please read the uploaded article the section Media Framing of Female Athletes: Controlling Images Versus Women’s Self-Definitions pages 151-154 and write two pages
on which to apply a detailed intersectional analysis. The
analysis should include a race, gender, and class perspective, as well as, the
perspective of category X to be decided by the group. Asking the questions
what, when, why, where, and how should be the foundation of the analysis. These
questions should guide the analysis in each category where feasible. For
example: What role does race play in the case? How does race influence the
case? Who are the primary characters in the case and what are their races? What
role does race play concerning the location of where the case takes place?
Students
will be graded on the depth of analysis in each category (5 points per category for a total of 20 points). There should be at
least 1 piece of evidence to support the analysis per category for a total of
at least 4 in-text citations (for a
total of 10 points). Students will also be graded on grammar (for a total of 10 points).
intersectionality_2.pdf
Unformatted Attachment Preview
Sociology of Sport Journal, 2010, 27, 139-159
© 2010 Human Kinetics, Inc.
It’s Not About the Game:
Don Imus, Race, Class, Gender
and Sexuality in Contemporary Media
Cheryl Cooky
Purdue University
Faye L. Wachs
Cal Poly Pomona
Michael Messner
University of Southern California
Shari L. Dworkin
University of California, San Francisco
Using intersectionality and hegemony theory, we critically analyze mainstream
print news media’s response to Don Imus’ exchange on the 2007 NCAA women’s
basketball championship game. Content and textual analysis reveals the following media frames: “invisibility and silence”; “controlling images versus women’s
self-definitions”; and, “outside the frame: social issues in sport and society.” The
paper situates these media frames within a broader societal context wherein 1)
women’s sports are silenced, trivialized and sexualized, 2) media representations
of African-American women in the U. S. have historically reproduced racism and
sexism, and 3) race and class relations differentially shape dominant understandings of African-American women’s participation in sport. We conclude that news
media reproduced monolithic understandings of social inequality, which lacked
insight into the intersecting nature of oppression for women, both in sport and
in the United States.
En utilisant les théories de l’intersectionalité et de l’hégémonie, nous apportons
une analyse critique de la réponse de la presse écrite à Don Imus et ses échanges au
sujet de la finale du championnat de basketball féminin universitaire américain en
Cooky is with Purdue University, Department of Health & Kinesiology and Women’s Studies, West
Lafayette, IN. Wachs is with the Department of Psychology/Sociology, Cal Poly Pomona, Pomona,
CA. Messner is with the University of Southern California, Department of Sociology, Los Angeles,
CA. Dworkin is with the University of California, San Francisco, Department of Social and Behavioral
Sciences, San Francisco, California.
139
140 Cooky et al.
2007. L’analyse de contenu révèle les thèmes suivants : « invisibilité et silence »,
« le contrôle des images versus les autodéfinitions des sportives » et « hors cadre :
les questions sociales en sport et en société ». L’article situe ces cadres médiatiques au sein d’un contexte social plus large qui 1) bâillonne, sexualise et rend
trivial le sport féminin ; 2) contient des représentations médiatiques des femmes
africaines-américaines qui ont historiquement reproduit le racisme et le sexisme ;
et 3) contient des relations raciales et de classe qui marquent les compréhensions
dominantes de la participation sportive des femmes africaines-américaines. Nous
concluons que les médias ont reproduit des compréhensions monolithiques de
l’inégalité sociale ; compréhensions qui ne permettent pas de voir les intersections de l’oppression (race, genre, classe) des femmes en sport et aux États-Unis.
On Tuesday, April 3, 2007, the Rutgers University Scarlet Knights women’s
basketball team squared off in the National Collegiate Athletic Association’s
(NCAA) championship game against a perennial powerhouse, the University of
Tennessee Volunteers. The following day, in a dialogue on Imus in the Morning,
Don Imus, long-time radio talk show host/ “shock jock,” referred to the Rutgers
University women’s basketball team as “nappy headed hos.” Later that day, Media
Matters for America, an independent media watchdog group, posted the transcript
on their website, flagging the commentary due to the blatant racism and sexism in
the dialogue (“Imus called women’s basketball team ‘nappy headed hos,’ ” accessed
October 16, 2007). The following is the full transcript of the segment:
IMUS: So, I watched the basketball game last night between–a little bit of
Rutgers and Tennessee, the women’s final.
ROSENBERG: Yeah, Tennessee won last night–seventh championship for
[Tennessee coach] Pat Summitt, I-Man. They beat Rutgers by 13 points.
