Power and domination in sport policy and politics ‒ three intertwined levels of exercising power

ABSTRACT

In this article, I discuss the fruitfulness of a three-level approach for studying power and domination in sport policy and politics, derived from the work of Pierre Bourdieu and Steven Lukes. This approach provides new insight into the deep structures that form sport policy and politics. Bourdieu’s concepts of social field, symbolic capital and symbolic power are invaluable for examining and revealing important aspects of power in sport policy and politics. To paint a fuller picture of power-relations, I have supplemented the Bourdieusian approach with Lukes’ three-dimensional perspective on power. Lukes’ third dimension of power resembles Bourdieu’s emphasis on how one’s perceptions and preferences are shaped to legitimate the existing order of things. I argue further that Lukes’ second dimension of power – focusing on situations where decisions in potential conflicts are hindered (i.e. agenda setting) – partly relates to Bourdieu’s perspective. However, Bourdieu focuses less on the direct exercising of power in political processes, which resembles the first dimension advocated by Lukes. I argue that it is necessary for this dimension of power to be incorporated into the study of sport policy. Moreover, the three dimensions can be viewed as intertwined levels in an analysis of specific social fields, specifically the sport (policy) field. Norwegian sport policy in general and local facility policy specifically serves as the empirical basis for the current analysis.

KEYWORDS:

• Bourdieu
• Lukes
• power
• policy
• sport
• Norway

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes

1. All translations of Norwegian sources are mine.

2. The first, Idrettskrets, is based on the counties and thus geographical localisation, while the latter, Særforbund organise and have the responsibility for a single sport in all Norway, such as the Norwegian Football Association, Norwegian Basketball Association.

3. However, health and integration has been important factors in the Governmental politics of sports after 1970, but more as a spin-off from sports activities than as a primary goal.

4. Compare, for instance, organisations such as the Australian Institute of Sport/Australian Sport Commission, Sport Canada and UK Sport/English Institute for Sport (Green and Oakley 2001, Green and Houlihan 2005, Houlihan and Green 2008).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Nils Asle Bergsgard

Nils Asle Bergsgard is a professor at the University of Southeast Norway. He holds a Dr. Polit. in sociology from the University of Oslo. His main research interests include sport sociology, sport policy and politics, sport facilities and policy and he has published several articles, books and book-chapters on these topics.