Who's your role model? Accepted violence in hockey.

Who’s your role model? Accepted violence in hockey.
Lloyd W. Alexander
Southern Maine Community College




Online Intro to Sociology
Mr. Dana Hardacker
May 1st, 2007




Who’s your role model? Accepted violence in hockey.
Grace, power, speed, beauty, and intensity can be found in a normal society on any given day. Our societies have structure and hierarchy. We find the social structures and hierarchy in professional sports such as ice hockey. In professional ice hockey there are laws and rules to be followed within the game just like in other social structures. Hockey is reflective of society and the roles within society as the players, coaches, owners all have positions in the game. The players even have subcultures among themselves in the form of roles on the team.

The perspectives of sociology can be applied to the violence and aggression in ice hockey and begin to show us how the pieces fit into place within this society. In hockey, there are people who enforce the rules of the game, written and unwritten, and people who break them. There are gangs, bullies, and leaders in society as well as in professional ice hockey. There are many similarities between these two groups, however the acceptance of violence in one society is much different than in the other. In professional ice hockey aggression and violence is actually encouraged by the people in power (the owners and coaches), cheered by other members of society (the fans), and also a way for some (enforcers) to make a living. The National Hockey League (NHL) has in fact created a society where certain violent or aggressive acts are legal or punished lightly because they are “part of the game” of hockey. A judge in an infamous stick swinging incident concluded that “the game can’t be played without what normally are called assaults.” (Lapchick, 1986, p.223) These very same offenses would result in time spent in jail and/or fines if they occurred outside the boundaries of the sport of ice hockey. The “community subgroup rational” is the recognition that law enforcement authorities tolerate certain illegal activities conducted by members of a definable group, because the illegal activities are widespread in the group and because group members look upon them less seriously than does society in general. (Lapchick, 1986, p.222)

The functionalist perspective assumes that any society takes its particular form because that form works well for the society, or helps to preserve the society, given its particular situation. (Farley, 2003, p.43) Ice hockey is a major sport throughout much of the World and here in North America is the top league for players to participate in this sport. The highest salaries are here in the NHL with teams in the United States and Canada. The rules have hardly changed over the years for the sport of ice hockey. The referees are calling the same penalties they did years ago and only the enforcement of the rules seems to change over time. New rules are few and far between. For the functionalist perspective violence and aggression in hockey is an accepted part of the game because it works in the society of hockey. It has its roots in the history of the game. Interdependency within each team also helps to promote violence and aggression. Players have roles on the team and all of the roles are needed to have the right chemistry to win games and achieve the goal of winning the Stanley Cup, the trophy awarded to the champion at the end of the Playoffs. On a team there are players whose job is to score goals and make plays to get their team ahead of the other team. There are also players who take on the role of keeping the other team from scoring. The best of these players get paid more and are the elite of the game. They stay away from the violence and aggression of the sport while excelling in the finesse, speed, and beauty of the game. The other team uses tactics to try and throw these players off of their games and sometimes these tactics cross the line. Players need enforcers (policemen, army grunts, and hit men) to make sure that their team’s finesse players are protected from the other team’s enforcers. The fact that the management of team recruit “policemen,” suggests that they subscribe to former Toronto Maple Leaf owner Con Smythe’s adage that: “You can’t beat them on the ice if you can’t beat them in the alley. (Widmeyer & Birch, 1984, p.78) Keeping this balance is important for all teams and provides various positions for players to acquire according to their own abilities. Each player serves his function and their roles are defined even more by knowing the expectations of their teammates or coaches for each individual game. Consensus and cooperation (Farley, 2003, p.45) fits into ice hockey as well on many levels. The team needs its players to cooperate if they have any hope of obtaining the Stanley Cup. This also means that players must agree to a code of conduct that is acceptable among one another on the team. The consensus of how much violence or aggression is expected from the team or players for the next game against a certain opponent. It is sometimes spelled out that aggression is expected against a certain player to throw him off of his game. Other times it may be required to settle a grudge or perceived injustice from another game against the same club. This is consistent with Durkheim’s belief that people who share things in common are more likely to cooperate which he called solidarity. (Farley, 2003, p.45) Players either perform their roles or will be sent down to a lower level league which results in a loss of money and prestige. The roles will be filled by a player who will do whatever it takes to stay in the top league. If the athlete who has performed well for a team begins to slip in performance, we should expect to see this athlete replaced by a better athlete, i.e., a better commodity. The athlete who is replaced will be traded or retired just as any other commodity that no longer has use value. (Crone, 1999, p.331)

