of hegemony
is widely used in relation to masculinity with little or no appreciation of the terms
Marxist origins (McKay, Messner, & Sabo, 2000). From time to time, however,
scholars have made interesting attempts to bring together the politics of class and
other forms of identity politics (Gibson-Graham, Resnick, & Wolff, 2000). Within
the sociology of sport, this has been most apparent in work influenced by Pierre
Bourdieu.

Bourdieu and Class

As with Foucault and Baudrillard, it is a moot, albeit much debated, point as
to whether Pierre Bourdieus understanding of class is the result of the influence
of Marxism or a rejection of Marxism (Potter, 2000). This discussion has become

26

Bairner

entangled with another conflict of opinions concerned with the extent to which
Bourdieu was or was not a genuine voice of resistance. According to Ohl (2000),
although he was inspired by both Weber and Marx in his conceptualization of social
classes, Bourdieus construction of social space constitutes a break with Marxist
theory (p. 147). For Wolfreys (2002), who suggests that
the death of Pierre Bourdieu . . . is a setback for the left both in France and
internationally. . . . Bourdieu dismissed Marxs emphasis on workers ability to consciously take control of their lives through the lived experience of
class conflict as both voluntaristic, placing too much reliance on subjective
consciousness, and deterministic, anticipating the maturing of objective
conditions. (pp. 12)
This perspective is in line with a variety of critiques, or perhaps one should call
them reworkings, of Marxs ideas that emphasized the need to escape from false
dichotomies including not only voluntarism and determinism but also structure
and agency more generally.
What is conveniently forgotten in all of this is that, far from being a slave to
unsophisticated dualities, Marx (1852/1972, p. 10) himself wrote that Men make
their own history, although he added, in words that are not inconsistent with anything that Gramsci, for example, appears to have believed, that they do not make it
just as they please; they do not make it under circumstances chosen by themselves,
but under circumstances directly encountered, given and transmitted from the
past. The problem for Marxs Second International followers was that, although
this understanding of how history is made is theoretically sound, greater simplicity
was needed if Marxs ideas were to be transformed into a plan for action.4 This
led most communists at the time to adopt a determinist perspective and to assume
that the collapse of capitalism and the advent of communism were both historical inevitabilities. Some Marxists (and we might include Lenin in this category)
argued the case for voluntaristic intervention regardless of the circumstances in
which they found themselves. Only a handful (and one thinks in particular of Rosa
Luxemburg), however, maintained Marxs own nuanced approach by suggesting
that when material conditions have evolved in certain ways, for example such that
capitalism has reached its most mature stage, only specific outcomes, including a
classless and stateless society, become possible; but which of these is actually given
concrete expression will depend on the necessarily restricted expression of human
agency. As Luxemburg (1916/1971) expressed it, Man does not make history of
his own volition. But he makes it nonetheless (p. 333). In Luxemburgs own historical epoch, the choice, she believed, was between socialism and barbarism with
Nazisms rise to power shortly after her murder providing ample evidence of what
choice had been made at least in the country where she had made her home.
According to Rahkonen (1999), although Bourdieu discusses classes in many
of his studies, he is more interested in elaborating relationships of domination or
power than developing any class theory proper (p. 16). Nevertheless, it is undeniable that Bourdieu placed considerable emphasis on class or, more specifically,
on what he described as class habitus. What is also readily apparent is that he saw
his understanding of class as superseding that of Marx and the orthodox Marxist
tradition. Thus, he suggested that

Class, Social Theory, and Sport

27

the individuals grouped in a class that is constructed in a particular respect (that

is, in a particularly determinant respect) always bring with them, in addition to
the pertinent properties by which they are classified, secondary properties which
are thus smuggled into the explanatory model. (Bourdieu, 1984, p. 102)
According to Bourdieu (1984)
this means that a class or class fraction is defined not only by its position in
the relations of production, as identified through indices such as occupation,
income or even educational level, but also by a certain sex-ratio, a certain
distribution in geographical space (which is never socially neutral) and by a
whole set of subsidiary characteristics which may function, in the form of tacit
requirements, as real principles of selection or exclusion without ever being
formally stated (this is the case with ethnic origin and sex). (p.102)
It is this more sophisticated approach to class than that provided by Marx and
the Marxists that might explain Bourdieus appeal for researchers looking at the
relationship between sport and class. Whether or not Bourdieu does in fact take us
beyond Marxisms understanding of class is best discussed by reference to studies
that have sought to employ Bourdieus approach.

