One of the most widely accepted elements of the scholarly study of sport is that it is a masculine domain – not exclusively and very much unevenly, but certainly overwhelmingly. For nearly 40 years now we have seen a strong trend in sports scholarship that has highlighted women’s exclusion from and marginalisation in sport, even in the case of those few sports such as netball seen as women’s exclusive spaces. Tellingly, in the last few years even the widely-seen-as gender neutral areas such as biomechanics and physiology (of course they are not) have been exploring the ways that a focus on male athletes built errors into their work and in some respects (training regimes, for instance) put women athletes at risk. Of course, these inequalities are unevenly distributed, and culture areas where patriarchal power combines with cultures of machismo, such as they do in distinctive ways in the all-too-often homogenised ‘Latin America’ or the ways masculinity is constructed and maintained across much the Euro-American north Atlantic zone suggest that women have a long way to go before sport becomes anywhere like equal. Our understanding of just how far, or what those inequalities look like, is exacerbated when language forms a further barrier to understanding.
For all those reasons, and so many more, this is a really important book, despite its unevenesses and partiality (or rather its necessary incompleteness). Elsey & Nadel are clear about the book’s limited reach at the outset: “This is not an attempt … to put together an exhaustive account of women’s sporting history, but rather to record and situate the traces available, and hopefully to open up new areas of research”. (p2) There are certainly plenty of new areas indicated here. Although far from comprehensive then, the argument extends well beyond football, draws mainly on evidence from Chile, Argentina, Brazil and Mexico, but invokes cases and comparisons from Costa Rica and Guatemala (these are fairly detailed) or less comprehensively Peru, Bolivia and Uruguay highlighting comparative cases and drawing out commonalities. Even so there a sense where this is limited – so although there is extensive discussion of the medical arguments invoked to limit women’s sporting involvement, either away from sport or to specific kinds of sports, there is only limited comparison to the similar arguments made elsewhere in the world or to the global reach of those medical views.
That is, despite the continental reach of the case, there is a recurrence of the discipline’s tendency to methodological nationalism. This is, of course, a difficult constraint to break, given that it is a fundamental component not only of most sport history but of a wide range of disciplinary work across the humanities and social sciences. So this is not a transnational sport history, but as Elsey & Nadel note it draws on an array of traces of women’s sport practice. In some settings, the Mexican case for instance, they draw heavily on newspapers and oral testimony. In the Argentinian and Chilean discussions more of a focus on a wider range of print media (Argentina) and official documents (Chile). Throughout they are very good a weaving in personal stories, case and the insights of the particular, while also maintaining a balance in tension with the general. Through all of this they maintain a consistent case that despite repression, and in some case illegality, women found ways to work in, through, around, and despite the system to keep playing sport.
Early in the analysis Elsey & Nadel invoke Walter Mignolo’s caution against unifying or homogenising ‘Latin America’, and although they do not draw out the national distinctions as clearly as they might (if it were a much bigger book) there are clear indications of differences in engagements with the church, with the ways in which patriarchal dominance manifested itself and with social rules about gendered norms. As such, the analysis is firmly grounded in a feminist outlook but resists the constraints of specific branch of feminist analysis, perhaps because of the very incompleteness of the case and the traces with which they have to work.
Alongside this there is a narrowing of focus as the book and the chronology progress. The opening discussion, focused on Argentina & Chile draws on evidence relating to a wide range of forms of women’s physicality, also invoking the idea of the futbolera not as a footballer, but as a more generic sense of athlete, yet by the time the analysis gets to Central America and specifically Mexico the focus is almost exclusively football. While it may not be the authors’ intention (the opening discussion suggests very much that it is not) the overall effect is a tendency towards the homogenisation of women’s sport across the region. What is more, by the time we get to the final chapter, focused on Mexican women’s football there is a clear change in authorial voice, beginning in the previous chapter exploring evidence from Mexico, Costa Rica and El Salvador. Co-authorship is difficult, especially when it comes to consistency of voice, but I get the feeling that the difference here is lead authorship, not cases or differences resulting from the evidence (this is not a criticism; I know from my own co-authored work how difficult/impossible this distinction is to iron out).
These issues of inconsistency of voice and of shifting focus with a tendency to homogeneity are questions of the overall tone of aesthetic quality (and therefore readability and editorial decisions) of the text. They do not undermine the extent to which Elsey & Nadel achieve their intended outcome to “record and situate the traces” of women’s sport or to suggest important “new areas of research”. On both fronts they have succeeded admirably much as I am inspired by the cases they draw out I am more inspired by the silences – the absence of explicit treatment of Indigenous women, the difficulties of exploring class as a factor (despite the authors’ efforts), the sports that seem to disappear in a setting (as is the case for much research into histories of women’s sport) where all we have are traces of might have been.
All in all, this is a highly recommended, well presented, carefully crafted case. This is an essential text for the field, but don’t go into expecting definitive answers, look instead for indications of what might have also been going on – while reading the text, don’t forget to read the necessary silences!