What do you think?
Rate this book
The I in Team: Sports Fandom and the Reproduction of Identity
There is one sound that will always be loudest in sports. It isn’t the squeak of sneakers or the crunch of helmets; it isn’t the grunts or even the stadium music. It’s the deafening roar of sports fans. For those few among us on the outside, sports fandom—with its war paint and pennants, its pricey cable TV packages and esoteric stats reeled off like code—looks highly irrational, entertainment gone overboard. But as Erin C. Tarver demonstrates in this book, sports fandom has become extraordinarily important to our psyche, a matter of the very essence of who we are.
Why in the world, Tarver asks, would anyone care about how well a total stranger can throw a ball, or hit one with a bat, or toss one through a hoop? Because such activities and the massive public events that surround them form some of the most meaningful ritual identity practices we have today. They are a primary way we—as individuals and a collective—decide both who we are who we are not. And as such, they are also one of the key ways that various social structures—such as race and gender hierarchies—are sustained, lending a dark side to the joys of being a sports fan. Drawing on everything from philosophy to sociology to sports history, she offers a profound exploration of the significance of sports in contemporary life, showing us just how high the stakes of the game are.
Why in the world, Tarver asks, would anyone care about how well a total stranger can throw a ball, or hit one with a bat, or toss one through a hoop? Because such activities and the massive public events that surround them form some of the most meaningful ritual identity practices we have today. They are a primary way we—as individuals and a collective—decide both who we are who we are not. And as such, they are also one of the key ways that various social structures—such as race and gender hierarchies—are sustained, lending a dark side to the joys of being a sports fan. Drawing on everything from philosophy to sociology to sports history, she offers a profound exploration of the significance of sports in contemporary life, showing us just how high the stakes of the game are.
- GenresSportsPhilosophy
256 pages, Paperback
Published June 26, 2017
2 people are currently reading
74 people want to read
About the author
Erin C. Tarver
3 books1 followerDr. Erin C. Tarver, Ph.D. (Vanderbilt University, 2011; MA, Boston College, 2006; BA, Palm Beach Atlantic University, 2003), is assistant professor of philosophy and Interim Senior Associate Dean of Academic Affairs at Oxford College of Emory University. She previously taught at James Madison University and Georgetown College.
Dr. Tarver specializes in feminist philosophy, American pragmatism, and the philosophy of sport. She has particular interests in the relationship between popular culture and the self.
Dr. Tarver specializes in feminist philosophy, American pragmatism, and the philosophy of sport. She has particular interests in the relationship between popular culture and the self.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews
March 16, 2026
Let it be first understood that the author is a Southern white woman sports fan and professor of philosophy well versed in—if not fully subscribed to—Foucaultian Critical Race Theory (her spelling). As such, this is likely to intrigue or annoy a reader in more-or-less direct proportion to their own adherence or aversion to such analysis, even though it does not fully hew to the "woke" gospels of such anti-dialectical, post-structuralist, post-Marxist rhetoric. Secondly, yes, I am aware that this review amounts to three dense pages, and now so are you. Read on if you dare!
The first couple of chapters serve to set the context of the ensuing analyses. Chapter 3, ‘Putting the "We" in "We're Number One": Mascots, Team, and Community Identity,’ is particularly interesting in that, in the process of analyzing the function of team mascots (including both nicknames and their personifications), the analysis takes an almost Madhyamaka turn in finding that there is, in actuality, nothing but conventional designation as the basis of the existence of a team to begin with. Personnel, uniforms, even locations may change without necessarily affecting the collective perception of a "team" where no such thing can be found to truly exist. You're so close to getting it!