This also promotes aggression and violence in hockey. Your job is only as secure as how you fill it in the next opportunity on the ice. There are many practical implications of this research that must be addressed as well. Most importantly, the finding suggest that hockey, especially for players in highly competitive leagues, has the potential for producing spillover effects of violence. Attention must be paid to the messages that the acceptance of fighting portrays, messages that may lead to illegitimate acts of violence elsewhere. Too often, if seems, attention is focused solely on the violence within the game rather than the possible short-term and long-term spillover effects and the conditions producing these effects. (Bloom & Smith, 1996, p.75)

Robert Merton argued that societies may have dysfunctions among them. In professional ice hockey fighting is allowed and the role of enforcer is one that exists because of this very dysfunction. In other levels of hockey fighting is treated with harsh consequences and in some levels is outright banned. It brings the cliché, “Fighting is a part of the game.” to the forefront. Is it a dysfunction of the NHL? Hockey is a contact sport and emotions may run high at certain points in the game between the teams. Some see this violence and aggression as a way to release the frustrations building up during the game play. There are other rough contact sports that do not allow fighting and one must ask why the NHL allows this dysfunction when it would not be allowed outside of the game. NHL players are role models and children not only aspire to be the elite player, but they also aspire to be the tough guy as well. In a study conducted by Bernie Pascall the idea of good or bad role models produced the following passage:

Role Models- Beau ideal, or Bad Idea?
Few violent acts in sport are the result of sudden outbursts (see Appendix 1, Causes of Aggression). If that were the case, we’d see substantially more incidents of physical abuse and overly aggressive acts in all of sports, from rhythmic gymnasts to ten-pin bowling. Violence and aggression are much more than responses to frustration and outlets for “letting out steam.” Fifty percent of survey respondents when asked if violence is “a part of the game” said this statement was somewhat true; another 12 percent said they strongly believe in this statement. Notwithstanding that a certain level of aggression is necessary or desirable in any competitive environment, this “violence is part of the game” social conditioning is somewhat unique to hockey. For the most part, particularly in the sport of hockey, aggression and violence is learned behavior – cultivated and nurtured by a number of influences, not the least of which are the very role models that young players are exposed to – parents, coaches, other players, and professional athletes. It is a self fulfilling prophecy. (Pascall, 2000, p.18)

The dysfunction of fighting and violence in hockey has been accepted for many decades. Aggression may be learned from observing others. In particular, the learner notes whether a model’s aggression was successful or unsuccessful in helping him achieve a goal and whether the model’s aggression was rewarded or punished. (Russell, 1993, p.190) Children learn this behavior in hopes of being like their heroes on the ice.

Another macro sociological perspective is the conflict perspective, which according to Farley is “different groups in society have conflicting self-interests, and the nature of the society is determined by the outcome of the conflict among these groups.”(Farley, 2003, p.46) In any level of hockey the most precious thing to a player is the amount of time he gets to play during a game, also known as ice time. There is only so much ice time in a game and thus it is a scarce resource that all players covet. As the player develops and moves through the levels of ice hockey the amount of ice time they get begins to evolve according to their talents. The best players get the most ice time and the other players have to find roles to fill to get their time on the ice. Both officials (coaches, managers, and scouts) and aficionados of the game see NHL team rosters as being composed of skill and physical players. Skill players are perceived to be those whose performance depends on superior skating speed and quickness and passing and shooting ability. In contrast, the physical player brings a degree of physical aggression – a degree of violence – to the game. Euphemistically, this player is known as a mucker, grinder, banger, and enforcer (goon or policeman), whose métier is the exercise of force during a game. He is, by analogy, the spear carrier, the foot soldier, the grunt, in the hockey-as-war scenario. (Jones, Nadeau & Walsh, 1997, p.192) In the NHL these players have made it to the top level of the game and make hundreds of thousands of dollars and in some cases millions per year. The second key independent variable is the increased emphasis on extrinsic rewards such as money, power (authority), and prestige. People are socialized to want these resources. Yet, these resources are in limited supply. Hence, there is competition for and even conflict over the attainment of these resources. When there is a greater emphasis on attaining resources in limited supply, we should expect to observe various forms of innovative deviance.

