Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

1 BOWLING APART SPORT CLUBS AS BRIDGES OR AS WALLS BETWEEN SOCIAL GROUPS IN THE NETHERLANDS Wout Ultee Tel Aviv University Mortimer and Raymond Sackler.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "1 BOWLING APART SPORT CLUBS AS BRIDGES OR AS WALLS BETWEEN SOCIAL GROUPS IN THE NETHERLANDS Wout Ultee Tel Aviv University Mortimer and Raymond Sackler."— Presentation transcript:

1 1 BOWLING APART SPORT CLUBS AS BRIDGES OR AS WALLS BETWEEN SOCIAL GROUPS IN THE NETHERLANDS Wout Ultee Tel Aviv University Mortimer and Raymond Sackler Institute of Advanced Studies March 24, 2005

2 2 This lecture consists of three parts: * How I got to the question of BOWLING APART as a supplement to the question of BOWLING ALONE * Findings for the Netherlands from administrative and existing survey data * Findings for the Netherlands from a recently conducted survey

3 3 The findings I present are to become part of the ph.d. by Ruud van der Meulen, currently employed in the sociology department in Nijmegen.

4 4

5 5 Three Sackler lectures: sociology of education sociology of sport sociology of religion What kind of sociologist deals with all these specializations?

6 6 There is something like general sociology and theoretical sociology, And I am one of those persons doing two things.

7 7 For the first part of this lecture theories are not that important. What is pertinent is that sociology, given its history and traditions, has three general or main questions.

8 8 Each of these main questions cannot simply be traced back to one of sociology’s founders,

9 9 If they are to be traced back and sociology’s founders are involved,

10 10 Each of these main questions cannot simply be traced back to one of sociology’s founders. If they are to be traced back and sociology’s founders are involved, Sociology’s founders did something to the questions raised by social philosophers,

11 11 Each of these main questions cannot simply be traced back to one of sociology’s founders, If they are to be traced back and sociology’s founders are involved, Sociology’s founders did something to the questions raised by social philosophers, And later sociologists not only reframed, but restated and recast the questions of sociology’s founders.

12 12 Sociology’s three main questions: Rationalization Inequality Cohesion Mortimer and Raymond Sackler lectures: Religion Education Sport

13 13 Take the question of societal rationalization. Max Weber raised it and it looks like an umbrella. It was an overarching question comprising as one of its sub- questions the question of a more efficient economy as posed by the social philosopher Adam Smith.

14 14 Thinking about questions in terms of an umbrella is useful for finding interesting questions, for finding theories answering them and for finding research techniques. What does Weber’s umbrella of rationalization questions look like?

15 15 rationalization

16 16 rationalization wealth of nations

17 17 rationalization efficient economy rise of science

18 18 rationalization efficient economy rise of science invention in art

19 19 rationalization efficient economy rise of science invention in art formal state

20 20 rationalization efficient economy rise of science invention in art formal state bureau- cratization

21 21 rationalization efficient economy rise of science invention in art formal state codification of laws bureau- cratization

22 22 Weber implicitly assumed that if more inhabitants of a society have a practical-rational mentality, rationalization processes at the societal level will have gone further. Since the theory of collective goods and external effects, it is known that this assumption is false.

23 23 In the Netherlands there now is sociologist Abram de Swaan with the following umbrella of questions about the formal state. A micro-macro level paradox: Individual rationality does not always make for societal rationality.

24 24 rationalization

25 25 rationalization optimal production private goods by markets

26 26 rationalization optimal production private goods by markets optimal production collective goods by states

27 27 rationalization optimal production private goods by markets optimal production collective goods by states municipal piped water and sewerage

28 28 rationalization optimal production private goods by markets optimal production collective goods by states compulsory schooling municipal piped water and sewerage

29 29 rationalization optimal production private goods by markets optimal production collective goods by states state money for the poor compulsory schooling municipal piped water and sewerage

30 30 How about that other main question of sociology, societal inequality? Marx did not begin it, if he did, he did it with Engels, Engels and Marx improved upon social philosophers Ferguson and Millar, and Sombart and Weber improved upon Engels and Marx.

31 31 The umbrella of inequality questions: from Ferguson and Millar to Engels and Marx.