Following some discussion using the example of Jim Thorpe, the main point of this chapter is summed up by noting that, "Treating Native Americans as mascots is thus racist in two ways at once: it disregards Native persons by withholding respect and concern for them with demeaning stereotypes, and it further withholds respect and concern by treating them not as full members of the community but as a means to that communities [sic] ends." Dr. Tarver goes on to note:
4, ‘Hero or Mascot? Fantasies of Identification,’ then gets into the distinction between "hero worship" of those who are considered to "fit" the demographics of… not exactly the fans themselves, but more like the nostalgic power fantasy the fans idealize—which generally falls out to dominant white Christian cis-het men again, of course (epitomized by Tim Tebow)—and "mascotting" of those who are admired for their instrumental embodiment of some subset of the required characteristics, while being excluded, at least in part, from the "us" fantasy, illustrated by pointed examples from the autobiography of Malcolm X and comparison of Dominican MLB stars Manny Ramírez and Pedro Martínez, hero worshipped by Latin fans ("a vital member of the community"), but mascotted by white fans ("not an asshole like the others"). As an aside, that last section notes that, as of 2011, "fully 20 percent of MLB players now come" from the Dominican Republic as a result of "the league's efforts to find cheaper labor pools".
Finally, the "limit case" of Michael Jordan is examined to interrogate whether exceptions to the hero/mascot dichotomy are even possible under the overwhelmingly systematic influence of tacit white supremacy in America. "Despite the fact that Jordan obviously benefited from fan obsession, it is demonstrable that he was subject to mascottting…. He occupied a kind of ambivalent position for many white fans: he was approachable and nonthreatening, while simultaneously instantiating a fantastical image of power and athletic force. By identifying with him, white fans could inhabit a fantasy of themselves—as 'good [non-racist] people—we love Michael Jordan' (Andrews 1996, 139), as vicariously embodying a fantasy of the power of the black masculine body within safely circumscribed limits…" that allow for "the vicarious indulgence in a thrilling stereotype of black masculinity" and the treatment of athletes of color "as harmless (though not fully human) pets".
5 uses the examples of 2011 LSU Tigers cornerback Tyrann Mathieu, mascotted as the "Honey Badger" (after the YouTube meme), along with injured 2012 Louisville Cardinals guard Kevin Ware & 2012–15 Alabama Crimson Tide running back Kenyan Drake, to argue that "Collegiate sports fandom in its current state is—particularly in the American South—a central mechanism in the reproduction of whiteness as a hierarchizing racial category." And that "the structure of collegiate athletics and the mascotting of black athletes in the American South contribute to the constitution of regional and community identities that are racialized as white and to the maintenance of a white supremacist social order." And furthermore, "because the mascotting of black male athletes is based on the racist association of blackness with hypermasculinity, it is instrumental in reinforcing heterosexism, homophobia, and misogyny." That's a lot, and it's not wrong.
6, ‘From Mascot to Danger,’ turns to the haters to "examine [how] fan practices of dis-identification… expose the racialized and racializing character of sports fandom in the contemporary United States" and "expose the tenuous relationship between white fans and black players and reveal a deep-seated anxiety about black masculinity." The author notes specifically that, "When black men behave in ways that obviate white fans' efforts to deploy their imagined power for their own ends—when they refuse to be mascots—they risk being portrayed as selfish thugs whose very existence constitutes a danger to the healthy body of society." Examples include LeBron James's "disloyal" transfer from the Cleveland Cavaliers to the Miami Heat in pursuit of championship opportunities; Seattle Seahawks cornerback Richard Sherman's 2014 championship game controversy; and Michael Vick's dogfighting scandal.
However, "Not all famous athletes who disappoint fans inspire hatred, and very few players become the target of long-standing loathing on the basis of actions that have no bearing on their team's performance." The key argument is that,
Secondarily, the "oft-repeated 'think of the children' discourse expresses a thinly veiled anxiety about the status of black masculinity in the community, not merely—or even primarily—individual children." Shares of The Simpsons there.
A very interesting point is made here about the "lusory" quality of athletic celebrities (and, I think, this probably extends to all celebrities, including and perhaps especially those minor figures with whom people form toxic parasocial relationships). Following the 2013 work of Randolph Feezell in Sport, Philosophy, and Good Lives, it is posited that "sports heroes are, for fans, not people at all, but objects whose meanings are dependent upon their roles in the game—itself a kind of make-believe in which fans are imaginatively complicit." Thus, "Michael Jordan, the athlete beloved by fans, is, according to Feezell, no more Michael Jordan, the person, than a fictional character." And therefore, "fans believe themselves to be admiring [or hating on] people when they are doing no such thing. Rather, fans' deeply felt attachments to the fates and achievements of people they do not know and have never met are attachments to something like the heroes of an epic narrative." Again, this comes so close to Madhyamaka, but no cigar.
