A Thornton Sociology Frisbee

Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta

yl o yl o yl o yl o yl o yl o yl o yl o yl o yl o yl o yl o yl o yl o yl o

ofs ro

n io t u s fo ib & F i r t c r ran dis ofs – N n o r o io p t t r9 & ‘Anyone scan play this game’ bu fo Franci r distri o f s – N difference Ultimate frisbee, r o identity and on o i p t t r & bu s fo i c F r a n Thornton r distri Andrew ofs – N n ro o io p t t r & bu s fo Franci r distri ofs – N n ro o io p t t r & bu s fo Franci r distri Introduction ofs – N Anyone can play this game. ro on o i p t t r & bu s f o (Will/Interview) i c Fran r distri s – players that ‘anyone’ could play It is a common claim made by ‘Ultimate n No o o f frisbee’ r io their game. In this chapter Ipexplore ‘Ultimate players’ struggles over their (atht t u rletic) sidentity. My research shows thatf o and although Ultimate ib & embodiment i r t c F r s r aandn limit identifications with dominant sporting ideals i also d they players reject ofs – N o continue to embrace some of their of identification sugr qualities. This process on o i p t t part of the Ultimate will be able to become rgests& that maybe not ‘everyone’ bu s f i i o r t community. Franc r dis Before examining the identityoconstruction I give some background o f s – process, N r on o then show that Ultimate i about Ultimate frisbee, the basis p structure of play. I will t t u rplayers concerned iwith and cultural s presenting a new and ‘different’ fsporting ib & are o r t c F r s ra n is gender sensitive even egalitarian, rejects extreme d icompetiidentity: one that fs – N o n o tiveness and physical aggression, r and is all-inclusive. Yet, o despite their claims, and io p t t Ultimate largely fails to produce practices and meanings that are beyond u rideals, s f ib the& dominant F r astructures, n c i ideals and practices of existing sports.o r d i s t r ofs – N ro on o i p t t development of Ultimate frisbee rHistorical bu s fo i & F i r t r byda igroup s of r a n1 isc a sport that was invented late in the 1960s ‘Ultimate frisbee’ fs – N o o white, middle-class American rHigh School males in the suburb of Maplewood, on o i 2 p t t Varsity Frisbee u rNew&Jersey. They nameds themselves the ‘Columbia High School f formal ib i o r Squad’ even they, ‘had not played any games, had no team or rules t c F r though r s di an s –jerseys’ (Zagoria 1998). Ultimate2 and someone’s mother had made their o f team n N o r frisbee culture (Johnson o was originally one part of a plarger 1975), but it is now io t t 3 rthe&leading form of ‘disc The sport ofi b u i s sport’, except for perhaps discf golf. o r c F r r n d i sintthe a Ultimate and culture originates in 1967–68 at a time of social turmoil s f – o Vietnam War, United States. It was the time rofothe Civil Rights Movement N the on o i p t in world politics, such ast the heightening of the rand&broader transformations bu s Union. It was a time of ‘high anxiety’ f o for American Cold War with the Soviet i c Fran r distri ofs – N n ro o io p t t r & bu s fo Franci r distri ofs – N n ro o io p t t r & bu fo is tri

yl or

p

No

t

Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta

yl or yl or yl or yl or yl or yl or yl or yl or yl or yl or yl or yl or yl or yl or yl or yl or