In sport, we should observe the following kinds of innovative deviance in order to gain extrinsic rewards: the use of violence, the breaking of rules of the game such as holding and pushing, and the increasing illegal use of performance enhancing drugs such as steroids and amphetamines. (Crone, 1999, p.330)

For some this is where the road turns towards being an aggressive player in hopes to get noticed by the coach and to get playing time. The coveted ice time though is very low for the majority of players that would fall into this role. Some see as few as a handful of minutes per game if their role is not needed in that game. This is tolerated as they have made it to the top league and the prospects of returning to a lower league and hoping to acquire the skills to become a top player are not realistic.

In the setting of the league, teams want to win the championship and there is only one champion, the pinnacle of hierarchy, among all the teams. Each team has the same chance at acquiring the scarce resource of the championship which symbolizes power and prestige above all other clubs, owners, coaches, and players. All teams start the season with the same goal and each team wants to keep the other team from reaching that goal. The status quo is never good enough for any team except the one team who won the last championship, but even for them it is a battle to keep the title they won the previous season. Nothing is given and all must battle for the title. This creates roles on each team that need to be filled to help defeat the other teams in this bid for the scarce resource. If the opposing team has an elite player who can play really well, then you may feel the need to have two elite players for your team or maybe one elite and one enforcer who can take the other team’s elite player off of his game to out match your opponent. In order to remain competitive, other teams will want fill these roles as well as to not fall behind in the competitive balance. The roles now become defined on each team in the league and on the individual team itself as each player vies for his spot in the quest for the championship. The role of enforcer becomes important as now you want a player who will protect your scarce resources on the team, the elite players. The prized players must be protected as if they were gold. They are your hope to the power and prestige. The thought that one groups gain is another group’s loss is inline with the NHL and the quest for the Stanley Cup.

Among the players there are large differences in how much time a player gets to play in the game. Within a team, those who receive a lot of ice time have different feelings then the players who do not receive a lot of ice time. The top players are the top ice time winners and thus view the need for the enforcer’s role as limited in nature. Some even wish to abolish fighting in the game and in turn there wouldn’t be a need for a role such as enforcer and it would create more available ice time for other players. The enforcers though would tell you a different story as they want more ice time to be sure they keep the other team on their toes and to be sure the opposing team does not take liberties with their teammates. This sometimes creates conflict between players on a team as well.

The NHL must also listen to the fans of the game as they have the resource wanted by all to keep the league functioning. Media, in the rush for Nielsen ratings and subscriptions, at times glorifies what they feel “sells”. And more and more, what sells is violence. (Pascall, 2000, p.32) The money the fans spend on the game is what allows the game to exist in its current state. If the fans leave and take their money with them then the game would change and the power and money of the owners would diminish and so would that of the players. The fans have complained over the years about the game being slowed by non-aggressive penalties such as hooking, holding, and also some defensive tactics that are used to prevent goals. The idea is to score fewer goals and be able to win with a team that may not have as many elite players. The fans complained and the league struck a new agreement with the players association on changes to the game to speed it up and hopefully allow more goal scoring. The fans are attracted to the beauty and the grace of the game but also to the violence of the game. A concern though was the possible loss of fighting or enforcers in this and while their roles have diminished a little they are still “a part of the game”. Fan pressures and influences also promote aggression and violence because the reinforcement through cheering and positive comments is extremely appealing to the athletes. (Pappas, McKenry & Catlett, 2004, p.302) Fighting still happens in the game and the only change to the rulebook for fighting was to punish a clear instigator of a fight and to punish a coach if a fight happens in the closing minutes of the game. This rule change barely had an effect on the fights in a game and only aims to control wild melees at the end of games that could be seen as a black eye for the game itself and feed opponents of violence in hockey. The fans are a resource the league must listen too from time to time.

Sociologists may agree or disagree on the point of both conflict perspective and functionalist perspective being able to both be right in a society. I believe in the society of ice hockey it is clear that both do exist. It is a matter of the reality in which you see the game and how it fits into each perspective. Neither perspective captures all of the elements in professional ice hockey and the aggression within the game. It is dynamic as all societies are and many pieces can be seen in various ways as each person’s reality shapes their views on violence in professional ice hockey.