The 7th & final chapter at last shifts the focus to the "patriarchy" part of heteronormative white supremacist patriarchy by examining the marginalization of women in sports fandom. Perhaps against expectation after all of the foregoing critique, Dr. Tarver argues "that before we dismiss sports fandom as irrevocably hierarchizing, we should [note aspects] that might work to destabilize rigid gender, racial, and sexual norms. Some forms of women's sports fandom… involve practices that constitute significant resistance to misogyny, racism, and heterosexism and thus give reason to nuance our analysis of the social functions of sports fandom." Ah, nuance: America's Pastime! A fair amount of this analysis can be applied across the range of "toxic fandoms," such as the hostile "prove you're a real fan of [X]" knowledge testing that is endemic to virtually every fan scene that contains any significant number of white male nerds (of which I am one), right down to religion. See also: "well, akshually…."
And why is this still an issue in sports even after Title IX? In addition to the many more obvious lines of reasoning, "Since the vast majority of men do not possess the physical capability to use athletic participation to prove their manhood, sports fandom—particularly in its knowledge-acquisition forms—takes on special masculine significance." Burn! The section on the socialization of men as subjects and women as objects, drawing principally on the 46-year-old work of Iris M. Young, seems applicable in a wide range of contexts, and feels like essential reading. In fact, most of this chapter serves as a brilliant takedown of (mostly white) male sport fans that is worth the price of admission by itself—though I should note that my "price of admission" was merely the time invested in reading it, as it was the Chicago UP free-ebook-of-the-month for February of 2026, and only the third such offering in the seven years I've been receiving them that interested me enough to finish within the access window.
The first couple of chapters serve to set the context of the ensuing analyses. Chapter 3, ‘Putting the "We" in "We're Number One": Mascots, Team, and Community Identity,’ is particularly interesting in that, in the process of analyzing the function of team mascots (including both nicknames and their personifications), the analysis takes an almost Madhyamaka turn in finding that there is, in actuality, nothing but conventional designation as the basis of the existence of a team to begin with. Personnel, uniforms, even locations may change without necessarily affecting the collective perception of a "team" where no such thing can be found to truly exist. You're so close to getting it!
Following some discussion using the example of Jim Thorpe, the main point of this chapter is summed up by noting that, "Treating Native Americans as mascots is thus racist in two ways at once: it disregards Native persons by withholding respect and concern for them with demeaning stereotypes, and it further withholds respect and concern by treating them not as full members of the community but as a means to that communities [sic] ends." Dr. Tarver goes on to note:
Native American mascots are racist in a way that is not reducible to other instances of negative stereotyping. To understand why, we must first make sense of what mascots in general are and how they function. Mascots, I have argued, play a constitutive role in the identity of historically persistent teams and, by extension, in the identity of the communities that those teams represent. The usage of Native Americans as mascots ['stereotyped as wild, aggressive, violent, brave, stoic, and as having a fighting spirit'] is the reduction of persons to this constitutive role, which requires their concomitant instrumentalization and exclusion from the community that so instrumentalizes them. Native American mascots are thus not merely racist; they are racist in a way that exceeds the racism of the mere stereotyped imagery that they use.
4, ‘Hero or Mascot? Fantasies of Identification,’ then gets into the distinction between "hero worship" of those who are considered to "fit" the demographics of… not exactly the fans themselves, but more like the nostalgic power fantasy the fans idealize—which generally falls out to dominant white Christian cis-het men again, of course (epitomized by Tim Tebow)—and "mascotting" of those who are admired for their instrumental embodiment of some subset of the required characteristics, while being excluded, at least in part, from the "us" fantasy, illustrated by pointed examples from the autobiography of Malcolm X and comparison of Dominican MLB stars Manny Ramírez and Pedro Martínez, hero worshipped by Latin fans ("a vital member of the community"), but mascotted by white fans ("not an asshole like the others"). As an aside, that last section notes that, as of 2011, "fully 20 percent of MLB players now come" from the Dominican Republic as a result of "the league's efforts to find cheaper labor pools".