ofs ro

n io t u s fo ib & F i r t c r ran dis 176 Andew Thornton ofs – N n o r o is reflected in the guiding io p 1973; 1970). This anxiety t and sporting ideals (Edwards t bu s are expected to embody: fo & F principle(s) players r distri r athat nci ofs – N r o relies upon a spirit on Spirit of the Game: Ultimate oof sportsmanship [sic] which i p t places the responsibility for fair play on the player.t Highly is u s f competitivetplay & encouraged, i rib c never at the expense of mutual respect oamong F r a n but r d players, i s adhero f s – the basic joy of play. Protection of ence to the agreed upon rules n r o of the game, or N o conduct from the Ultimate io p these vital elements serves to eliminate adverse t t u s as taunting of opposing players, dangerous fo ib actions aggression, bel& field. i r t c F rSuch r s n di ligerentaintimidation, intentional s – or other “win-at-all-costs” behaviour o f fouling, n N o are contrary to the spirit rof the game and must be o avoided by all players. io p t t (Ultimate Players Association 2002b)b u s fo & F r distri ranci f s – inNthe formation of Ultimate idenThe ‘Spirit of the Game’, and o its o significance r on o chapter.4 i tities, is the focus of extended p discussion later in the t t u s played in Euro-Western countries, f obut is also quite is primarily ib &Ultimate i t rpopc F r s r i n d a ular in Japan. In total there may be as many 150,000–200,000 participants – as ofs n N onumber of players, teams and worldwide. The United States r ocontains the largest io p t 5 t leagues, though the Canadian cities of Toronto, Vancouver and Ottawa all con- u s f ib & very tain c i organised leagues. There is a range ofo local, F rlarge r dnational i s t rand a nwell s – (‘open’), women’s, ‘mixed’, youth, international competitions comprised No o o f of men’s r on i and masters divisions. Ultimate is largely self-funding through the payment of p t t bu league and s tournament fees. fo i & Fmembership i r t r a n ccommunity’s process of identification is in rpartdaccomplished is The Ultimate fs – N o o by projecting what are broadly r considered to be the on o ‘negative’ aspects of sport i p t t onto other players and identities such as American football and or ice hockey. u s fis orejected, in principle, ib & example, i For physical aggression and intimidation c F r a direct r n distr and Ultimate players are expected o ftosnot –tauntNother players as is common in n ro o other qualities are supposthese ‘other’ sports. Thesep‘unsporting’ behaviours and io t t u edly of Ultimate will show that s identities and culture. The chapter fo ib & outside i r t c F r s r i n d a Ultimate players’ identities sublimate or suppress those characteristics that are – N and or black sporting bodo f ofsworking-class o normally associated with stereotypes r on o i p ies and identities. Ultimate players appear both tot reject and celebrate the u t f o ‘black’ sports.t r i b & F aggression i swhat are nominally working-class and physical r dis r a n c of One way of analysing Ultimateocould it to historical precedents f s be –to compare n N o r For example, the o‘Spirit of the Game’ seems to in mainstream sports and pideals. io t t u reflect the idea of a ‘gentleman’s [sic] agreement’ that is similar s f o to the earlyt rules ib & F i r c r s di an of Englishr football: ofs – N o r on p that a player wouldointentionally It was never even thought do anything to u t i t s f o and that twas ib & hurt F ranaopponent. r d i s r an n c i Such conduct would be ‘ungentlemanly’, unpardonable offence; […]othe f slowering – N of self-control to depths of o something on ungentlemanly conductrwas which o could not be tolerated. i p t t in Collwell 2000: 202) u (Elleray cited b s fo & F i c r distri ran ofs – N n ro o io p t t u s fo ib & F i r t c r s ran di ofs – N n o r o io p t t bu fo & is tri

p

No

t

Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta

yl o yl o yl o yl o yl o yl o yl o yl o yl o yl o yl o yl o yl o yl o yl o

ofs ro

n io t u s fo ib & F i r t c r ran dis can play this game’ 177 o f s – ‘Anyone n N o r o io p t Another way of analysing Ultimate would be to situate itt in previous research on rthe&nature and meaningsof ‘alternative’ sport. In an age when bu f o sport culturest are Franci r dis ri supposed to be increasingly commercialised, and globalised o f s – ‘McDonaldised’ N o 1999) it is important to r oMiles 1998; Maguire on (McDonald and Andrews 2001; i p t or b u rnote&that Ultimate was sfounded on and continues to bet defined f o by rejecting i c iof these broader cultural processes. Beal’s Fra r(1995) str going against thenflow d iresearch s – culture was formed through the o f (sport) on skateboarding shows how another n N ro io p corporatisation. Beal osuggests rejection of standardisation and that skateboarding t t rhas&been transformed from bu s what was essentially an aesthetic f oplay form, defined Franci r distri by its anti-establishment ethos, intooa competitive f s – and corporate sport and comn modity. However, the activity rofoskateboarding asNBeal o points out has not been io p t t co-opted by standardisation and corporatisation (see also Beal and b u rentirely s fo i & ,Fthis volume). Wilson r d i cash s t rin r a n c i However, its commercial form does interestingly s – o f skateboarding on the ‘style’ and ‘attitude’ whichomade N oan ‘alternative’ activity in r on i the first place. Ultimate though and as such represents p was established as a sport t t ra different s does contain a similar ethos of ‘being f o alternative’.t r i b u but & F social form, i c r d i s with r n a However the central purpose of thisf chapter not to draw comparisons o s – is N n o other sports, but rather to drawr attention to the waysoin which players are strugio p t t to position themselves within and against not only sporting ideals but u rgling s f ib & cultural r t broader ideals sport c i and issues. Where Gruneau (1983) haso argued Fran r d that s i f s –of social mobilises middle-class biases in the relations I would extend oformation N o r simultaneously mobilises on o i his argument to suggest thatpsport racial, sexual, bodily t t rand&gender biases. bu s fo i i r t Franc r dis ofs – N o r on o Constructing identity and i p difference t t r & bu f o of Ultimate tculi s attention to three dominant aspects In this chapter, c draw F r a Inwill r dis ri s been – anNopen and ongoing concern in ture. The first is gender politics, which o fhas n r o of the Game’, which o is a code of conduct that Ultimate. The second is the p ‘Spirit io t t ris intended Ultimate players’ from extreme competitiveness. The lasti b u s fo & F to separate i c r str r i n a the meaning and importance of Ultimate players’dcelebration section will address s f – o of ‘laying out’ or ‘going ho’ which to describe the physical act of r ois a phrase used N on o i p t t Gender equality has to the ground to either catch or intercept the disc. rdiving bu s issue in Ultimate and is one signf ofo its anti-establishi & been i always an important r t Franc r dis ment ‘alternative’ character. However, apparent through an – become o f sit will n N o r analysis of Spirit of the Game io p and ‘going ho’ thato tUltimate identifications t u rexpress more s than gender. fo ib & aFconcern with i r t c r s n chapter is on the processes of identity construction dandi thus if I a the The focusr of s and – identities o fsports n were to produce a typology of ‘different’ it would suggest a staNo ro io p exist. As this chapter contends, t bility of identity that does not Ultimate identities t rdon't bu s f o They are t‘mix & fit neatly F r ainto r dis ri n canyi existing categories, histories and discourses. and match,’ and are culturally and historically s –contingent. In order to understand NI begin o o f identities on the ambivalence that structuresrUltimate o from the position that i p t t sport forms are always engage with sportingsforms in constrained ways because rwe & bu fo i c F r a nthrough practices and notions of social difference. r distri already structured ofs – N n ro o io p t t r & bu s fo Franci r distri ofs – N n ro o io p t t r & bu fo is tri