The symbolic-interactionist theory brings us closer to an individual to see what his or her reaction is to the larger society. Rules, messages, and situations are presented to us all and it is important how we interpret them in our reality. In some cases the expectations or interpretations are clear and in others we must simply interpret them to the best of our abilities or realities. The professionally ice hockey player is no different in that he will encounter rules, situations, and even messages on the ice that he must interpret to perform in the game. The ability of the player to adapt to the game is important to his success and to his team’s success. The input into the game will come from teammates, coaches, referees, and even fans. The players need to interpret all of the information properly to be successful. In some cases blocking things out is the best way to handle a message given. The same message can be interpreted different ways on the ice itself. For example, if an elite player gets tugged with a stick he will likely interpret it as the other team trying to throw him off of his game and simply try to play beyond the tug. His reality is different than that of the enforcer on the team who would likely interpret the very same tug in a much different way. The enforcer’s reality is different than the elite player and he would likely believe it was a challenge to him which would likely elicit an aggressive response. The social construction of reality is very different for each player in the game. The way they interpret is based on their own realities in the game of ice hockey. It can be coached to a player that the appropriate response to a situation is supposed to be a certain reaction, but the reality for the player on the ice is different. A referee has the job of taking rules and interpreting the words into actions in front of him on the ice. His reality will be based on his own subjectivity and experience in games, instruction from the league office, and his reality of that particular day and that particular moment. He may see the same thing happen in a game but his angle to the play or his feel for the game may determine if it is a penalty or not. An enforcer is on the ice to create some action in the aggressive sense and he knows this is his role on the hockey team. He is on the ice to check or hit the other team and pump some energy into his team while hopefully taking some away from the other team. His reality on the ice is different each time he get son the ice as his thoughts and reactions to certain players are certainly different. If the crowd is pumped and yelling the enforcers name then his perceived reality is likely different and the Thomas theorem is in place to explain how the situation is real for the enforcer and thus his actions will follow this new reality as defined by him. The fact of rather the crowd truly wants him to fight or just wants to cheer him is not relevant as only his interpretation of it is his reality and thus his consequences are based on that new reality. An ethnomethodoligists would see this as the player creating his own social reality in that very moment. The ethnomethodologist would also lead us to believe that while a coach is giving a pep talk in a locker room to twenty players that each player is interpreting the words and message based on their own realities. Each brings different realities to the interpretation of the message being given by the coach. The player’s roles differ on the club and their experiences that they bring to the interpretation come from different realities as well.

Charles Horton Cooley believed in the looking-glass self and this also has a place in ice hockey. Players are told of their roles as they develop as a player. Coaches, fans, owners, referees, and sports writers all contribute to the image of the player and to how the player sees himself. This defines what type of players and the player’s value to his team. He interprets all of this information into his reality and his look-glass self image or perception. This also based on his own interpretation of those views in forming his own thoughts of himself. If the media writes how tough a player is then it is likely he will believe that and it may shape his reality. On the ice this may be reflected in a change in play towards more aggression. The same could be true if the perception is that he is weak or not tough enough. Courage, toughness, and a willingness to fight are examples of ways in which players earn respect. Respect is lost if a player backs down, shows lack of heart, “no guts”, and/or “chicken out”. (Loughead & Leith, 2001, p.404) He may interpret that as a challenge to be tougher or may back away even more from confrontations to shape the reality even more towards the image. In the game of ice hockey when two enforcers are on the ice together it is an example of the self-fulfilling prophecy as both players usually find each other and end up in some sort of altercation. It may be as simple a solid check to the other enforcer but it may lead to a fist fight as well. Escalation effects show an initial provocation draws a slightly stronger response, with that response in turn drawing a further, slightly stronger, retaliation. (Russell, 1993, p.191) The simple fact that they are on the ice together seems to always draw them towards one another as if they were two magnets.