Finally, the "limit case" of Michael Jordan is examined to interrogate whether exceptions to the hero/mascot dichotomy are even possible under the overwhelmingly systematic influence of tacit white supremacy in America. "Despite the fact that Jordan obviously benefited from fan obsession, it is demonstrable that he was subject to mascottting…. He occupied a kind of ambivalent position for many white fans: he was approachable and nonthreatening, while simultaneously instantiating a fantastical image of power and athletic force. By identifying with him, white fans could inhabit a fantasy of themselves—as 'good [non-racist] people—we love Michael Jordan' (Andrews 1996, 139), as vicariously embodying a fantasy of the power of the black masculine body within safely circumscribed limits…" that allow for "the vicarious indulgence in a thrilling stereotype of black masculinity" and the treatment of athletes of color "as harmless (though not fully human) pets".
5 uses the examples of 2011 LSU Tigers cornerback Tyrann Mathieu, mascotted as the "Honey Badger" (after the YouTube meme), along with injured 2012 Louisville Cardinals guard Kevin Ware & 2012–15 Alabama Crimson Tide running back Kenyan Drake, to argue that "Collegiate sports fandom in its current state is—particularly in the American South—a central mechanism in the reproduction of whiteness as a hierarchizing racial category." And that "the structure of collegiate athletics and the mascotting of black athletes in the American South contribute to the constitution of regional and community identities that are racialized as white and to the maintenance of a white supremacist social order." And furthermore, "because the mascotting of black male athletes is based on the racist association of blackness with hypermasculinity, it is instrumental in reinforcing heterosexism, homophobia, and misogyny." That's a lot, and it's not wrong.
6, ‘From Mascot to Danger,’ turns to the haters to "examine [how] fan practices of dis-identification… expose the racialized and racializing character of sports fandom in the contemporary United States" and "expose the tenuous relationship between white fans and black players and reveal a deep-seated anxiety about black masculinity." The author notes specifically that, "When black men behave in ways that obviate white fans' efforts to deploy their imagined power for their own ends—when they refuse to be mascots—they risk being portrayed as selfish thugs whose very existence constitutes a danger to the healthy body of society." Examples include LeBron James's "disloyal" transfer from the Cleveland Cavaliers to the Miami Heat in pursuit of championship opportunities; Seattle Seahawks cornerback Richard Sherman's 2014 championship game controversy; and Michael Vick's dogfighting scandal.
However, "Not all famous athletes who disappoint fans inspire hatred, and very few players become the target of long-standing loathing on the basis of actions that have no bearing on their team's performance." The key argument is that,
Although such rejections are purportedly moral, analyses of specific cases show that the values at stake in these rejections are less those of moral character than of a particular perception of communal identity. If mascotting occurs primarily when fans are able to deploy the imagined power of black masculinity for their own purposes with a closely delimited sporting context, then this form of fan rejection is characterized by fear of the failure to contain black masculinity within the acceptable limits of white supremacist norms.
Secondarily, the "oft-repeated 'think of the children' discourse expresses a thinly veiled anxiety about the status of black masculinity in the community, not merely—or even primarily—individual children." Shares of The Simpsons there.
A very interesting point is made here about the "lusory" quality of athletic celebrities (and, I think, this probably extends to all celebrities, including and perhaps especially those minor figures with whom people form toxic parasocial relationships). Following the 2013 work of Randolph Feezell in Sport, Philosophy, and Good Lives, it is posited that "sports heroes are, for fans, not people at all, but objects whose meanings are dependent upon their roles in the game—itself a kind of make-believe in which fans are imaginatively complicit." Thus, "Michael Jordan, the athlete beloved by fans, is, according to Feezell, no more Michael Jordan, the person, than a fictional character." And therefore, "fans believe themselves to be admiring [or hating on] people when they are doing no such thing. Rather, fans' deeply felt attachments to the fates and achievements of people they do not know and have never met are attachments to something like the heroes of an epic narrative." Again, this comes so close to Madhyamaka, but no cigar.