Bourdieu, Class, and the Sociology of Sport

and Physical Education
An interesting example of the ways in which Bourdieus work has been used
is provided by Stephanie Foote (2003) in her study of the manner in which Tonya
Harding has been mediated in relation to identity and class. Foote demonstrates
effectively how Tonyas perceived loyalties and disloyalties to specific class
styles and scripts became identified as a specific kind of improperand therefore
irreduciblyworking-class identity (p. 5). In so doing, however, building upon
Bourdieu, Foote seeks to replace class as a matter of economics with class as lifestyle. Thus, she concludes that class is a disposition that references a complex
relationship to the world, a relationship that assigns cultural and personal values as
it assigns economic values (p. 15). It is for this reason, she suggests, that Tonya
Harding teaches us that when we talk about someone elses class, we are invoking our own ambitions and desires, revealing our own dispositions and evaluatory
mechanisms, our own anxieties about value, choice, agency, and personhood (pp.
1516). When I talk about class, however, I am referring to a persons fundamental
material position, understood ultimately in economic terms, either at present or in
the past, and the way in which economic status has affected that individuals consciousness and life opportunities. Given her background, Harding was an exception.
Having achieved success in her chosen sport, how she behaved is certainly a matter
of interest. More arresting, however, is the fact that so few Tonya Hardings ever
grace the ice rinks, the equestrian arenas, or ballet schools of the world.
Phil White and Brian Wilson (1999) employ Bourdieus concept of habitus in
their study of the relationship between socioeconomic status and sport spectatorship in Canada. They note that the sociology of sport literature has consistently
shown that social status is a positive predictor of sport involvement (p. 246),

28

Bairner

and that, with regard to sports spectatorship, existing research points to marked
inequalities in attendance by income (p. 249). With reference to Bourdieu, White
and Wilson comment that although their article
emphasizes the ways that structural circumstances are related to leisure consumption patterns, we also suggest that these findings must be considered
along with (and as context for) culturalist positions that focus on the meanings
that cultural groups give to their activities, and the resistive potential (albeit
symbolic and often subtle) of these groups. (p. 250)
My concern here is with the words along with. Of course socioeconomic conditions and culturalist positions are linked, but there is no reason to suppose (nor
does the article demonstrate otherwise) that these operate side by side and with
equal weight. In fact, White and Wilsons findings do much to endorse the economistic view that socioeconomic position is the key determinant in terms of sport
spectatorship with cultural factors coming into play only at a later and secondary
stage. For example, they note that with regard to professional sport spectatorship,
for both sexes, income was a stronger predictor than education, region, age, and
language, suggesting that financial status is a powerful determinant of the ability
to attend professional sport events in Canada (p. 260).
Collins and Buller (2003) similarly invoke the name of Bourdieu to counter
arguments that social class has lost its saliency in the postmodern world. Their
analysis of social exclusion from high performance sport, however, leads them
to conclude that young people brought up in areas of social need are not being
provided with sufficient support to enable them equal opportunities to perform at
the highest level; they are not developing sufficient of Bourdieus personal social
capital (p. 438). Yet again it would appear that the other forms of capital that
Bourdieu highlighted are in fact secondary to and determined in the final analysis
by economic capital.
It occurs to me that rather more has been and is still being made of class, as more
traditionally understood, in other areas of sociological inquiry. One example of this
is the sociology of education and, of specific relevance to this essay, the sociology
of physical education. As John Fitz, Brian Davies, and John Evans (2006), remind
us, class conditions, demands and interests lie at the centre of educational policy
(p. 10). This is not to deny the importance of other categories of social exclusion.
Indeed, as Evans (2004) points out, class-based inequalities are compounded by
other social characteristics, such as race, ethnicity, dis/ability, geography and sexuality that define peoples lives (p. 102). Evanss point, however, is that class does
not just determine choice and preference in relation to sport, it also determines a
persons physical capacity, their ability to realize those choices and preferences,
let alone extend them (p 102). That is the kind of statement that is increasingly
rare in the sociology of sport.5

The Return of Marxism?