IMUS: That’s some rough girls from Rutgers. Man, they got tattoos and–
McGUIRK: Some hard-core hos.
IMUS: That’s some nappy-headed hos there. I’m gonna tell you that now, man,
that’s some–woo. And the girls from Tennessee, they all look cute, you know,
so, like–kinda like–I don’t know.
McGUIRK: A Spike Lee thing.
IMUS: Yeah.
McGUIRK: The Jigaboos vs. the Wannabes–that movie that he had.
IMUS: Yeah, it was a tough –
McCORD: Do The Right Thing.
McGUIRK: Yeah, yeah, yeah.
IMUS: I don’t know if I’d have wanted to beat Rutgers or not, but they did,
right?
It’s Not About the Game
141
ROSENBERG: It was a tough watch. The more I look at Rutgers, they look
exactly like the Toronto Raptors.
IMUS: Well, I guess, yeah.
RUFFINO: Only tougher.
McGUIRK: The [Memphis] Grizzlies would be more appropriate.
This exchange exploded into a controversial, widely discussed and debated
“media event,” the contours of which reveal important insights about sport and
the role of mass media in constructing hegemonic notions of race, class, gender
and sexuality. Following McDonald and Birrell (1999), we “read” Imus’ remark
as a sport “event” wherein mediated ideologies of race, gender, sexuality and class
are articulated. First we review the research on gender and race in sport media.
A discussion of our theoretical framework and methodology follows. The paper
then explores the dominant media frames through a content and textual analysis.
We examine these frames to critique hegemonic ideologies embedded in culturally
relevant texts. We suggest possible “counter-narratives” of the Imus media event
that offer “resistant political possibilities” (McDonald & Birrell, 1999, p. 295).
The article concludes with a discussion of the implications of the media framings
of the Imus/ Rutgers controversy and asks what role the “sport-media complex”
plays in the overall construction of these ideologies (Jhally, 1984).
Gender, Race, Sport and the Media
The Imus dialogue on Rutgers University highlighted the ways in which female
athletes continue to struggle to receive respectful, quality coverage of their sport
in mainstream news media. Research on the mainstream news media coverage of
women’s sport continually shows that representations of the female athlete are,
“contested ideological terrain” (Messner, 1988). Sociologists of sport have long
noted the lack of coverage of women’s sport in mainstream news media, more
importantly the lack of respectful, serious coverage of women’s sport, especially
for female athletes of Color (Douglas, 2005; Douglas & Jamieson, 2006; Lansbury, 2001; McKay & Johnson, 2008; Schultz, 2005), in mainstream print media
(Bishop, 2003; Christopherson, Janning, McConnell, 2002; Eastman & Billings,
2000; Eastman & Billings, 1999; Pratt, Grappendorf, Grundvig, & LeBlanc, 2008;
Vincent, 2004; Vincent & Crossman, 2008; Urquhart & Crossman, 1999) and in
mainstream televised media (Daddario & Wigley, 2007; Duncan & Hasbrook, 1988;
Messner, Duncan, & Willms, 2006).
Despite attempts to educate the U. S. mainstream news media regarding stereotypical coverage of women’s sport, there are consistent patterns that persist over
time. As longitudinal research on the televised news media coverage demonstrates,
women’s sport is consistently ignored (Messner, Duncan & Willms, 2006; Messner,
Duncan & Cooky, 2003). Research has found that the amount of coverage in local
news and national sports highlight programs, approximately 3–8% of the coverage
is on women’s sport (Messner, Duncan & Willms, 2006). Even when the media
do cover women’s sport, the coverage often trivializes women’s athleticism and
142 Cooky et al.
hetero-sexualizes female athletes (Heywood & Dworkin, 2003; Christopherson,
et al., 2002; Messner, 2002). Research on newspaper coverage of the Wimbledon
championships in 2000 found that while the amount of coverage of the men’s and
women’s events was relatively equal, the quality of coverage differed: the mostly
male journalists who covered the tournaments devalued the athletic accomplishments of female tennis players by using cultural and racial stereotypes, trivialization, and sexual innuendo (Vincent, 2004). These trends in the coverage of
women’s sport, and specifically of African-American female athletes, are not new
to the post-Title IX generation. In her analysis of the print news media coverage
of Alice Coachman and Althea Gibson, Lansbury (2001) found white newspapers
trivialized African-American women’s participation in sport, either by failing to
cover the accomplishments of the athletes or by framing the athletes as masculine.