The 7th & final chapter at last shifts the focus to the "patriarchy" part of heteronormative white supremacist patriarchy by examining the marginalization of women in sports fandom. Perhaps against expectation after all of the foregoing critique, Dr. Tarver argues "that before we dismiss sports fandom as irrevocably hierarchizing, we should [note aspects] that might work to destabilize rigid gender, racial, and sexual norms. Some forms of women's sports fandom… involve practices that constitute significant resistance to misogyny, racism, and heterosexism and thus give reason to nuance our analysis of the social functions of sports fandom." Ah, nuance: America's Pastime! A fair amount of this analysis can be applied across the range of "toxic fandoms," such as the hostile "prove you're a real fan of [X]" knowledge testing that is endemic to virtually every fan scene that contains any significant number of white male nerds (of which I am one), right down to religion. See also: "well, akshually…."
And why is this still an issue in sports even after Title IX? In addition to the many more obvious lines of reasoning, "Since the vast majority of men do not possess the physical capability to use athletic participation to prove their manhood, sports fandom—particularly in its knowledge-acquisition forms—takes on special masculine significance." Burn! The section on the socialization of men as subjects and women as objects, drawing principally on the 46-year-old work of Iris M. Young, seems applicable in a wide range of contexts, and feels like essential reading. In fact, most of this chapter serves as a brilliant takedown of (mostly white) male sport fans that is worth the price of admission by itself—though I should note that my "price of admission" was merely the time invested in reading it, as it was the Chicago UP free-ebook-of-the-month for February of 2026, and only the third such offering in the seven years I've been receiving them that interested me enough to finish within the access window.
August 10, 2019
Five stars! This book did not remotely meet my expectations. I picked it in the thought that better understanding of sports fan's motivations, might make me more tolerant of their obvious negative effects.
On the contrary my oft expressed sense that--particularly in the case of football--largely white audiences watching largely black players destroy their minds and bodies for the entertainment of the audience is inherently racist was an extreme case of only seeing the tip of an iceberg. I find Professor Tarver utterly persuasive: "Moreover, I will argue, because the mascotting of black male athletes is based on the racist association of blackness with hypermasculinity, it is instrumental in reinforcing heterosexism, homophobia, and misogyny" (110).
Lest you think this is not you: ", But this collective failure to recognize the role of others' subordination or service in one's own social position has been documented by many thinkers as a persistent feature of whiteness and colonialism" (132).
Not say that there is no hope for fandom, at least for fans of athletes such as Megan Rapinoe: "As I will argue in the next section, the explicit presence and celebration of lesbian and (otherwise) queer women in women's basketball and softball, including those women who flout the norms of traditionally feminine gender presentation, has mad fandom of these sports an important site of antioppressive resistance" (192).
"Introduction: Sports Fandom and Identity" (1)
"I hope it is possible to do fandom differently. But we will not find out without first exposing its evils, just below the surface" (7).
"1 Who Is a Fan?" (8)
"Though the specific content of 'fan' changes, what remains constant is the normativity of its application is the requirement that fans both feel a connection to their team or sport and put this connection into practice. The combination of these two dimensions distinguishes fans from persons who merely attend or happen to watch sporting events" (19).
"2 Sport Fandom as Practice of Subjectivization" (24)
"Dreyfus and Kelly argue that sport is appealing to fans because it offers such feelings to an increasingly secularized population" (25).
"In this chapter, I argue that everyday practises of sports fandom constitute a key means of cultivating and reproducing individual and community identities for Americans today" (26).
"As a result, participation in explicitly masculine sports culture becomes increasingly urgent, since it 'functions to assuage men's fear of feminization in current postmodern culture'" (39).
"Moreover, all of the ostentatious markers of southern aristocracy remain in The Grove, maintained by an overwhelmingly white fan population, in the context of a state with one of the largest (and poorest) black populations in the nation" (48).
"3 Putting the 'We' in 'We're Number One: Mascots, Teams, and Community Identity" (56).
"But if we take seriously the extent to which fan behavior is constitutive of a team's Identity (as Mumford suggests), we will have to acknowledge that such behavior need not be (and often is not) motivated by the rational appeal to a metaphysical grounding but instead could be motivated by an affective attachment that need not be particularly rational" (66).