The fact is that despite various claims that the application of Bourdieus theories
permits more subtle explanations of the interaction between class, sporting preference, and access, authors who adopt this position, such as those discussed previously,
actually offer implicit recognition that in the final analysis it is precisely ones

Class, Social Theory, and Sport

29

position in the relations of production that is the key determinant. Furthermore,

claims that analyses inspired by Bourdieu challenge Marxisms crude economic
determinism highlight a widespread failure in the sociology of sport and elsewhere
to fully appreciate what Marx and many of his followers actually understood by the
term historical materialism. Indeed, even when sociologists of sport have turned to
Marxists for help, many have tended in so doing to replicate this failure.
As mentioned earlier, it is through the use of the ideas of a self-confessed
Marxist, Antonio Gramsci, that some sociologists of sport have sought to extricate themselves from economic determinism. Two works in particular are widely
believed to have pioneered the use of Gramscis ideas in the sociology of sport.
As Rowe (2004) reminds us,
one influential early study is Richard Gruneaus (1983) Class, Sports and Social
Development, which addresses sport at the abstract level and in the specific
Canadian context in a manner heavily influenced by the Gramscian perspective as interpreted by Raymond Williams (1977), supplemented by Williamss
model of co-existent cultural forms that are (currently) dominant, residual
(formerly dominant) and emergent (potentially dominant). (p. 105)
This is a fair overview not least because it indicates the influence of Williams
rather than Gramsci in Gruneaus study. Indeed, Gruneaus (1999) only direct reference to Gramsci is in a footnote in which the latters role in the development of
the concept of hegemony is acknowledged. Even here, though, it is made explicit
that Gruneaus particular use of the concept owes more to Williams and to Stuart
Hall (p. 140). Interestingly, neither Gramscis Prison Notebooks (Gramsci, 1971)
nor any of his other writings appear in the books bibliography.
To be fair, in his postscript to the revised edition of his work published in 1999,
Gruneau comments that the claim that his is a Marxist book is debatable, to say
the least, because of the pervasive influence in the analysis of non-Marxist writers,
such as Veblen, C. Wright Mills, and Giddens (p. 117). That said, Gruneau (1999)
expresses a debt to Western Marxism (without mentioning Gramsci by name) and
acknowledges that in the years since the book was originally published, Western
capitalism has tightened its grip on social and cultural life around the world (p.
117), a statement that would appear to imply the continuing relevance of theoretical approaches that acknowledge the central importance of economics to social
development.
The other work that is regarded as pioneering as regards the application of
Gramscis ideas to sport is John Hargreavess Sport, Power and Culture (1986),
one of the most cited sociological works deploying Gramsci, according to Rowe
(2004, p. 106). Whereas it is true that Hargreaves is frequently cited in this context,
his work also contains little direct reference to Gramsci. Hargreaves discusses the
relationship between civil society and the state in a way that is consistent with at least
one reading of Gramscis account of that relationship (Anderson, 1976b). Moreover,
his definition of hegemony is certainly much closer to Gramscis understanding of
the concept than is the case in much subsequent hegemony theory analysis. Thus,
he describes hegemony as
a power relation in which the balance between the use of force and coercion
on the one hand, and voluntary compliance with the exercise of power on the