The dramaturgical perspective argues that in each role we fill that we are trying to fulfill it in a particular way that we believe would bring a positive response from others. Enforcers fill their roles in this way as they try to interpret what is going on in the game. Is it time for me to throw a big check? Is it time for me to be aggressive? Is it time to try to fight? The players interpretation of the game and his perception of the needs of the team and fans desires causes him to try and decide how best to fill his role in a positive way at that moment during the game. Smith (1979b) found that displays of toughness, courage, and willingness to fight are important means of establishing a positive identity among both peers and coaches in hockey. (Pappas, McKenry & Catlett, 2004, p.294)

The individual players on the teams in the NHL are in a situation where each player needs his teammates. They fit the exchange theory in that all roles on the team must be filled and while it is likely that some players perceive themselves as superior than some of their teammates they must work together to reach the ultimate goal of the Stanley Cup. The enforcer needs the scorer to score goals and the scorer needs the enforcer to keep the other team from hurting him. Together they work towards a goal that otherwise may not be met.

Sociologists have used the concept of “role” as a way of designating the expectations, duties, and privileges which accrue to the holder of a position in the social organization. To be a mother, a father, or a child is to assume a set of opportunities and responsibilities connected with those statuses. (Gusfield, 2000, p.64) There are good role models in sports for our children to aspire to be, but there are also some we should have concern that our children would consider as role models as well. The enforces are emulated by the younger players learning the sport of hockey and some of the behavior in the National Hockey League fits a dysfunctional role model. The rules are different for the two and that leads to the role of an enforcer in professional ice hockey. Certain assaultive practices in sports, though technically illegal both under the law of the land and of the sport in question, are accepted by sports people and legal authorities as “part of the game. (Lapchick, 1986, p.223) This is an accepted part of the sport but clearly this behavior would not be acceptable in society outside of the sports boundaries. The fact that youth look to some of these enforcers as role models should be a cause for concern. Aggression and violence in hockey is a learned behavior and we can help the children unlearn this behavior by changing the behavior from the top of the game down. Is there a better way to handle violence and aggression in ice hockey? Yes, harsh penalties would serve as formal sanctions and hopefully lead to informal sanctions to further strengthen the change in accepted levels of aggression and violence in hockey. The enforcers have roles on their teams and act the way they do because it is accepted and the rules of the National Hockey League allow for the behavior. If the role exists then someone will fill the role. If the role does not exist then the valuable and coveted ice time will be filled in a different way. As one parent said “Kids aren’t born to be violent, they are shown to be violent.”



References
Bloom, G. A., & Smith, M. D. (1996). “Hockey violence: A test of cultural spillover theory.” Sociology of Sport Journal, 13, 65-77.
Crone, J. A. (1999, September 1).”Toward a Theory of Sport.” Journal Of Sport Behavior, 22(3), 321-340.
Farely, J. E. (2003). Sociology. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Gusfield, J. R. (2000, June 1). “Sport as story: Form and content in athletics.” Qualitative Sociology, 4(3)(1981), 63-70.
Jones, J. C. H., Ferguson, D. G., & Stewart, K. G. (1993, January 1). “Blood sports and cherry pie: Economics of violence in the national hockey league.” American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 52(1), 63-78.
Jones, J. C. H., Nadeau, S., & Walsh, W. D. (1997, June 1). “The wages of sin: Employment and salary effects of violence in the national hockey league.” Atlantic Economic Journal, 25(2), 191-206.
Jones, J. C. H., Stewart, K. G., & Sunderman, R. (1996, April 1). “From the arena into the streets: Hockey violence, economic incentives and public policy.” American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 55(2), 231-243.
Lapchick, R. E. (1986). Fractured focus: Sport as a reflection of society. United States: Lexington Books.
Loughead, T. M., & Leith, L. M. (2001, January 1). “Hockey coaches' and players' perceptions of aggression and the aggressive behaviors of players.” Journal Of Sport Behavior, 24(4), 394-407.
McPherson, D., Curtis, J. E., & Loy, J. W. (1989). The social significance of sport; an introduction to the sociology of sport. Illinois: Human Kinetics Books.
Pappas, N. T., McKenry, P. C., & Catlett, B. S. (2004, January 1). “Athelete aggression on the rink and off the ice: Athlete violence and aggression in hockey and interpersonal relationships.” Men and Masculinities, 6(3), 291-312.
Pascall, B. (2000, May 1). “Eliminating violence in hockey.” British Columbia: Canadian Cataloguing in Publication Data (1-104).
Russell, G. W. (1993). The social psychology of sport. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Widmeyer, W. N., & Birch, J. S. (1984, February 22). “Aggression in professional ice hockey: A strategy for success or a reaction to failure?” The Journal of Psychology, 117, 77-84.