"What matters, instead, is the collective fantasy of power or aggression that they inspire--the sense that we, too, become fearsome or daring when identified with them" (72).
"The use of Indian mascots, in short, involves the tacit reiteration of a sentiment that has more or less explicitly characterized white supremacy: these people exist for us" (76).
"4 Hero or Mascot? Fantasies of Identification" (79).
"Rather, their identification is with feelings of domination, power, hypermasculinity, violence, or animality that are otherwise inaccessible" (99).
"However, I will argue in the remainder of this chapter that even fans' love for Jordan is, for the most part, understandable as mascotting rather than hero worship and thus there is good reason to suspect that contemporary sports fandom is not the setting for racial equalization" (105).
"5 'Honey Badger Takes What He Wants': Southern Colligate Athletics and the Mascotting of Black Masculinity" (109)
"Beyond consideration of institutional structure, however, I want to argue that attending to fan Identity and engagement will show that the moral problems of colligate sports fandom run far deeper" (110).
"As a result, it is not surprising to find white fans with a sense of entitlement that is required to view those who would resist their own exploitation as 'spoiled': the belief that black college athletes 'owe' whites their athletic labor is supported by the assumption that access to white institutions is extraordinarily valuable, according to which such athletes are 'lucky' to have been admitted" (128).
"6 From Mascot to Danger" (143)
"In this chapter, I examine fan practices of dis-identification and argue that these further expose the racialized and racializing character of sports fandom in the contemporary United States" (143).
"Perhaps tellingly, fans seem more than willing to express moral disapproval of or anger at acts of violence against women committed by their favorite athletes and return to rooting for them shortly thereafter" (150).
"On the other, they are not concerned with the welfare of these athletes beyond their performance on the field or court and, once they leave the sporting context, may have attitudes toward them characterized by indifference, contempt, or fear" (157).
"Haterade is, in short, a crucial instrument in the production and reinforcement of sports fan's identities" (169).
"7 Women on the Margins of Sports Fandom" (171).
"Some forms of women's sports fandom, I will argue, involve practises that constitute significant resistance to misogyny, racism, and heterosexism and thus give reasons to nuance our analysis of the social functions of sports fandom" (173).
On the contrary my oft expressed sense that--particularly in the case of football--largely white audiences watching largely black players destroy their minds and bodies for the entertainment of the audience is inherently racist was an extreme case of only seeing the tip of an iceberg. I find Professor Tarver utterly persuasive: "Moreover, I will argue, because the mascotting of black male athletes is based on the racist association of blackness with hypermasculinity, it is instrumental in reinforcing heterosexism, homophobia, and misogyny" (110).
Lest you think this is not you: ", But this collective failure to recognize the role of others' subordination or service in one's own social position has been documented by many thinkers as a persistent feature of whiteness and colonialism" (132).
Not say that there is no hope for fandom, at least for fans of athletes such as Megan Rapinoe: "As I will argue in the next section, the explicit presence and celebration of lesbian and (otherwise) queer women in women's basketball and softball, including those women who flout the norms of traditionally feminine gender presentation, has mad fandom of these sports an important site of antioppressive resistance" (192).
"Introduction: Sports Fandom and Identity" (1)
"I hope it is possible to do fandom differently. But we will not find out without first exposing its evils, just below the surface" (7).
"1 Who Is a Fan?" (8)
"Though the specific content of 'fan' changes, what remains constant is the normativity of its application is the requirement that fans both feel a connection to their team or sport and put this connection into practice. The combination of these two dimensions distinguishes fans from persons who merely attend or happen to watch sporting events" (19).
"2 Sport Fandom as Practice of Subjectivization" (24)
"Dreyfus and Kelly argue that sport is appealing to fans because it offers such feelings to an increasingly secularized population" (25).
"In this chapter, I argue that everyday practises of sports fandom constitute a key means of cultivating and reproducing individual and community identities for Americans today" (26).
"As a result, participation in explicitly masculine sports culture becomes increasingly urgent, since it 'functions to assuage men's fear of feminization in current postmodern culture'" (39).