30

Bairner

other, is shifted so that power relations function largely in terms of the latter
mode. (Hargreaves, 1986, p. 7)
The important point to note is that the balance is shifted; there is no suggestion that
coercion becomes redundant. What is not discussed here, though, is whether or not
the power relations that are referred to are rooted in the economy.
In large part as a direct consequence of Hargreavess pioneering work, the
concept of hegemony is applied widely in the sociology of sport by, for example,
George Sage (1998) in relation to American sport. When students use the term,
however, they do so quite often in ignorance of its Marxist origins and of the fact
that Gramsci was interested in the concept not merely as an analytical tool but also
as a basis for revolutionary action. It is vitally important, in my view, to remind our
students and ourselves that Gramsci was a Marxist, a revolutionary communist.
Far from telling us what was wrong with Marxs own social analysis, his work is a
shining example of all that is, or at least should be, best in Marxism. Our students
might well benefit from learning more about the complex character of Marxist
materialism, something that cannot be achieved if simplistic readings of Marxisms
contribution to the sociology of sport remain unchallenged. Gramsci was not a crude
economic determinist; but neither was Marx. Nor indeed were other western Marxists whose work, unlike that of Gramsci, has largely been ignored by sociologists
of sport (as opposed to being selectively stripped of assets). I am thinking here of
thinkers such as Karl Korsch, Antonio Labriola, and Walter Benjamin.6
Referring to Marxs Eighteenth Brumaire, Korsch (1923/1970) reminds us that
the class as a whole creates and forms an entire superstructure of distinct and
peculiarly formed sentiments, illusions, modes of thought and views of life out
of its material foundations (p. 36). To me this sounds uncannily like Bourdieu
were it not for that fact that Korsch, and before him Marx, draws attention to material determinacy. Similarly, Labriola (1907/1980), though claiming that Marxs
conception of historical materialism represents the last blow to all forms of
idealism, notes that it also marks the end of naturalistic materialism (p. 95).
Neither from Korsch nor from Labriola, anymore than from Gramsci, do we get
the kind of crude materialism that so many critics have deemed synonymous with
Marxist theory in its entirety.
In the case of Gramsci, Kate Crehan (2002) goes so far as to state that he was
never an economic determinist (p. 88). Far from challenging Gramscis right to
be called a Marxist, however, this merely serves to underline the extent to which
Marxs conceptualization (and also those of many of his followers) of material
conditions and of the relationship between those and the realm of culture is considerably more complex than his critics have allowed. Thus, in light of the most
widely accepted reading of Gramsci among sociologists of sport today, it is well
worth reminding ourselves how much of his Prison Notebooks was taken up with
discussions of Fordism, the principles of scientific management, and the impact
of new productive techniques (Gramsci, 1971). Furthermore, as Gruneau himself
(1993) asserts, the overriding concern with class continues to dominate Gramscis
legacy (p. 100). What is conceivably intended as a criticism on Gruneaus part
can also be read as a ringing endorsement.
Benjamin (1999) celebrates Korschs awareness of both the historical
specificity of Marxs materialist conception of history and what distinguishes his

Class, Social Theory, and Sport

31

work from that of dogmatic economic determinism as defined by Marxisms critics. It has been argued that Benjamins insights come about despite, rather than
because of, his Marxism. For example, Gilloch (1996) accepts that he attempts
to contribute to the historical materialist tradition (p. 17). He argues, however,
that Benjamin rejects any one-dimensional, determinist account of the relations
between economic forces and cultural life, between the material base and the
ideological superstructure of a society (pp. 1345). This is true, but it also holds
for Gramsci and many other western Marxists and, I would argue perhaps more
contentiously, for Marx himself. For that reason, I would reject Gillochs claim
that it is not so much . . . in his tortuous Marxism that Benjamins most precious
insights are situated. Rather I would suggest that the theorists I have mentioned
here do justice to the complexity of Marxs theories in a way in which cruder and
more easily criticized Marxists admittedly do not. They understand, for example,
that class is not determined solely by what one earns. Nor do they think that ones
class location necessarily determines ones social consciousness and behavior. On
the other hand, they continue to insist that, in the last instance, economic factors
take precedence over other aspects of our identity.
Like all of the Marxists discussed here, Benjamin made no direct contribution
to the development of a sociology of sport. His work on cultural spaces and his
fascination with cities and with consumerism as a major component of modern urban
life, however, can certainly inform current work on civic boosterism through sport
and on topophilia in relation to stadia. On the very rare occasions when he did turn
his attention to sport, his thoughts could easily be misrepresented as being typical
of the negativity associated with vulgar Marxism. Examined more closely, however,
he once again demonstrates the analytical value of a historical materialist approach
that is in keeping with Marxs own perspective. As Buck-Morss (1991) notes, Benjamin compared the modern Olympics to the industrial science of Taylorism that
employed the stopwatch to analyze minutely the bodily actions of workers for the
purpose of setting norms for worker productivity in mechanized production (p.
326). For this reason he saw the Olympics as absolutely modern and reactionary.7 Thus, what starts out as an economic reductionist argument opens out into a
broader commentary on the human consequences of modern elite sport.
At no stage did Marxists such as Gramsci, Korsch, Labriola, and Benjamin
understand material conditions as either fixed or narrow. Nor did they regard human
beings, their consciousness, and their cultures as blindly reflective of economic
conditions. Theirs was a far more rounded vision of what constitutes material
existence and how that impacts on social life. At the same time, however, they
understood that regardless of the importance of a host of other influences, in the last
analysis the economic realities of material existence are the prime determinants. In
this they were true to Marxs own understanding of historical materialism. Let me
try to justify these claims by looking at one particular issue that has increasingly
occupied the attention of sociologists of sportsports labor migration.
The exponents of various identity-based sociological perspectives stand
accused, alongside cruder versions of Marxism, of putting forward monocausal
explanations of developments within sport. For its part, figurational sociology, which
has made a major contribution to the analysis of sports labor migration among other
things, has consistently sought to offer multicausal explanationsthe civilizing
process, state formation, economic change, gender, and human agency in its most