Research on contemporary media representations of African-American female
athletes has focused on African-American women’s participation in individual
sport like tennis, especially mediated representations of Venus and Serena Williams (Douglas 2005; Schultz, 2005; Spencer, 2004). Indeed this is logical given
the American public’s fascination with female athletes in individual sports, and
their feminine beauty not athletic skill (Banet-Weiser, 1999a). This fascination
is constructed, in part, by the media coverage of women’s sport. However, when
athletes are nonwhite, race in media representations also becomes salient. Douglas’
(2005) analysis of the media coverage of the 2001 Indian Wells tennis tournament
and the 2003 French Open, found that the media’s “raceless” explanations for the
hostile reception of the Williams’ sisters rendered race and white privilege invisible and upheld the marking of tennis as a “white” sport. Schultz (2005) argues the
popular media’s representations of Serena Williams during the 2002 U. S. Open
were, “located within racialized discourses” (p.338) albeit through the oppositional
rhetoric that position Serena Williams against other white athletes on the tour. For
Schultz (2005), blackness in the media coverage of the 2002 U.S. Open is “constructed in contrast with discussions of normalized, white female tennis athletes”
(p. 339). More recently, McKay and Johnson (2008) examine mainstream media
coverage of Venus and Serena Williams and show how, in the past, sport media
has “othered” women as “objects of ridicule, inferiority and weakness…but currently is searching for new ways to disparage the powerful and therefore ‘uppity’
African-American sportswomen” (p. 492). They argue that despite the Williams
sisters’ unprecedented success in professional tennis, the mainstream sport media
discursively positioned their bodies as simultaneously sexually grotesque and
pornographically erotic.
Female athletes in basketball, and presumably other team sports, have to negotiate a “contradictory set of cultural images” (Banet-Weiser, 1999a). As scholars
have long noted, women’s participation in sport, and in particular team sport, is
frequently accompanied by a questioning of the (hetero)sexuality of athletes (Cahn,
1994; Griffin, 1998). This is in part due to the fact that, unlike individual sports
such as tennis and gymnastics, participation in a team contact sport like basketball
is viewed in U. S. culture as a “masculine” endeavor (Banet-Weiser, 1999a). Thus,
female athletes are often confronted with cultural assumptions regarding their lack
of femininity, and thus their lack of heterosexuality (Banet-Weiser, 1999a). These
cultural assumptions regarding women’s sport participation contribute to particular
mediated representations of female athletes. For example, the WNBA’s marketing
It’s Not About the Game
143
strategy revolved around highlighting the heterosexual, emphasized femininity of
WNBA players, as models, mothers or the girl-next-door (Banet-Weiser, 1999a;
McPherson, 2000). In her analysis of the WNBA web site, McPherson (2000)
found that the players’ familial relationships, ties, and responsibilities were highlighted. She argues this is not simply about rearticulating female athleticism within
the domestic context; rather it produces racialized narratives of black femininity.
Thus, the negotiation of the contradictions in women’s sport participation differs
qualitatively for African-American female athletes given the ways in which AfricanAmerican women have long been portrayed in the media, and specifically sports
media, as both hyper-sexualized and less feminine. As a result, African-American
female athletes are subject to particular “controlling images” in the media (Cahn,
1994; Collins, 1990).
As critical media scholars argue, basketball is a cultural site wherein blackness
is both invisible and hyper-visible (Banet-Weiser, 1999a; McPherson, 2000). Given
the popularity of women’s basketball and the fact that African-American female
athletes are overrepresented in basketball at the collegiate level (Smith, 1992),
this study provides an analysis of media representations of female athletes in team
sport contexts. As noted above, previous research reveals the agency of the media
in shaping discourses of sport and female athletes in ways that are implicitly about
race, gender, and sexuality. Building upon this research (Banet-Weiser, 1999a;
Douglas & Jamieson, 2006; McDonald & Birrell, 1999; Schultz, 2005), we argue
that media representations of female athletes of Color cannot be analyzed outside
of a consideration of the simultaneous, interlocking forms of oppression (gender,
race, sexuality, class). This study differs from prior research in that we examine not
only the framing or representation of a predominantly African-American female
team (here the Rutgers University women’s basketball team) but also the media’s
framing of other key figures and the ways in which the media contextualized the
“nappy headed hos” dialogue, a comment that is simultaneously raced, gendered,
and sexualized. Therefore, we explore not only the media’s representation, or framing, of African-American female athletes (as the Rutgers team became racialized
as “Black” through the dialogue, despite the racial identities of individual players,
of whom several were white), but also whose voices were heard in the mainstream
news media’s framing of the event. Thus, Collins’ (1990) concept of representations
of Black women, “controlling images,” and her theory of intersectionality shed light
on how multiple identities (race, gender, class, sexuality), privilege, and oppression
converge in the media event (McDonald & Thomas, in press; Wingfield 2008).
