‘Nice girls don't play cricket’: the theory of established and outsider relations and perceptions of sexuality and class amongst female cricketers

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to explore divisions between female cricketers in the UK utilizing Elias and Scotson's theory of established and outsider relations (Elias, N., and J. Scotson, eds. The Established and the Outsiders. Dublin: University College Dublin Press, 2008). This article begins by discussing the adoption of the theory of established and outsider relations within sport to a variety of established and outsider figurations, particularly those focusing on gender relations in sport. The focus of the article is on an outsider group, female cricketers and seeks to explore divisions between them as a characteristic of being an outsider group within the context of an established–outsider figuration. The article draws on ethnographic data with an U15 girls' county cricket team alongside semi-structured interviews with 31 female cricketers. The data presented identifies that power relations exist between female cricketers, specifically in relation to their perceptions of sexuality and class in cricket. The article concludes by suggesting ways in which the theory of established and outsider relations could be developed to explore the divisions of power between outsider groups.

Notes

¹ Mansfield, ‘Reconsidering Feminism’, 99.

² Elias and Scotson, The Established and Outsiders.

³ Dunning, Sport Matters.

⁴ Dunning and Waddington, ‘Sport as a Drug’.

⁵ Maguire and Mansfield, ‘No-Body's Perfect’.

⁶ Liston, ‘Established–Outsider Relations Between Males and Females in the Field of Sport in Ireland’; ‘Established–Outsider Relations Between Males and Females in Male-Associated Sports’.

⁷ Hughes, Norbert Elias, 175.

⁸ Elias, What is Sociology?, 93.

⁹ Mennell, Norbert Elias.

¹⁰ Wouters, ‘Note on the Text’, xii.

¹¹ Dunning, Sport Matters.

¹² Dunning, Sport Matters, 187.

¹³ Dunning, Sport Matters.

¹⁴ Mennell, Norbert Elias; Van Stolk and Wouters ‘Power Changes and Self Respect’.

¹⁵ Loyal ‘Elias and on Class and Stratification’.

¹⁶ Bloyce and Murphy, ‘Involvement and Detachment’, 3.

¹⁷ Bloyce and Murphy, ‘Involvement and Detachment’, 19.

¹⁸ Hughes, Key Sociological Thinkers

¹⁹ Bloyce and Murphy, ‘Involvement and Detachment’.

²⁰ Flintoff et al., draw on the work of Phoenix to define intersectionality as a useful shorthand term to describe ‘the complex political struggles and arguments that seek to make visible the multiple positioning that constitutes everyday life and the power relations that are central to it’. Flintoff, Scraton, and Fitzgerald, ‘The Challenges of Intersectionality’, 3.

²¹ Hargreaves, Sex, Gender and The Civilising Process'; Sporting Females; Heroines of Sport . Hargreaves criticism of figurational sociology is well documented, in particular, she argues that the figurational approach of Norbert Elias is masculinist and that Elias makes little reference within civilizing process to women and women's position within nation state formation. She also argues that figurational studies within sport have largely ignored the experiences of women within sport and this is largely due to the use of involvement and detachment in figurational research (Hargreaves, ‘Sex, Gender and the Civilising Process’). Whilst Dunning responds to Hargreaves criticism by outlining what he believes are her misinterpretations of the theory, the debate was extended by these two authors when Maguire and Mansfield (1998) presented a feminist figurational synthesis to understanding women's experiences of aerobics. This was not without controversy, as Colwell (‘Feminism and Figurational Sociology’) argues that such a synthesis is not possible due to the differing approach of both theories to the question of values in sociological research. These debates are ongoing, however, there are a growing number of sociologists adopting Elias concepts to the study of gender relations.

²² Brinkgreve, Elias and Gender Relations'; Ernst, ‘From Blame Gossip to Praise Gossip?’; Triebel, Changing Balance of Power Between Men and Women'; Mansfield, ‘Reconsidering Feminism’; Velija and Malcolm, ‘“Look, it's a Girl”’.

²³ Maguire and Mansfield, ‘No-Body's Perfect’.

²⁴ Maguire and Mansfield, ‘No-Body's Perfect’ 21.

²⁵ Liston, ‘Established–Outsider Relations Between Males and Females in the Field of Sport in Ireland’.

²⁶ Liston, ‘Established–Outsider Relations Between Males and Females in the Field of Sport in Ireland’, 25.

²⁷ Bloyce and Murphy, ‘Involvement and Detachment’.

²⁸ Mennell, Norbert Elias

²⁹ Mansfield and Maguire ‘No-Body's Perfect’ and Liston, ‘Established–Outsider Relations Between Males and Females in the Field of Sport in Ireland’.

³⁰ Kvale and Brinkmann, Interviews Learning the Craft of Qualitative Research.

³¹ Taylor and Bogdan, Qualitative Research Methods.

³² Walkerdine, Daddy's Girl.

³³ Goffman, cited in Taylor and Bogdan, Qualitative Research Methods.

³⁴ Patton, Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods.

³⁵ Kvale and Brinkmann, Interviews.

³⁶ Williams, Cricket and England.

³⁷ These arguments and tensions are also found in men's cricket.

³⁸ Loyal, ‘Elias on Class and Stratification’.

³⁹ Coakley and White, ‘Making Decisions’.

⁴⁰ Veri, ‘Homophobic Discourse Surrounding the Female Athlete’.

⁴¹ Martin ‘You've Got to Have the Pink One Because Your're A Girl!’.

⁴² Aapola, Gonick, and Harris, Young Femininity.

⁴³ Aapola, Gonick, and Harris, Young Femininity

⁴⁴ Mennell, Norbert Elias.

⁴⁵ Mennell, Norbert Elias, 119.

⁴⁶ Anderson, In the Game.

⁴⁷ A similar picture emerges in ootball, whereby lesbianism is viewed as creating an ‘image problem that needs addressing’, see Harris ‘The Image Problem in Women's Football’.

⁴⁸ Van Stolk and Wouters ‘Power Changes and Self Respect’.

⁴⁹ Cahn, Coming on Strong; Clarke, ‘Difference Matters’.

⁵⁰ Flintoff et al., ‘The Challenges of Intersectionality’.

⁵¹ Maguire and Mansfield, ‘No-Body's Perfect’.

⁵² As evidenced in Van Stolk and Wouters, ‘Power Changes and Self Respect’.

⁵³ Bloyce and Murphy, ‘Involvement and Detachment’, 3.