32

Bairner

general sensefor social developments. Moreover, even critics of the figurational

approach, though favoring such left-leaning perspectives as world systems theory
and cultural imperialism, have identified multiple factors behind the motivations
of sport labor migrants. Writing about migrant labor from a figurational perspective, Maguire (1999) concludes that there is evidence of contradictory cultural
practices and patterns that cannot be explained with reference to some over-arching
economic theory (p. 127). Magee and Sugden (2002), on the other hand, place much
greater emphasis on economic factors, arguing in relation to soccer migrants that
money, for some, is the chief motivation for migration, and wages are certainly
high on the agenda of some (foreign) migrant players, particularly those nearing
the end of their careers (p. 431). As this statement implies, however, they go on
to identify other factors such as exile and refugee status and, indeed, to add these
to factors previously suggested by Maguire.
None of this, however, should be taken as a refutation of a materialist explanation of labor migration provided that Marxist materialism is adopted and properly
understood. Even the politically expelled, a category identified by Magee and
Sugden, though having little choice but to migrate, do so in the hope of achieving greater material well being, which may or may not be measured in terms of
economic betterment. Only embryonic saints move in the knowledge that they will
be materially worse off, and the world of professional sport holds few of those. It
is precisely in fields of inquiry such as this that a Marxist sociology of sport needs
to re-assert itself.

Conclusion
Commenting on the issue of racial and ethnic integration in contemporary
British society, Gary Younge (2005) argues, A decent job with a decent income
is still the best path out of the crudest forms of racism and fundamentalism. Polls
and studies show a link between wealth and the propensity to integrate (p. 23).
Much of the debate in the United States and beyond in the wake of Hurricane
Katrina concentrated on the extent to which African Americans were most seriously
affected. The fact is, however, that poor people in general were the victims. That
the overwhelming majority of those affected in New Orleans were black demands
additional analysis. But this will not detract from the fact that poor whites were
equally damaged and that class was the single most important factor as to whether
one was able to escape from the hurricane or not. This does not mean that identitarian analysis is incompatible with a materialist perspective. What it does suggest,
however, is that an identitarian analysis that eschews materialism and specifically
ignores or underestimates the fundamental importance of economics is inevitably
incomplete.8
With so many graphic illustrations of the fundamental significance of economic
or material conditions being presented by the media on an almost daily basis, it is
perhaps not so surprising that in July, 2005, listeners to BBC Radio 4 chose Karl
Marx as their favorite thinker. Of course it ran counter to what Francis Wheen
(2005) describes as a general assumption that Marx had kicked the bucket,
shuffled off his mortal coil and been buried forever under the rubble of the Berlin
Wall (p. 27). Yet, according to Wheen, his errors or unfulfilled prophecies about

