A critical Marxist analysis of figurational theories justification of pain and injury within boxing.
Pain and injury has existed as a part of sports for thousands of years. However it is only recently that sociologist have begun to explore pain and injury from a sociological perspective. Most of the research that has been conducted in the field of pain and injury was primarily concerned with the bio-medical model and viewed pain and injury from a physiological perspective. Although little research exists from the social sciences this essay will aim to draw from the wealth and bio-medical research as wall as the limited sociological research to provide evidence that the civilising process described by Norbert Elais (1982) and is explicit in the formation of figurational theory fails to adequately justify the deliberate and intended infliction of pain and injury within the sport of boxing.
This contextualist approach, which views pain injury as a culture will attempt to prove that it is in fact a perceived civilising process that has taken place, created by the upper classes to enable the continued exploitation of working class boxers.
The socio-cultural nature of pain and injury can be related to its historical roots. Throughout history evidence of violent sports have existed in which pain and injury were the sole aim. Sport has often been used as a method to train for war in which the primary objective is to cause pain and injury to the highest degree. A number of sociological perspectives have attempted to rationalise pain and injury such as Hargreaves (1982) a recognised Marxist sociologist who suggests that sport has provided a method socialising a docile work force to accept pain and injury without question. Others such as Jane Hargreaves (1994) takes a feminist approach and suggests that sport was created for men by men. Regardless of the avenue that sport takes place, evidence suggest men have created an arena (sport) in which society...