32 32 inequalities

33 33 inequalities actual differences in standard of living

34 34 inequalities actual differences in standard of living formal subordination

35 35 inequalities actual differences in standard of living formal subordination ruler and ruled

36 36 inequalities actual differences in standard of living formal subordination ruler and ruled men and women

37 37 inequalities actual differences in standard of living formal subordination ruler and ruled men and women fathers and children

38 38 inequalities actual differences in standard of living formal subordination ruler and ruled men and women fathers and children masters and servants

39 39 inequalities actual differences in standard of living formal subordination less servant subordination, smaller differences? ruler and ruled men and women fathers and children masters and servants

40 40 Once more the umbrella of inequality questions: from Engels & Marx to Sombart, then on to Goldthorpe, and to Mayer.

41 41 inequalities less servant subordination, smaller differences? one moment disparities

42 42 inequalities less servant subordination, smaller differences? one moment disparities two moment mobility

43 43 inequalities less servant subordination, smaller differences? one moment disparities two moment mobility structural mobility circulation mobility

44 44 inequalities less servant subordination, smaller differences? one moment disparities two moment mobility structural mobility circulation mobility

45 45 inequalities less servant subordination, smaller differences? one moment disparities two moment mobility total mobility relative mobility chances

46 46 inequalities less servant subordination, smaller differences? one moment disparities two moment mobility occupational histories total mobility relative mobility chances

47 47 Yet again the umbrella of inequality questions: from Sombart to Weber:

48 48 inequalities less servant subordination, smaller differences? two moment mobility

49 49 inequalities less servant subordination, smaller differences? openness two moment mobility

50 50 inequalities less servant subordination, smaller differences? openness two moment mobility who marries whom?

51 51 inequalities less servant subordination, smaller differences? openness two moment mobility who marries whom? who befriends whom?

52 52 Does the inequality question have a levels paradox too? Firebaugh: Incomes disparities right now increase in most countries, but world income disparities decrease.

53 53 That third main question of sociology: societal cohesion. Hobbes started it with the question of violence/order, Durkheim completed it with the question of order but no ties/order and ties. Putnam’s BOWLING ALONE is a recent question about specific ties: ties through sport clubs.

54 54 The umbrella of inequality questions from Hobbes to Durkheim:

55 55 cohesion

56 56 cohesion living together PEACEFULLY

57 57 cohesion living together PEACEFULLY living peacefully TOGETHER

58 58 cohesion living together PEACEFULLY living peacefully TOGETHER suicide

59 59 cohesion living together PEACEFULLY living peacefully TOGETHER suicide gods and rites

60 60 cohesion living together PEACEFULLY living peacefully TOGETHER division of labour suicide gods and rites

61 61 cohesion living together PEACEFULLY living peacefully TOGETHER marriage and birth division of labour suicide gods and rites

62 62 cohesion living together PEACEFULLY living peacefully TOGETHER marriage and birth (family ties) division of labour (economic ties) suicide (no ties at all) gods and rites (religious ties)

63 63 Now I am going to change the metaphor: from an umbrella of questions to question trees with various branches.

64 64 Can the branches of two different question trees come together? Yes, and these questions allow for progress on two fronts. In recent years I have been hunting for ‘double questions’, and perhaps moving away from inequality to cohesion.

65 65 income inequality openness who marries whom with respect to income? poor-rich cohesion

66 66 It is obvious that to the extent that rich and poor intermarry, income inequality at the household level decreases. If people marry within their own income category, the rich and poor form strongly integrated groups, weakening cohesion of society as a whole since there are no marriage ties between categories.

67 67 There also are interesting variations economic ties who has a job? who works with whom? cohesioninequality

68 68 There also are nice complementarities family ties who marries when? who marries whom? cohesion

69 69 The scheme allows for finding incomplete series of questions: gift relationship who receives? who gives to whom? cohesion who gives?

70 70 Is there a levels paradox for cohesion, just like there is one for rationalization and inequality? Yes, people may be highly integrated, but if they have ties with their own group only, the society they belong to is segmented and prone to intergroup violence.

71 71 The Netherlands from the 1920s to the 1960s was a segmented society, given the fact that protestants, catholics and non-churched persons not only had their own political parties, and own labor unions, but also their own sport clubs, and own radio- and television broadcasting companies.