Class, Social Theory, and Sport

33

capitalism are eclipsed and transcended by the piercing accuracy with which he
revealed the nature of the beast. Thus, Marxs portrayal of the forces that govern
our livesand of the instability, alienation and exploitation they producestill
resonates, and can still bring the world into focus. It is for these reasons, according
to Wheen, that Karl Marx could yet become the most influential thinker of the 21st
century. Indeed, even if one is swayed by arguments that late capitalist or, even
more problematically, postmodern society differs markedly from the sociopolitical
universe described critically by Marx, an important place remains for Marxist ideas.
As Jameson (1996) argued, whatever its vicissitudes, a postmodern capitalism
necessarily calls a postmodern Marxism into existence over against itself (p. 54)
and this, for the simple reason that
Marxism is the very science of capitalism; its epistemological vocation lies in
its unmatched capacity to describe capitalisms historical originality, whose
fundamental structural contradictions endow it with its political and its prophetic vocation, which can scarcely be distinguished from the analytic ones.
(Jameson, p. 54)
I would add that there are many of Marxs followers whose work deserves to be
rehabilitated. This is not simply a matter for sociologists of sport to consider nor
even simply for sociologists in general. It is a matter of some urgency for anyone
with a genuine desire to develop a critical understanding of the fundamental iniquities that characterize the world in which we live and to find ways of eradicating
those iniquities.
It is undeniable, of course, that many of those inequities are bound up with
the politics of identity more generally and that those, in turn, are inseparable from
the material existence of oppressed peoples. Oppression itself takes many forms,
including sexism, homophobia, racism, and so on. The fact is that though other
oppressed people, even while suffering oppression, find it possible to proclaim
their material reality, the economically marginalized have nothing to celebrate.
Poor Pride is rightly an alien concept.
Marx (1888/1974) complained that the philosophers have only interpreted
the world, in various ways; the point is to change it (p. 123). Thus, it worries me
when I see Marxism referred to as one among many theoretical toolkits (King,
2005, p. 399). For me, Marxism removed from practice and from political struggle
is unthinkable. Notwithstanding the efforts of feminist sociologists and numerous
other radical social scientists in this respect, there is a real need for the rehabilitation of Marxism at the level of theory, as well as for Marxist sociologists to stand
up and pronounce publicly on the economic injustices of our age. As for Marxist
sociologists of sport, the time has surely come for fewer apologies and for a more
robust defense of the subtleties of historical materialism as properly understood.
If that means retrieving the argument that our identities can best be understood in
terms of economics, then so be it.
Acknowledgments
The author is indebted to Samantha King, Mary McDonald, and two anonymous
reviewers for their incisive and constructive criticisms of an earlier draft of this essay. He is

34

Bairner

also grateful to his colleague John Evans who read an earlier draft of the article and offered
sound advice and encouragement.