yl or

p

No

t

Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta

yl or yl or yl or yl or yl or yl or yl or yl or yl or yl or yl or yl or yl or yl or yl or yl or

ofs ro

n io t u s fo ib & F i r t c r ran dis 178 Andrew Thornton ofs – N o r on o p here as an organising feature Difference is understood t of how we know about u t i b f o Identity ist based & world the how of power and identity are organised. is c relations F rand r dis ri n a on the construction of difference. o In fthe of marking the limits, boundaries s process – N o construct on and ‘inside’ of an identity weralso its outside. o What is outside is not coni p t t sidered as part of the theb u s identity. However, it makes sense f o to argue that i & i c ‘outside’ is a constitutive or defining aspect F r a ofn the r ofdidentity. construction i s t rThe f s –can N o ‘outer’ construction of an ‘inner’ ando an be seen as a binary opposition. n r o opposition is usually the io p that one side of a binary Jacques Derrida (1974) argues t t u s that includes the other in its field fofooperation. For examib dominant & F one, thec one i r t r s r a and i that the n ‘irrational’ appear as obvious opposites, but we can d see ple, ‘rational’ ofs – N n o rational has the power to define as an external, extrar and position the irrational o io p t t neous, aberrant feature in Westernb u s of the dominant identity. Forf example, & F the irrational o rthe drational ri cultures r a n c i is rarely granted the power to define i s t (Hall s – 1997). No oof r on i Identity then must always or beyond it is virtually p be unstable as what is outside t t bu spre-determined. Thus identity formation f o is always a process endless be & Fand cannot i tri c r s r i n d a not only of inclusion, but active ongoing s exclusion and the drawing and policing n N o (1986) and Stuart Hall have o o f Homi–Bhabha of boundaries. Jacques Derrida r (1974), io p t t all noted that the processes of identification are structured in ambivalence. u s fo ib & F i r t c r s ran di f s be – Difference is ambivalent. bothN positive and negative. It is both oIt can o r of meaning, the formation on o i necessary for the production of language and culp t t bu for social identities and a subjective sense of thefself a sexed subjectr[…] s i & ture, i o t c time it is threatening, a site of danger, negative F at r d ifeelings, s r athensame and of fs – N o o splitting, hostility and aggression towards the Other. r on o i p t t (Hall 1997: 238) u s fo ib & F i c r ran distr f s ideals, – Nbodies, embodiments which are In the formation of any identity o those n r o are also embraced o and rejected in a process of constructed as different, asp Other io t t disavowal: bu s fo & F r distri ranci o f sform–of knowledge No [Disavowal] … is a non-repressive that allows for the posro on i p t sibility of simultaneously embracing two contradictory beliefs, one official, u t b s f o the myth of origins, & one i secret, one archaic, one progressive, one that allows Franc r distri the other that articulates difference o f s and– division. n No ro (Bhabha 1986: 168) io p t t u s fo ib & F i r t c r s r afocus n on those words, ideals, images and actions that seem d i to engenThus I will f s –as they der moments of ambivalencer and N oarise in Ultimate culture. o odisavowal on p my continued participation This chapter is based on t in Ultimate as well as u t i s and observations that were partf o & F conversations interviews, of my rib r doctoral ranci i s tdisserd tation (Thornton 1998). The research based on the theory and o f s was–conducted N o I have participated in ro on methods of ‘critical ethnography’ (Thomas 1993). i p t u Ultimate as a player sfor over ten years in Canada,t America f o and the United ib & F However, t r the r here Kingdom. r a n c ithe majority of the empirical data presented d iissfrom ofs – N n ro o io p t t u s fo ib & F i r t c r s ran di ofs – N n o r o io p t t bu fo & is tri