72 72

73 73 The Netherlands may turn into a segmented society again and perhaps already did so in two senses: Did the larger inequalities in the wake of the retrenchment of the welfare state lead to fewer ties between rich and poor? Do immigrants and particularly moslims form parallel societies?

74 74 How to tackle these issues? More questions on ties. sport ties who sports in teams? who sports with whom? cohesion who sports? inequality

75 75 Why study sport ties across stratification categories? Putnam’s BOWLING ALONE painted a rosy picture of 1950s USA: ‘communists’ lost academic jobs, blacks had separate places in buses, golf clubs refused Jews. Next to BOWLING ALONE, there is BOWLING APART.

76 76 Why questions about ties through sports between stratification categories? People do not only work, they have more leisure. Welfare states funded high culture and sport, and welfare state retrenchment means less support of sport. Governments will not target marriage or friendship patterns, they may target sport.

77 77 Who sports with whom regarding income? Who sports with whom regarding descent?

78 78 Two competing hypotheses: Bourdieu versus Putnam. Bourdieu is the man of walls, Putnam the man of bridges.

79 79 Bourdieu’s hypotheses: economic inequalities are reproduced across generations, they are expressed in high culture, and reflected in separate sports.

80 80 Putnam-like hypotheses: In sportclubs people meet, leading to friendships across borders, and to more trust between groups, and to less intergroup violence.

81 81 It is easy to show inequalities in sports, But Bourdieu takes extremes for averages, and sophisticated techniques such as odds ratios may not tell much about ties.

82 82 A string of four Bourdieu questions: * popularity of sports compared * representativity of sports compared * sports compared with high culture * interconnectivity of sports compared

83 83 The popularity question. Two trend ‘hypotheses’: ‘democratization’ but recently ‘aristocratization’. Status devaluation: the growth of a high status sport, makes for later growth of another high status sport.

84 84 Administrative data, members of sport clubs as percent of the population 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 9 11 16 27 28 30 Democratization has stopped, but no aristocratization yet

85 85 Most popular and one but most popular sport 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 3.0 3.8 4.8 7.5 6.6 6.5 0.5 0.4 0.8 3.3 4.6 4.5 soccertennis Popular sports decline, aristocratic sports grow the most.

86 86 Highest growers 50-60volleyballOR6.7 60-70tennisOR 2.0 70-80tennisOR 4.3 80-90golfOR4.3 90-00golfOR2.9 Status devaluation confirmed

87 87 Largest decline or slowest growth 50-60tennisOR0.8 60-70walkingOR 0.5 70-80cricketOR 0.7 80-90soccerOR0.9 90-00volleyballOR0.8 Aristocratization for last decades confirmed

88 88 The question about inequality in sport is answered with a representativity index. Hypothesis: inequalities lately became larger through the retrenchment of the welfare state.

89 89 In the sociology of sport it is taken as evident that as a club sport becomes more popular, its members became more representative of the whole population. There is no logical necessity for that, and empirically it is not true for the Netherlands.

90 90 Existing survey data for the Netherlands for 1979-1983 and for 1995-1999; each year an N of more than 20,000.

91 91 Taking 2000 administrative-data popularity and 1995- 1999 survey-data popularity for 20 sports, the correlation is 0.93.

92 92 Representativity of a sport is usually calculated as the Lueschenindex. However, the Lueschenindex has two drawbacks: * It assigns ordinal classes an arbitrary interval score. * The index changes if the number of persons in a class changes.

93 93 If the Lueschen index is not right, how then to determine representativity?

94 94 We determine the representativity of a sport by dividing household income into 25% categories, and then computing the odds for membership in a club for some sport or not for the highest 25% divided by the odds for membership in a club for that sport or not for the lowest 25%.

95 95 The three most exclusive sports in 1979-1983: hockeyOR16.2 tennisOR12.1 rowingOR 7.2 no data for golf

96 96 The three most plebeian sports in 1979-1983: cyclingOR0.7 motor crossOR0.9 soccerOR1.0

97 97 Of the three sports with the lowest ORs in 1995- 1999, two are above 1: walkingOR0.9 gymnasticsOR1.1 swimmingOR1.3 soccerOR2.0

98 98 The three most exclusive sports in 1995-1999: golfOR12.8 tennisOR7.2 hockeyOR6.7

99 99 Most sports became more exclusive. More exclusivity because of a large increase in sport for the highest 25% and a small decrease for the lowest 25%. any sport79-8395-99 highest 25%41.8%45.6% lowest 25%20.7%20.1%

100 100 Does all this show that Bourdieu is right and Putnam wrong? NO! How exclusive is high culture? PLUS: Representativity does not measure ties, it is not the same as interconnectivity!

101 101 Hypothesis: Doing sports is less exclusive and more representative than attending classical concerts etc.

102 102 1995-1999 any sportOR3.3 cabaretOR3.2 playsOR2.9 balletOR2.3 operaOR2.0 classical musicOR1.9

103 103 Hypothesis that high culture is more exclusive and sport more representative is rejected.

104 104 Are ties and interconnectivity, as should be done since Putnam, measured by odds ratios? Not really.

105 105 From mobility research we know that relative chances plus marginal differences result in total mobility.

106 106 From mobility research we know that relative chances plus marginal differences result in total mobility. In a similar way popularity plus representativity result in ties through sport clubs between income categories.

107 107 In examples: Gymnastics is almost representative, but since few people do it, all practitioners taken together yield few ties between the highest and the lowest 25%. Tennis is quite exclusive, but a lot of people do it, still yielding a lot of highest-lowest ties.

108 108 The available survey data do not ascertain the income composition of a person’s sport club. We therefore performed a thought experiment with two assumptions and two empirical findings.

109 109 First empirical finding: The total numbers doing a sport (popularity). Second empirical finding: Although the composition of a particular sport club is not known, we know the income of all persons doing a sport (something like representativity), and therefore the average composition of a club.

110 110 First assumption: any person doing a sport does it with ten other persons. Second assumption: sport teams do not differ in composition, that is they all have the composition of all persons involved in a sport after income.

111 111 The first assumption is a bit arbitrary, but the ranking of sports after interconnectivity does not depend upon the exact number. Of course, the number of persons in a training group is important. It may differ from sport to sport. We did not find strong evidence for that.

112 112 The second assumption is obviously false. But we defend the thought experiment by arguing that improvements will not strongly affect the ranking of sports. It would be too skeptical to maintain that every sport has only high income clubs and low income clubs, and that differences between sports in representativity are to be explained as ‘composition effects’.

113 113 We now may calculate the number of ties in a team. We know how many persons are highest 25% and lowest 25%, So we can compute the number of highest- lowest ties. We can compute the number of teams, So we can compute the number of highest- lowest ties for every sport.

114 114 If the number of highest-lowest ties for tennis is put at 100, we obtain the following interconnectivity indices for 1995-1999: tennis100 soccer 92 swimming 81 gymnastics 68 judo etc 36 badminton 27 volleyball 23

115 115 The two most popular sports are on top, one quite egalitarian, the other quite inegalitarian!

116 116 The correlation between the scores for 25 sports between their popularity and their interconnectivity is 0.93. The correlation between their representativity and their interconnectivity is -0.21. The correlation between popularity and representativity is -0.09.

117 117 Putnam seems more right than Bourdieu. Sport clubs build bridges, they do not erect walls – between income categories. We should not confound popularity with representativity.

118 118

119 119 The Netherlands may turn into a segmented society and perhaps already has done so in two senses: Did the larger inequalities in the wake of the retrenchment of the welfare state lead to fewer ties between rich and poor? Do immigrants and particularly moslims form parallel societies?

120 120 Descent in the Netherlands is measured in official statistics as foreign born (first generation) and as at least one parent foreign born (second generation), with a subdivision after region of the world. Some now argue that official statistics should measure at least one grand parent foreign born (third generation).

121 121 Of course it is possible to ask in surveys of people who sport, how their team is composed. We did so in a 2003 survey and we know the composition with respect to descent, education and class. I will only report on descent now.

122 122 The survey I will be using, only interviews persons who master the Dutch language, upon judgment of the interviewer. This means that of al persons of foreign descent, a bit more than 50% drops out. I only report on Dutch natives now. N = 2086.

123 123 We address a string of questions inspired by Putnam’s BOWLING ALONE hypotheses, expanded into BOWLING APART hypotheses. These hypotheses strongly resemble those of Allport from 1954 about the nature of prejudice.

124 124 * What do Dutch people think about foreigners in their sport club? * How many are there in their own training group? * Do they find foreign acquaintances this way? * Does having foreigners in school, neighborhood, sport club, occupation make for a more favorable attitude towards foreigners in general?

125 125 In our survey we asked people who stated they do a club sport, after the composition of their training group in terms of the percentage foreigners.

126 126 In our survey we also asked persons how many foreigners there are among their acquaintances and in which setting they met them first, plus a couple of other things to test Putnam-like hypotheses.

127 127 ‘Black or white, everybody is welcome in my sport club’ 1 = totally wrong 2 = a bit wrong 3 = neutral 4 = about right 5 = totally right

128 128 Is there a lot of social desirability in such data? Apparently not, given the following results for, among others, highly exclusive tennis. Results pertain to persons of Dutch descent only.

129 129 all clubs12233737 solo sports12263536 team sports12154340 swimming00142164 badminton00123652 soccer20104643 tennis00294824 aerobics22314024 volleyball08284024 1234512345

130 130 How many acquaintances of foreign descent you have now, have you made in the following settings? 1 = zero 2 = 1 to 3 3 = 4 or five 4 = five or more

131 131 study/work811234 neighborhood821422 sport95 311 church97 201 12341234 Sport clubs are not important settings for getting acquainted with people of foreign descent.

132 132 Does sporting with foreigners make for more foreign acquaintances? The following linear regression suggests so.

133 133 Linear regression of the total number of foreign acquaintances on foreigners in own sport group constant4.795.14 no sportref.ref. no foreigners-0.30 s-0.26 s 0% 10%0.25 s0.17 ?s? educationoutside0.03 s ageoutside-0.01 s urbanizationoutside-0.09 s

134 134 We also asked Dutch descent persons about their opinion (favorable – unfavorable on a five point scale) on the presence of foreigners in the Netherlands. We are now struggling with the shift from linear regression to ordinal regression and the best parameterization of ordinal models.

135 135 We are also struggling with recoding nominal four digit occupational codes into the percentage of foreigners with this occupation. We do this so as to compare the effects of various settings.

136 136 If I summarize in words the results so far of the ordinal regression: Sporting in a club with more foreigners goes together with a more favorable attitude, compared with sporting in a club with less foreigners.

137 137 Of course here selection issues crop up. Yet I do not like to raise the issue of correlation versus causation. Causation never can be proved, and I do not want to prove anything. I am after falsification, and I might already have been dealt a blow.

138 138 We find that a more favorable attitude right now goes together with a higher proportion of foreigners in school around age 12. A higher proportion foreigners in the neighborhood also makes for a more favorable attitude. Church going does not affect the attitude.

139 139 All effects are independent of education and age. The difference in attitude between people who sport and people who only do so with Dutch natives, is significant: non-sporters have a more positive attitude.

140 140 For the near future: We asked people to state retrospectively their attitude towards foreigners. We have not analyzed these data yet.

141 141 People who sport right now, could answer for two sports. They indicated how long they have been doing this sport. People who do not sport right now, could mention two previous sports. People who sport now, were asked so too. Persons then were asked about the composition of the training group and from when until when they did this sport. We have not analyzed these data yet either.

142 142

143 143 PUTNAM FARES BETTER THAN BOURDIEU SPORT CLUBS BUILD BRIDGES, THEY DO NOT ERECT WALLS - BETWEEN NATIVES AND FOREIGNERS

144 144 Next to the question of bowling apart or who sports with whom, should stand the question of who goes to school with whom, who works with whom, and who lives close to whom.

145 145 We are back at Borgadus’ old scale of social distance, but then in Laumann’s version of actual ties, rather than Bogardus’ opinion version, plus additions about specific and general attitudes and perhaps about intergroup violence.

146 146 The findings on sport are work in progress. Some are coming out in Dutch right now. Others will be featured in the ph.d. of Ruud van der Meulen, with separate chapters hopefully coming out in international journals.

147 147 This presentation may be viewed in full on my website under the heading foreign presentations: socsci.ru.nl/maw.sociologie/ultee/ Or just type in google: wout ultee It is the first hit.


Download ppt "1 BOWLING APART SPORT CLUBS AS BRIDGES OR AS WALLS BETWEEN SOCIAL GROUPS IN THE NETHERLANDS Wout Ultee Tel Aviv University Mortimer and Raymond Sackler."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google