References
Anderson, P. (1976a). Considerations on Western Marxism. London: New Left Books.
Anderson, P. (1976b). The antinomies of Antonio Gramsci. New Left Review, 100, 5-78.
Benjamin, W. (1999). The arcades project. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction. A social critique of the judgement of taste. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Boyne, R. (2002). Bourdieu: From class to culture. In memoriam Pierre Bourdieu 19302002.
Theory, Culture and Society, 19, 117-128.
Brohm, J.-M. (1978). Sport, a prison of measured time. London: Ink Links.
Buck-Morss, S. (1991). The dialectics of seeing. Walter Benjamin and the arcades project.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Coakley, J., and Dunning. E. (Eds.). (2000). Handbook of sports studies. London: Sage.
Cole, C.L., Giardina, M.D., & Andrews, D.L. (2004). Michel Foucault: Studies of power
and sport. In R. Giulianotti (Ed.), Sport and modern social theorists (pp. 207-223).
Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Collins, M.F., & Buller, J.R. (2003). Social exclusion from high performance sport. Are
all talented young sports people given an equal opportunity of reaching the Olympic
podium? Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 27, 420-442.
Evans, J. (2004). Making a difference? Education and ability in physical education. European Physical Education Review, 10, 95-108.
Fitz, J., Davies, B., & Evans, J. (2006). Educational policy and social reproduction. Class
inscription and symbolic control. London: Routledge.
Foote, S. (2003). Making sport of Tonya: Class performance and social punishment. Journal
of Sport and Social Issues, 27, 3-17.
Gibson-Graham, J.K., Resnick, S.A., & Wolff, R.D. (Eds.). (2000). Class and its others.
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Gilloch, G. (1996). Myth and metropolis. Walter Benjamin and the city. Cambridge, UK: Polity.
Giulianotti, R. (Ed.). (2004a). Sport and modern social theorists. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Giulianotti, R. (2004b). The fate of hyperreality: Jean Baudrillard and the sociology of sport.
In R. Giulianotti (Ed.), Sport and modern social theorists (pp. 225-239). Basingstoke,
UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Giulianotti, R. (2005). Sport. A critical sociology. Cambridge, UK: Polity.
Gramsci, A. (1971). Selections from the prison notebooks (Q. Hoare & G. Nowell Smith
Eds.). London: Lawrence and Wishart.
Gruneau, R. (1983). Class, sports, and social development. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press.
Gruneau, R. (1993). The critique of sport in modernity: Theorising power, culture, and the
politics of the body. In E.G. Dunning, J.A. Maguire, & R.E. Pearton (Eds.), The sports
process. A comparative and developmental approach (pp. 85-109). Champaign, IL:
Human Kinetics, Inc.
Gruneau, R. (1999). Class, sports, and social development (rev. ed.). Champaign, IL:
Human Kinetics.
Hargreaves, J. (1986). Sport, power and culture. A social and historical analysis of popular
sports in Britain. Cambridge, UK: Polity.
Hargreaves, J., & McDonald, I. (2000). Cultural studies and the sociology of sport. In J. Coakley & E. Dunning (Eds.), Handbook of sports studies (pp. 48-60). London: Sage.

Class, Social Theory, and Sport

35

Hoch, P. (1972). Rip off the big game. New York: Doubleday.
Jameson, F. (1996). Actually existing Marxism. In S. Makdisi, C. Casarino, & R.E. Karl
(Eds.), Marxism beyond Marx (pp.14-54). New York: Routledge.
Jarvie, G., & Maguire, J. (1994). Sport and leisure in social thought. London: Routledge.
Jones, S.G. (1986). Workers at play. A social and economic history of leisure 19181939.
London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Jones, S. G. (1988). Sport, politics and the working class. Organised labour and sport in
inter-war Britain. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
King, C.R. (2005). Cautionary notes on Whiteness and sport studies. Sociology of Sport
Journal, 22, 397-408.
Korsch, K. (1970). Marxism and philosophy. In K. Korsch, Marxism and Philosophy (pp.
29-97). New York: Monthly Review Press. First published in 1923.
Labriola, A. (1980) Socialism and philosophy. St Louis, MO: Telos Press. First published
in 1907.
Luxemburg, R. (1971). Selected political writings (D. Howard, Ed.). New York: Monthly
Review Press. First published in 1916.
Magee, J., & Sugden, J. (2002). The world at their feet. Professional football and international labor migration. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 26, 421-437.
Maguire, J. (1999). Global sport. Identities, societies, civilizations. Cambridge, UK:
Polity.
Marx, K. (1972). The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte. Moscow: Progress Publishers. First published in 1852.
Marx, K. (1974). Theses on Feuerbach. In C.J. Arthur (Ed.), Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels.
The German ideology. Part one (pp. 121-123). London: Lawrence and Wishart. First
published in 1888.
McDonald, I. (2003). Class, inequality and the body in physical education (pp. 169-183). In
S. Hayes and G. Stidder (Eds.), Equity and inclusion in physical education and sport.
London: Routledge.
McInnes, N. (1972). The Western Marxists. London: Alcove Press.
McKay, J., Messner, M., & Sabo, D. (Eds.). Masculinities, gender relations and sport.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Morera, E. (1990). Gramscis historicism. A realist interpretation. London: Routledge.
Mouffe, C. (1979). Hegemony and ideology in Gramsci. In C. Mouffe (Ed.), Gramsci and
Marxist Theory (pp. 168-204). London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Ohl, F. (2000). Are social classes still relevant to analyse sports groupings in postmodern
society? An analysis referring to P. Bourdieus theory. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine
and Science in Sports, 10, 146-155.
Potter, G. (2000). For Bourdieu, against Alexander: Reality and reduction. Journal for the
Theory of Social Behaviour, 30, 229-246.
Rahkonen, K. (1999). Not class but struggle. Critical overtures to Pierre Bourdieus sociology. Helsinki: Department of Social Policy, University of Helsinki.
Rigauer, B. (2000). Marxist theories. In J. Coakley and E. Dunning (Eds.), Handbook of
sports studies (pp. 28-47). London: Sage.
Rowe, D. (2004). Antonio Gramsci: Sport, hegemony and the national-popular. In R.
Giulianotti (Ed.), Sport and modern social theorists (pp. 97-110). Basingstoke, UK:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Sage, G. (1998). Power and ideology in American sport (2nd ed.) Champaign, IL: Human
Kinetics.
Sim, S. (1998). Spectres and nostalgia: Post-Marxism/post-Marxism. In S. Sim (Ed.), PostMarxism. A reader (pp. 1-11). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Texier, J. (1979). Gramsci, theoretician of the superstructures. In C. Mouffe (Ed.), Gramsci
and Marxist theory (pp. 48-79). London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

36

Bairner

Wheen, F. (2005). Why Marx is man of the moment. The Observer, 17 July, 27.
White, P., & Wilson, B. (1999). Distinction in the Stands. An investigation of Bourdieus
habitus, socioeconomic status and sport spectatorship in Canada. International Review
for the Sociology of Sport, 34, 245-264.
Williams, R. (1977). Marxism and Literature. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wolfreys. J. (2002). Pierre Bourdieu: Voice of resistance. International Socialism Journal,
94. Retrieved 16 August 2005 from http://pubs.socailistreviewindex.org.uk/isj94/wolfreys.htm
Younge, G. (2005).Please stop fetishising integration. Equality is what we really need. The
Guardian, 19 September, 23.

Notes
1. For evidence of the impact of post-Marxism on feminism, see L. Sargent (Ed.). (1981).
The unhappy marriage of marxism and feminism: A debate on class and patriarchy. London:
Pluto Press.
2. For example, see Eric Dunnings response to criticisms leveled at figurational sociology
and his use of words such as misapprehension, misconstrual, and misunderstanding in Dunning, E. (1999). Sport matters. Sociological studies of sport, violence and civilization. London:
Routledge, pp. 245-246.
3. For an expanded version of the discussion on Gramsci that appears here, see Bairner, A.
(In press). Re-appropriating Gramsci: Marxism, Hegemony and Sport. In B. Carrington and I.
McDonald (Eds.), Marxism, Cultural studies and sport. London: Routledge.
4. The Second International (or International Socialist Congress) was formed in 1889. It
consisted of socialist parties primarily from Europe and was the successor to Marx and Engelss
International Workingmens Association. It presided over a marked drift toward reformist politics
and a belief in the inevitability of socialism. It was damaged irrevocably by the outbreak of the
Great War and the decision by many members parties to give support to their bourgeois governments. It met for the last time in 1917.
5. See also McDonald, I. (2003). Class, inequality and the body in Physical Education (pp.
169-183). In S. Hayes & G. Stidder (Eds.), Equity and inclusion in physical education and sport.
London: Routledge.
6. Space constraints preclude a proper discussion of these Marxist theorists. I would argue,
however, that in addition to engaging with poststructuralists who have gone beyond Marxism,
sociologists of sport and their students could benefit from revisiting, or indeed examining for the
first time, the works of an entire generation of Marxists who are in danger of being forgotten but
whose radicalism and perspicacity are never in doubt.
7. Buck-Morss is referring here to notes for Benjamins Artwork essay (193536) in
R. Tiedemann, H. Schweppenhuser (Eds.). (1972). Walter Benjamin, Gesammelte Schriften,
Volume I. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag.
8. I am grateful to Mary Louise Adams for challenging me to clarify my thinking on this
matter.