p

No

t

Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta

yl o yl o yl o yl o yl o yl o yl o yl o yl o yl o yl o yl o yl o yl o yl o

ofs ro

n io t u s fo ib & F i r t c r ran dis can play this game’ 179 o f s –‘Anyone n N o r o io t Canadian Ultimate scene. pA number of researchers thave conducted critical u rethnographies s fo ib & F methodc i sport cultures, bringing similar theoretical r and str r aonnother i d ological commitments to the analysis of ssport–cultures. (Klein 1993; Beal 1995; N Tomlinson o o fWheaton on Fine 1987; Hilbert 1997; Polskyr 1967; and 1998). o i p t t r & bu s fo i Franc r distri How the game is played ofs – N n ro o two teams of seven playio p sport normally played by Ultimate is a non-contact disc t t rers.&Ultimate players uses the term ‘disc’ to describe the ‘frisbees’ bu f o that they tplay Franci r dis ri with. Although widely used in common – N frisbee is a registered tradeo f svernacular n mark that refers to a range of flying r o (sports) discs. The odiscs that are normally used io p t t players are not actually ‘frisbees’. The standard disc Ultimate players b u rby Ultimate fo is ri use & – theF‘175 Professional Sportdisc’ – is similar rin design r aGram n cUltra-Star d i stot the s original trademarked frisbee (Ultimate 2002a). This is one No o o f Players– Association r on i reason why players regularlypdrop the frisbee half of the name and call the game t t u r‘Ultimate’. s themselves from people whof merely ‘play withrai b & F Players distinguish i or d t c s r i n a frisbee’ in their back yard or on the beach – use of the term ‘disc’. Ultimate is o f sby the n generally played outdoors on grass r o fields similar in Nsizeo to American football, but io p t t rcan&be played on any flatsopen space and is played indoors asfwell. The first gamesi b u or distr of Ultimate c i on a paved parking lot (Johnson 1975). F rwere a nplayed s f – points. The object of the game is to oscore o goals or N o A goal is scored when a r zone that the player on i player catches the disc in thepend istattacking. End zones are t rrectangle bu either with s end of the playing field that aref marked i & Flike areas cat ieach o r t s r aand n or small orange plastic cones. The disc must ber passed d i through boundary lines fs – N o o the air from player to player. Players cannot hand theodisc to their team mates as r on i p t t their feet to pass the in rugby and American football. Nor can they use u ris done s f othe disc to a team ib i r disc&and F they cannot intentionally re-direct (or ‘mack’ or ‘tip’) t c r ran dis – allowed mate. Like basketball and netball,oplayers to run while holding the o f sare not n N r o disc around the field. disc. Throwing or passing it to io p another player moves the t t u r The may be passed s in any direction. Any time a passfisoincomplete, interib & disc i r t c F r s r i n d occurs, a down, or contacts an out-of-bounds area, a turnover cepted, knocked fs – N o the o resulting in an immediate change of team in possession of the disc. This is r on o i p t t the game has a conto how play proceeds in basketball and soccer. Thus rsimilar s f ointerpretationst rofi b u & Fflow to it.c Players i tinuous make their own ‘calls’ and r dis ran s – on whether or not a player has infractions of the rules. They also make o f decisions n N o r gone out of bounds in order to io p catch the disc. Players odotnot wait until the ‘whist u rtle & blows’ as is the case sin sports with referees and line judges. f o They make calls ib i r t c F r s n of the play. di a flow from withinrthe f sUltimate. – NThe major reason why there n There are no referees in ther game o o of o io p t are no referees is that the originators of the sport were consciously rejecting their t u ruse & s fo and meaning rib c i referees are a central feature of mainstream F r a nbecause r dsports. i s tThe sentiment that is popularised in Ultimate – isNthat referees open up the way o f scircles r oget away with breaking on to not playing fair because one can o the rules if it is not seen i p t t of responsibil- b u rby a&referee. Thus, in ideal s terms, Ultimate players put the burden f i i c F play ity for fair in the lap of each and every player. o r d i s t r r asquarely n ofs – N n ro o io p t t r & bu s fo Franci r distri ofs – N n ro o io p t t r & bu fo is tri

yl or

p

No

t

Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta

yl or yl or yl or yl or yl or yl or yl or yl or yl or yl or yl or yl or yl or yl or yl or yl or