"Moreover, all of the ostentatious markers of southern aristocracy remain in The Grove, maintained by an overwhelmingly white fan population, in the context of a state with one of the largest (and poorest) black populations in the nation" (48).
"3 Putting the 'We' in 'We're Number One: Mascots, Teams, and Community Identity" (56).
"But if we take seriously the extent to which fan behavior is constitutive of a team's Identity (as Mumford suggests), we will have to acknowledge that such behavior need not be (and often is not) motivated by the rational appeal to a metaphysical grounding but instead could be motivated by an affective attachment that need not be particularly rational" (66).
"What matters, instead, is the collective fantasy of power or aggression that they inspire--the sense that we, too, become fearsome or daring when identified with them" (72).
"The use of Indian mascots, in short, involves the tacit reiteration of a sentiment that has more or less explicitly characterized white supremacy: these people exist for us" (76).
"4 Hero or Mascot? Fantasies of Identification" (79).
"Rather, their identification is with feelings of domination, power, hypermasculinity, violence, or animality that are otherwise inaccessible" (99).
"However, I will argue in the remainder of this chapter that even fans' love for Jordan is, for the most part, understandable as mascotting rather than hero worship and thus there is good reason to suspect that contemporary sports fandom is not the setting for racial equalization" (105).
"5 'Honey Badger Takes What He Wants': Southern Colligate Athletics and the Mascotting of Black Masculinity" (109)
"Beyond consideration of institutional structure, however, I want to argue that attending to fan Identity and engagement will show that the moral problems of colligate sports fandom run far deeper" (110).
"As a result, it is not surprising to find white fans with a sense of entitlement that is required to view those who would resist their own exploitation as 'spoiled': the belief that black college athletes 'owe' whites their athletic labor is supported by the assumption that access to white institutions is extraordinarily valuable, according to which such athletes are 'lucky' to have been admitted" (128).
"6 From Mascot to Danger" (143)
"In this chapter, I examine fan practices of dis-identification and argue that these further expose the racialized and racializing character of sports fandom in the contemporary United States" (143).
"Perhaps tellingly, fans seem more than willing to express moral disapproval of or anger at acts of violence against women committed by their favorite athletes and return to rooting for them shortly thereafter" (150).
"On the other, they are not concerned with the welfare of these athletes beyond their performance on the field or court and, once they leave the sporting context, may have attitudes toward them characterized by indifference, contempt, or fear" (157).
"Haterade is, in short, a crucial instrument in the production and reinforcement of sports fan's identities" (169).
"7 Women on the Margins of Sports Fandom" (171).
"Some forms of women's sports fandom, I will argue, involve practises that constitute significant resistance to misogyny, racism, and heterosexism and thus give reasons to nuance our analysis of the social functions of sports fandom" (173).
Read
November 23, 2021I wasn't interested in sports fandom itself. I had hoped the book would shed light on group loyalty and partisanship. I was thinking that most fans live in different cities / states than "their" team's home stadium, most of the players came from distant regions or countries, there was little other substantive connection to a particular team, and any team can be watched on TV. So, what makes strong loyalty?
In reality, most of the book deals with how racial and sex prejudices operate among many sports fans, and how some elements in sports reflect prejudices even if not blatantly so. The book doesn't try to establish cause and effect (in either direction) between sports / fandom and prejudice, or a connection between prejudice and being loyal to a particular team. Much of the material used to present the author's case is more like anecdotal evidence than from scientific studies or statistical analysis.
In reality, most of the book deals with how racial and sex prejudices operate among many sports fans, and how some elements in sports reflect prejudices even if not blatantly so. The book doesn't try to establish cause and effect (in either direction) between sports / fandom and prejudice, or a connection between prejudice and being loyal to a particular team. Much of the material used to present the author's case is more like anecdotal evidence than from scientific studies or statistical analysis.
July 19, 2018
3.5/5. Pretty interesting look at identity via sports fandom, with some applicability to dynamics in media/"geek" fandom as well, albeit on a smaller scale. Lots of glimpses in particular at race and sports fandom and the role of black men as mascots for white society on all levels.
December 15, 2017
If you're not formulating an academic submission just skip this; instead, search for Tarver's articles online
Read
August 24, 2018306.483 T196 2017
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews