Mascot Nation: The Controversy over Native American Representations in Sports
272
Mascot Nation: The Controversy over Native American Representations in Sports
272eBook
Available on Compatible NOOK devices, the free NOOK App and in My Digital Library.
Related collections and offers
Overview
Product Details
| ISBN-13: | 9780252050848 |
|---|---|
| Publisher: | University of Illinois Press |
| Publication date: | 10/08/2018 |
| Sold by: | Barnes & Noble |
| Format: | eBook |
| Pages: | 272 |
| File size: | 3 MB |
About the Author
Read an Excerpt
CHAPTER 1
Framing the Mascot through Self-Categorization
Lawrence Baca writes of the racially charged environments created by Native American mascot debates within American schools and in the public sphere, yet the continual friction found within the dialogues about mascots cannot be condensed to the "other side" simply not "getting it." Admittedly, historical and traditional notions of hegemony play integral roles in the lack of consensus on using indigenous names, images, and symbols; however, each debate offers nuance and variation on themes involved within seemingly contradictory discourses. Jackson Miller notes a "performative struggle" for control and ownership of Native American history, and both concepts are explored in the subsequent pages. While the introduction provided some context regarding the history of Native American marginalization, minimization, and fragmentation of Native Americans through the mediated lens of sport, chapter 1 is designed to explore how modern hostilities are cultivated with underpinnings not only in communication but also in sociology and psychology research streams. More specifically, this chapter employs the theoretical underpinning of self-categorization to explain the many layers of binary opposition that ultimately form in-groups and out-groups within the modern debate surrounding Native American mascots.
In essence, this chapter attempts to explain theoretical issues of sociological and psychological commonality. An argument can be postulated that while each Native American name, visual representation, or ritual retains unique dynamics, modern arguments begin with the simple opposition of "us vs. them" and then (d)evolve into more complicated notions of who and/or what constitutes "us" or "them." According to Stephanie A. Fryberg, Hazel Rose Markus, Daphna Oyserman, and Joseph M. Stone, each core argument is frequently offered in the binary. As Scott Freng and Cynthia Willis-Esqueda note, "The stereotype of American Indians historically falls under two broad categories: one with a positive evaluative component, that of the noble savage (brave, religious, silent, and nature loving) and the other with a negative connotation (lazy, lecherous, superstitious, untrustworthy, thieving, drunken Indian)."
In such depictions, even seeming positivity is tinged with negative notions of otherness. For instance, in the positive evaluative "component," indigenous communities are pivoted between violent prowess or demure stoicism, punctuating the ways that Native Americans are further marginalized as antithetical to "civilization" in Western public imaginaries. Thus, the debates become intricately layered and essentialized into pure latitudes of the acceptance or rejection of key arguments depending on one's membership (or lack thereof) in a core in-group or out-group. The chapter begins with core explanations of self-categorization theory before moving those debates into the sports domain and then into the more specific realm of the use of Native American mascots until finally offering emblematic case studies of these embodied theoretical ties. Within this final section, core examples such as the use of the University of North Dakota (UND) Fighting Sioux, the Pekin High School (IL) Chinks, and the Florida State University (FSU) Seminoles are used to illustrate how binary tensions unfold in a much more complex mixture of "us vs. them" dichotomies — well beyond the obvious "us vs. them" present: Native Americans vs. non–Native Americans. Ultimately, discussions of who exerts voice in the debate as well as the volume at which that voice is heard are used to undergird this first of two theoretical chapters.
Self-Categorization Theories
Over the course of many decades, a program of communication theories has been developed that collectively attempts to explain how humans seemingly and innately divide one another into various groups. Leon Festinger developed social comparison theory with these types of segmentations in mind, as the theoretical underpinnings emphasize how one defines oneself either by presumed similarities or differences within the world in which they interact. Central to Festinger's theory is the notion that cognitive dissonance is reduced by discovering similarities within a preferred group or by finding dissimilarities with an undesired group. Shelli E. Taylor and Marci Lobel found that both forms of self-evaluation function simultaneously; humans create numerous upward contacts (creating satisfaction through positive association) along with downward comparisons (creating satisfaction through disassociation with groups perceived to be undesirable).
Henri Tajfel and John C. Turner utilize the psychology embedded in social comparison theory to offer social identity theory, which introduces the concepts of in-groups and out-groups more directly. The theory is a notable advancement in the predictive aspect of its conception, positing that people's actions are often attributable to the group with which they identify, making cognitions and behaviors more foreseeable. A year later self-categorization theory was formally introduced in a manner that made in-group and out-group characterizations more general (as the associations are often loosely defined and inherently malleable) yet also more accessible (as different types of groups, ranging from demographic, to educational, to social, to familial, and well beyond can be more easily delineated). Self-categorization was dubbed a form of social identity of the group in that it specifies that one's personal associations are inextricably linked with one's group associations, showing how one cognitively defines oneself within not only the group in which they identify (in-group) but also by the one in which they do not consider themselves to be similar (out-group).
At the core of this program of theories is the view that there are two ways to cognitively define oneself: by who one is and by who one is not. Arguably, there is no place more directly submerged in "us vs. them" dichotomies than the sporting arena. Rachel A. Smith and Norbert Schwartz do an excellent job of highlighting how collegiate allegiances are built around not just con- structed similarities with one's own institution but also, quite crucially, in the amplification of differences with a rival institution. These scholars found linguistic distinctions in how one describes their "own" team/school yet also found differences in behaviors, finding, for instance, that a win would result in more people within the in-group wearing university-oriented clothing. Such results mirrored the three football studies conducted earlier by Robert B. Cialdini, Richard J. Borden, Avril Thorne, Marcus Randall Walker, Stephen Freeman, and Lloyd Reynolds Sloan, in which they found personal pronoun use increasing as the result of a win and decreasing when a team failed (e.g., "we won" vs. "they lost"). They dubbed the concept BIRGing, or Basking in Reflected Glory, to explain such attachments — which certainly exist in sport but also permeate virtually all other aspects of modern society, particularly in the contexts of political partisanship and nationalism.
Self-Categorization Applications to Sport
Schisms formed under the lens of self-categorization are sharpened in the sporting arena, a realm in which "us vs. them" dichotomies are perhaps most formalized, along with American political distinctions of Democrats and Republicans, which coalesce around "red team" and "blue team" connotations. Alberto Voci studied the phenomenon within a soccer team, focusing on fans as well as team employees. The study illustrates a seemingly two-pronged conception of self-categorization where similarity with the in-group (the soccer team) resulted in depersonalization — molding those within the amalgamated group into a homogenous, single unit with bolstered similarities while simultaneously strengthening perceived differences with the other team. As Voci notes, "The more the in-group was perceived as homogeneous and, at the same time, distinct from the out-group, the more the self was depersonalized. ... The more the self was depersonalized — that is, the more the self was perceived as different from the out-group and similar to other in-group members — the stronger were group phenomena." In sum, the study highlights how group membership can form a sense of black and white with little gray distinctions in between.
Other studies have shown how sport hardens divisions while escalating emotions. Within college football, Shaughan Keaton and Christopher Gearhart found anger linked to self-categorization tendencies, a connection not found with more moderate emotions such as happiness or sadness. These strong emotions are amplified when the stakes of a sporting contest are higher; for instance, highly identified fans were more likely to lose control of their behavior particularly in playoff or other high-stakes sports scenarios. The result is that fans often experience a game entirely differently depending on which team they root for and specifically relating to the degree through which team identification unfolds in self-categorization. More specifically, "Due to shared group membership (and the positivity extoled toward those categories with which an individual possesses membership), fans of a team will be more likely to interpret the behaviors of that team favorably relative to fans of an opposing team." Thus, a clear binary appears inherent in any discussion of sporting loyalties.
Michael A. Hogg and Barbara A. Mullin find that accessibility, both chronic and situational, shape identity salience. The inherent temporality of sports fandom — the embodiment of the temporary loss of the here and now — can be used to explain not only the division between the in- and out-group but also the embodied rift between one's "normal" self and the person they can become when heavily invested in sports fanship. Clifford Stott, Paul Hutchison, and John Drury explore soccer hooliganism, finding that while self-categorization distinctions are fluid for sports fans, dependent on both time and circumstance, World Cup soccer fans often become caught in a maelstrom of nationalism and sports fandom, activating those in-group affiliations above most other potential perceived kinships. The scholars found that overt hostility toward out-groups was cultivated while those who defended any in-group players or beliefs were regarded as heroes. In attempting to psychologically decipher what occurs in these scenarios, the authors claimed that "the nature of the social relations in the intergroup context for both groups was such that it functioned, in part at least, to shape the normative dimensions of the social category driving collective action." As such, one's loyalties are not only fostered by the in-group but also performed to external constituencies that threaten in-group cohesion.
The notion that self-categorization is in some sense "activated" is essentially an acknowledgment that the number of groups with which one identifies is so immense that one cannot navigate modern society with each element of group membership (or lack thereof) central in one's mind. Thus, the ability for sport to seemingly trump all other aspects when game day commences underscores the power of affiliation. In such scenarios, cognitive and affective dimensions are generally inseparable — a meta-contrast dimension formed as a predictor of intergroup bias. When sporting allegiances cause other ties to be less relevant (albeit temporarily), sports fans become less sensitive to other in-groups with which they identify, "blasting friends and family who are supporters of rival universities (i.e., not strangers); although they share group identities with these individuals (e.g., same hometown, gender, social class), these commonalities are pushed aside when engaging in blasting behaviours." In sum, the greater the athletic stakes, the more aggression is manifest within games.
Thus, it is crucial to discern instances when schisms between groups are more likely to become salient. For instance, John C. Turner found that competition was unlikely to naturally occur when in-group and out-group perspectives were considered to be within some range of each other in terms of perceived quality. However, this is in direct contrast to most sports conceptions, where rivalry games create magnified allegiances at least in part because the two teams wish to occupy the same lofty terrain/ranking/playoff position. Indeed, Turner noted the possible paradox in sports, arguing that "an 'easy' victory in sport is often valued less than a victory in a close, hard-fought contest — presumably because under certain conditions positively valued distinctiveness requires that the out-group not be depreciated." The tension created through a game that is considerably in doubt bolsters these positive feelings, allowing rivalries and other primary contests to kindle greater "us vs. them" distinctions.
Studies have also shown how self-categorization is stronger (at least in the United States) for university affiliations than for city or state affiliations, as well as how the threat of a home loss increases in-group favoritism. Scholars have found that being cut from playing on a sports team resulted in an immediate drop of in-group allegiance because "self-protection processes may be related to short-term changes in domain-specific self-concept measures such as athletic identity." Such an eclectic group of variables illustrates how circumstances can shift overall in-group perceptions in sport, as well as perceived out-group derogation behaviors and cognitions.
Many of the distinctions summarized in this section relating to sport and self-categorization could be classified as negative traits, because they often create kinships with those in which one may have little in common while also creating enemies with fairly little justification. However, potential unintended positive consequences are also possible; E. Nicole Melton and George B. Cunningham found that identification with sport could help to counteract negative feelings about stigmatized demographic groups, such as people within the LGBTQ community. For instance, fans of the University of Missouri football team could have more positive feelings about the inclusion of gay athletes after one of their own, Michael Sam, publicly came out as a gay athlete. Thus, it appears that such team connections could blunt other levels of friction within groups, including those divides by issues of gender, race, heritage, and culture.
Self-Categorization and the Native American Mascot Debate
The possibility of using sport for social change provides a seamless transition to understanding the theoretical underpinnings of self-categorization as it specifically relates to the use of Native American mascot names, images, and rituals. John S. W. Spinda found that self-categorization theory can be used to predict stances and biases, which is certainly the case with the aforementioned mascots, as those on the "inside" of such fan bases may feel threats that others may not.
Identity is often, in some sense, performed; a young boy experiencing physical pain might adopt masking techniques to perform a sense of hypermasculine power, thwarting the conveyance of the emotions he feels. Just as one performs one's identities within other realms of society, so, too, is mascotting a performative act. As such, "performances of sport mascots borrow from history, but they also create new versions of history which are paradoxical and the selected/new histories are forwarded as authentic." The problems become engrained within the mascotting struggle at that point, fostering friction between old and new histories.
History mixes with issues such as contemporary fan identity and team identification to create a unique blend of self-categorization regarding who "owns" the mascot and, thus, who becomes the temporal and possessive arbiter of whether a mascot should continue to be used. For instance, one clear dichotomy of self-categorization pertains to whether one is Native American or not. Even ardent supporters of the use of Native American mascots seemingly cede the highest terrain to local and national Native American tribes and associations. However, other types of dichotomies play at least some sort of secondary role in the negotiation of the offensiveness or acceptability (or lack thereof) of Native American mascots. Table 1.1 illustrates a mere sampling of the potential binaries that make arguments that arise during the debate both byzantine and potentially convoluted.
(Continues…)
Excerpted from "Mascot Nation"
by .
Copyright © 2018 Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois.
Excerpted by permission of UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS PRESS.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.