ofs ro

n io t u s fo ib & F i r t c r ran dis 180 Andrew Thornton ofs – N n o r o io t Ambivalence in genderpdifference t u fo ib & F is r t c r s r i n d a I want to begin the discussion of gender difference by examining the ways in o f s – N and structuring of the seemwhich gender comes into play r oin the interpretation on o i p t ingly mundane aspects of playing a game of Ultimate. Ultimate players’ u t b s to conflate gendered (social) flimitations & F of gender awareness tends i o tri r d and ranc i s biology as the bases of difference(s) in male performance. Although I f s female – athletic o and n No r o to gender identification focus on the ‘lay out’ in relation here, it carries signifiio p t t cance beyond just gender chapter to an analysisb u s identity. I will return later in thef o & i ri c F r and s tdifferof the meanings r a n attached to the lay out to illustrate that class d irace s – N of ences, in particular, are also central players’ identities. n r o features of Ultimate o player is their ability to io p One of the most important signifiers of an Ultimate t t bu s f o it is talked about throw & F‘the flick’ (also c i called a ‘forehand’). The ways in which r d i s t r iin r n a Ultimate culture suggests it is anoactf where s –dominance and gender difference is N othe unacceptable, the inadeembodied. It is, I would argue, r o an act of locating on i p t quate, and the undesirable: the Other of Ultimate: t bu s fo & F i c r distri ran f sthe standard – N backhand beach-bimbo toss, […] more difficult to master than n oo r o repeated practice to perfect. io this tiny little wrist movement can take years of p t t u s in the game and otherwise. Once f o it is learned, is essentiali both the ib & But r t c F r s r can a ngo to a park and signal to other disc owners that hed ori she is not player ofs – N just a casual Frisbee catcher, r o but also an Ultimate on o player i p t female Ultimate player) u t (Lind 1992: 12; b s fo & F i r distri ranc s Although written with considerable player, this is an insighto o fsarcasm–by aNfemale r on o sporting embodiment and i ful point about Ultimate pplayers’ identifications and t t u the in which gender s norms are operating in Ultimate f oculture. The label iofb & ways i r t c F r s r a npositions non-players and ‘non-flickers’ as weak, silly d i feminised ‘beach-bimbo’ fs – N o n o (i.e. ‘bimbo’) subjects. And within Ultimate circleso(in games and tournaments) r io p t t one of the first things that players watch for is how well someone throws their u ib & ‘He’s i s is a comment I often heard on the ffield o rat least flick. F r got s t r less d iamong a nnocflick’ f s of–competition, skilled teams. More generally, at one assesses the entire o levels No o all r on make-up of opponents’ throwing skills. This practice is used both as a strategic i p t t ploy, as a way of of playing the bu slocating others in their lack of experience fo i & and i r t c r d community. r quite is a n clearly game. F It is a way of identifying outsiders to the Ultimate fs – N o o Thus an act of athletic skillr is not merely a matter of technical precision, it is on o i p t t always also a sign of one’s position in a hierarchy of power, and the creation of an u s fo & F Other. Inc this rib (abject) r then r a n i instance, the Other of Ultimate identity d i sis tprominently signified as an un-athletic o f sof feminised – N embodiment. n o form r o change, even in the last It has been observed that there has been considerable io p t t u ten in terms of s femf o ‘acceptable’ in ib & years, i what is, broadly speaking, possible and r t c F r s r i n d a inine embodiment. Today, ‘athletic’, lean and even muscular female bodies have s even – N come to be seen as sociallyr acceptable, desirable, while not necessarily oof on o i p t destabilising hegemonic notions of femininity. Athletic t female bodies are chal- u f o attractiveness, ib & F notions cofi sthin, white, heterosexual feminine lenging r d i s t r but ran ofs – N n ro o io p t t u s fo ib & F i r t c r s ran di ofs – N n o r o io p t t bu fo & is tri

p

No

t

Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta

yl o yl o yl o yl o yl o yl o yl o yl o yl o yl o yl o yl o yl o yl o yl o

ofs ro

n io t u s fo ib & F i r t c r ran dis can play this game’ 181 o f s –‘Anyone n N o r io p stereotypes (Birrell ando Cole t continue to be framed by such 1994; Lenskyj 1994; t rHall&1996; Cole and Hribar bu s 1995). A closer look at the mundane f o aspect of guardFranci r distri ing or ‘marking’ opponents in an oUltimate will demonstrate that this f s –game N issue r o is an important on struggle over gendered embodiment o in this culture. i p t t u there are seven r Normally s players against seven opponents f oon the field. tThe ib & i F r for r dwas general rule i sthatra n c (later changed to the term ‘mixed’) Ultimate a ‘co-ed’ o f s – N were allowed to be on the maximum of five players per team n r o of any ‘one’ gender o io field at once or the ‘5-2 rule’ p in vernacular. (This proportion has changed to 4-3 in t t rrecent s America.) In the vast majorityf oof ‘co-ed’ gamesr Ii b u North & years i c F r across r dist a ninterpreted as five men and two women. This issue observed this was and practice s – f o n N o in Ultimate culture in o continues to be the subject ofr considerable controversy io p t t and the United s States (Haman 1994; Price 1994) [more up to date ref?] b u rCanada f i & F one of myc league During games a woman on my team wasoasked to ‘play r d ran i i s tasra f s and – substitute o player man’. That is, she was to guard a o male in for other males on No r on i our team. Generally, womenp only substitute for other women and men do the t t rsame. bu sguard or mark other women and men f o mark other men. normally & Women i tri c F r s r i n d a However, I have never heard anyone one f s say,–‘YouNplay as a woman’, to a male. n o obecause Jennifer said she enjoyed doingr this the malesothat she ends up guarding io p t t usually the slower or least skilled male players on the team and she ‘surprises u rare & s f osomewhat embarib i r t them with ability to cover them’. She felt that they were c F her r s ran di s though – N she usually had better skills rassed at being guarded by a woman, o feven o r on i and more experience. Jennifer pride. She was a very p also told this tale withosome t t rexperienced her life.r Ii b u s played basketball and baseball throughout fo & F athletechaving i t d i ‘as deep a nvariously described as ‘tall, for a woman’ andrhaving have heardrher fs – N o o voice’ which both regulates herr out of dominant ideals on o of masculinity and femii p t at the same moment. She is too tall to reallyt be a woman, yet still u rninity s of the phrase, ‘for a woman’. fo ib & Fby the lastc half i r feminised t r ran dis – N feature of ‘co-ed’ Ultimate This sequence of events (which oisf asdominant n o r o directly against females games) also suggests that men io p want to avoid playing t t u rbecause might bei shown to be less capable than a woman. s f o It might be okay ib & they r t c F r s r i n d throw a by another man, but to be outplayed by a woman would to be outplayed fs – N serious doubt onto one’s statusrasoa ocompetent (masculine) player. Thus, it may on o i p t t is skirted around by the issue of men’s competence in comparison to women rbe that bu sthat same gender guarding is ‘onlyf in i i o the&general acceptance the Spirit of the r t Franc r dis s practice Game’ (i.e. only fair and reasonable). – N of men guarding men pits o f The n o r speak, and avoids potential o them against their equals, sop to ‘embarrassment’. It io t t rmaintains competitioni b u sboundary between direct male andf female & F a fairly rigid i o tr c r r a the n broader cultural notion that women are categorically d i s incathat reinforces s f – o n pable of equalling men’s physical r operformance. N io p player’s conversations isothat t A regular part of Ultimate men and women can t rnever bu s f o are good athletes & beFequal physically. r distri r a n c i Many will accept that ‘some women’ but that men are just ‘bigger and stronger’. we cannot interpret physi– o f s However, r o of social normsNand on cal and biological capability outside conventions that suggest o i p t t u rthat&women are ‘naturally’ s or inherently biologically incapable f o of the same physib i c r1990). str ical featsFasr men. d iFeminist a n (Hall 1996; Birrel and Cole 1994; Whitson ofs – N n ro o io p t t r & bu s fo Franci r distri ofs – N n ro o io p t t r & bu fo is tri

yl or

p

No

t

Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta

yl or yl or yl or yl or yl or yl or yl or yl or yl or yl or yl or yl or yl or yl or yl or yl or