Theoretical Framework
According to Gramsci (1971), social order is maintained through a dynamic process of coercion and consent whereby dominant groups produce dominant cultural
beliefs, called hegemonic ideologies, and subordinated groups to consent to structural conditions that may be oppressive given the power of hegemonic ideologies.
For Gramsci, consent is secured through the “cultural leadership of the dominant
grouping” (Curran, 2006 p. 132). In the United States, the media operate as a
part of this cultural leadership, particularly when the lines between the corporate
elite and the media elite are increasingly blurred (Curran, 2006). Ideologies thus
become “naturalized” or a part of common sense, taken-for-granted understandings.
144 Cooky et al.
However, Gramsci also recognized that subordinated groups can choose to oppose
hegemonic dominance by creating alternative understandings of society that connect to people’s social experiences and identities (Curran, 2006).
Patricia Hill Collins’ theoretical framework was informed by Gramscian theories on the dynamics of domination and power in societies. Building upon Gramsci’s
hegemony theory, Collins (1990) argued that dominant groups control social institutions in society, such as schools, the media and popular culture, which produce
controlling images that are rife with stereotypes about subordinated groups. These
controlling images are not passively accepted by marginalized groups, as there are
cultures of resistance within subordinated communities. Collins (1990) explained:
“Subjugated knowledges…develop in cultural contexts controlled by oppressed
groups. Dominant groups aim to replace subjugated knowledges with their own
specialized thought because they realize that gaining control over this dimension
of subordinate groups’ lives amplifies control” (p. 228). At the same time, Collins
recognized there are segments of subordinated communities that internalize and
perpetuate dominant ideologies. Thus, the processes of domination and oppression
are complex. The result is, “African-American women find themselves in a web of
cross-cutting relationships, each presenting varying combinations of controlling
images and women’s self-definitions” (Collins, 1990 p. 96).
The concept of intersectionality (Collins, 1990) refers to this “web of crosscutting relationships” taking into account how various forms of oppression (e.g.,
race, class, gender, sexuality) interlock with one another. As such, “both/and
perspectives,” rather than “either/or perspectives,” of social locations are used
to understand the ways in which individuals (and social institutions) are situated
within interlocking forms of privilege/dominance and oppression/ subordination.
Therefore, we analyzed the Imus/Rutgers University controversy and the subsequent media framings to explore the tensions between the “controlling images” of
African-American women as “nappy-headed hos” and “women’s self definitions,” of
“young ladies of class.” The Rutgers coach, players, and women’s groups provided
counter-hegemonic discourses on African-American women. Collins’ theoretical
framework allows consideration of how subordinate groups assert agency, despite
a lack of institutional access or power, to also shape the media frames of the event.
Thus, this study critically analyzes the construction of media events by mainstream
news print media to understand the “complex interrelated and fluid character of
power relations” as they are constructed along axes of difference (McDonald &
Birrell, 1999, p. 284).
Methods
Following Hall (2000), we acknowledge media frames are both constructed within
raced, classed, and gendered hierarchical relations of power and are read within
those very same systems of domination. Also building upon Gramscian theories
of hegemony, Hall (2000) developed theoretical and methodological frameworks
for understanding how meanings are produced and consumed. As Hall notes,
meanings are constructed through and within hierarchical structures of power
wherein the preferred meanings, or the meanings intended by the producer, “have
institutional, political and ideological power imprinted in them, and themselves
It’s Not About the Game
145
become institutionalized” (Hall 2000, p. 57). As such, preferred readings often
limit the possible meanings encoded in texts by producers and thus limit the possible readings decoded by audiences (Hall, 2000; Hunt, 1999). Through a textual
analysis, researchers can uncover both the denotative and connotative meanings of
texts (Hall, 2000). From this methodological perspective, the media are viewed as
creating and recreating narratives that can be linked to dominant ideas, or ideologies, that circulate in wider society.
Content analysis involves a systematic, quantitative analysis of content, usually
texts, images, or other symbolic matter (Krippendorff, 2004). According to Payne
and Payne (2004), “content analysis seeks to demonstrate the meaning of written
or visual sources by systematically allocating their content to pre-determined,
detailed categories and then both quantifying and interpreting the outcomes” (p.
51). It generally involves the researcher determining the presence, meanings, and
relationships of certain words or concepts within the text. We …
Purchase answer to see full
attachment
Recent Comments