ofs ro

n io t u s fo ib & F i r t c r ran dis 182 Andrew Thornton ofs – N n o r o differences between men io p t scholarship has provided convincing evidence that the t u s fo ib & women and thet social c i physical capabilities are far less significant F r ainntheir r than s r i d forces that limit women’s and encourage – Nengagement with sport. Many o f s men’s o physical on have argued that the overlapr in capabilities o of males and females is far i p t greater than the differences (Fausto-Sterling 1985;t Dyer bu s f o 1986; Cahnt 1994; & i F r a1994). r dis ri Hargreaves nc o f s – N a ‘sportasized’ identity and Ultimate as a physical activity n r o seems to assume o io p in its parlance and practice. body (Harvey and Rail 1995) The sportasized ident t u s that already understands the necessary fo ib tity is one and seemingly & and i r t c F rbody r s d i in sport. a n of physical movement and social interaction required ‘obvious’ features ofs – N n o This identification includesrassumptions about playing o in a team, ‘field awareio p t t ness’ and accepting s the idea of competition as the only form of play. Theb u fo & F body itc has tri sportasized rmasculine r a n i been argued references a stereotypically d i s embod– N in sport, and Ultimate, for o f sparticipation iment (Birrell and Cole 1994). o Thus r on o feminine identities. i women, generally means aptransgression of dominant t t u s on my team, were somewhat aware f oof the social and players, at least ib &Most i t rhisc F r s r i n d a torical nature of why women generally as much sport as men. Both o f s do –not play n N the male and female players, at times, r o seemed to reject o ideas of biology as destiny, io p t t and a woman’s supposed ‘natural’ inferiority. They rejected the notion that it was u f oaccess, practice ib & F i s of one’s biology, but rather that fundamentally r d i s t rand r a na cproblem s success – N and enjoyment: previous experience were the keys otof one’s ro on o i p t t bu think that’s the play snature of our socialization. More men f o are pushed to i & IF i r t c i s of it. I a n whereas teamr sport, women aren’t for me Irwasdafraid f s and– I mean o N o mean I played tennis and r I danced and I didn’t on o even play doubles [tennis]. i p t t That’s not a team sport. u s f o(Rhonda/Interview) ib & F i r t c r ran dis ofs – N n o r Ultimate players reveal o a more ambivalent relaOne important point at which io p t t u tion and gender difference is the attention paid to female s fo ib & toFathletic performance i r t c r s r i n a out’ (i.e. aggressively diving on the ground) for the d players ‘laying disc. Rhonda’s s – oshef expresses N o comment below is quite typical as some glee at the sight of a female r on o i p t t ‘laying out’. bu s fo i & F i r t r dis ranc I saw a woman at the Worlds was so awesome. It is hard for a f sout. –She N o lay n o r woman to do a lay outpbecause she has breasts. oShe dove for the disc and just io t t she hit thes ground she would do a front flip.fIt was wild. She wasi ab u & before or distr F ranci gymnast. s – N of n (Rhonda/Interview) ro o io p t t u fo ib It&might i s if women are seen to be able to embody F rbeaargued r masculine/athistr n c that d letic power they may potentiallyosubvert the myths of gender being f s and – expose N o 1985 for an extensive r o (see Fausto-Sterling on solely determined by biology i p t t review). bu s fo & F i c r distri ran ofs – N n ro o io p t t u s fo ib & F i r t c r s ran di ofs – N n o r o io p t t bu fo & is tri

p

No

t

Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta

yl o yl o yl o yl o yl o yl o yl o yl o yl o yl o yl o yl o yl o yl o yl o

ofs ro

n io t u s fo ib & F i r t c r ran dis can play this game’ 183 o f s –‘Anyone n N o r o it’s great and enjoyable io t Women stay away from p laying out, but when they do t r &to watch. Guys throw bu s f o just won’t do F r a n c i their bodies; girls there’s a block. They r d i s t rit.i (Lucy/Interview) ofs – N ro on o i p t t essential gender differstatement on the sother hand is an argument for an rLucy’s bu fo & i tri c F r on r contrast ence based physiology, and as such stands in fairly stark d i s with an – Nlater comments also demono f s Lucy’s Rhonda’s more socially based explanation. n ro io p strate the intense focus on women’s capabilities whichosimultaneously constructs t t rmen’s bu fo & behaviours i s as the norm: c skills F r a nand r distri ofs – N n Girls don’t catch hammers; r oseem to be afraid oof them. If a girl lays out io p t t r &everyone is excited,sbut if a guy does it is appreciated. Iff a girl does it, every-i b u or distr one F is high. ranci s f – o (Lucy/Interview) No ro on i p t t rIt is&interesting to note that bu s Rhonda and Lucy posit, at different f o points, women’s i tri c F r s r i n d a physiology as the major reason why women o f s do–notNlay out, then both give examn ples of a woman doing a ‘lay out’ r owith the same body. oA lot of men don’t ‘lay out’ io p t t and men’s genitals are every bit as exposed (if not more so) in laying out u reither, s f onot laying out,tbut ib & F breasts!cSoi self-protection r as women’s may be one reason for r s ran di s –difference. Arguably a male’s jock it is not essentially a biologically-based o fgender N o r on o Ultimate women now i strap provides less protection p than a sports bra, though t t rhave bu to something s called ‘tortoise shells’6 (Canadian f o Ultimate Players i & access i r t F r1996). d i s here a n cWhat seems apparent from the evidence I’ver presented Association fs – N o o is that the relation between sport r performance and theobody is based more in how on i p t and men relate to their bodies than the ‘type’ of tbody one possesses. This u rwomen ssuggesting, is a sign and central feature f oof the ambivalent ib & Fas I have been i r problem, t c r ran dis s –difference and sport. The ways in relation that Ultimate players have otofgender n N o r o (1986) has shown the which we perceive the relative io p ‘frailty’ – and as Lenskyj t t rsupposedly s of women’s physiology – is an enduring f o discourse.t r i b u & F delicate cnature i r n dis One key toa‘laying out’ is previous Ultimate play and otherrathletic experis – f o N o ence. It may seem obvious to suggest that athletic skills are developed through r on o i p t and over time. Laying out is quite obviously at developed athletic skill rrepetition bu s little exception, both male and female, f o ‘lay out alltthe i i and&the elite players with r Franc r dis time’ (field notes, Buffalo, Octobero 1993). f s However, – N gender norms about the n o r body are so deeply entrenched in Euro-Western culio p among Ultimate playerso and t t rture&that we are still faced bu s with the notion that ‘women don’t f olay out’. Franci r distri o f s – N they make a difficult play? n ADT: Do men react differently r o to women when o io p t t r &Yes. Because it is expected s f o women go ho,titrisi b u of men, which is silly. But when Franci r dis astonishing to most guys, especially most women don’t do it. Most sbecause f – o o are used to Nit ofrom other contact sports. on guys play rougher becauser they i p t t the air. to hurl their bodies through r &Women are not expected bu s fo i c Fran r distri (Frank/Interview) ofs – N n ro o io p t t r & bu s fo Franci r distri ofs – N n ro o io p t t r & bu fo is tri

yl or

p

No

t

Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta

yl or yl or yl or yl or yl or yl or yl or yl or yl or yl or yl or yl or yl or yl or yl or yl or

ofs ro

n io t u s fo ib & F i r t c r ran dis 184 Andrew Thornton ofs – N o r on p know players and knowothis […] But if you come to t woman is really good at u t i b s fo & this, it is diminishing returns. You don’t get as excited. F rthen r distri anci (Sharon/Interview) ofs – N ro on o i p t t It seems that women who biol-b u s ‘lay out’ transgress essentialised gender f o discourses of & i tri c men who do it are considered exemplars F nature, r athletic ogy and of r a n and d i sprowess. ofs – N These examples show that some are every bit as ready to r o women, not surprisingly, on o p throw themselves to the ground as men. More interesting t is the finding that the u t i b s f o places: in previous location & F of this gender c i difference apparently stems from two r distri r n a similar athletic experience and in o some difference between males f s‘natural’ – physical n N o in players’ understanding and females. Thus there is a high r o degree of ambivalence io p t t of gender and athleticism. Players have seen and reported on females laying out,b u fo & they i s accept it as ‘normal’. It is also interesting r ias but F rstilla can’t r to i s tthat n c quite d note s some women come to be understood to lay out their actions o o f as able– andNwilling r on o move closer to the subject i become less notable. Therefore, women who ‘lay out’ p t t u s f oHowever, it istapparposition non-gendered ‘Ultimate player’. & F of the (supposedly) i rib c r s r i n d a ent that the meanings attached to laying neutral, but rather suggest that o f sout–are not n N o is masculine. the ‘correct’ and normal gender r oof Ultimate embodiment io p t t u s fo ib & F i r t c r s r a nin the ‘Spirit of the Game’ di Ambivalence ofs – N o on o better, but don't be an assi Spirit of the Game isptor ‘be cool.’ Play hard, be t t bu NO deliberate rules,r not s fouling... Be considerate about misunderstood fo i & hole. i t c F r No i s no dana nspiking, cocky. no trash talking friendsrlike d that), f s(unless – they’re o N o gerous play and make your r own calls fairly. And on o it’s ‘contest’ or ‘no contest’ i p t t no yelling and spitting about it. u s f o Association 2002c) ib & F i r (Ultimate Players t c r ran dis ofs – N o on o The ‘Spirit of the Game’ ispanrimportant aspect of Ultimate t players’ claims to being u t i ‘different sports’. The bases for the claims madef by Ultimate players itob s & F from other or distr c i (apparent) subversion of sporting norms r and a ntheir difference is defined by the s f – o with the waysNin which it and the rules struco Spirit of the Game in combination r on o i p ture the culture. It emerges in my research as central tot the formation of collective u t s players’ identities. Similar to Canadian fo ib & individual and ci F r a nUltimate r and str d i American ‘amateur’ sport clubs of the earlyotwentieth f s –century n N o (Kidd 1996; Crossett 1990) r o of the Game clause Ultimate players use the pSpirit to construct a distinction io t t u between themselves and flas their Others. The notions of intentional f o cheating and ib & F i r t c r s r a n are generally considered to be features of sports thatdhave i referees grant violations s – like boxing, American football and and lots of direct and constantr physical No o o f contact on ice hockey. In comparison pto Ultimate these sports aretarguably differently racially u t i ib & class and i s play and rules (Cole and Andrewsf 1996). o r Therefore, F rcoded i s t rthey ninctheir d a stand in opposition – or at least inocompetition – Ultimate ideals. In ‘contact’ f s – with N o often commit ‘intentional’ ro on sports, such as ice hockey or American football, players i p t or ‘smart’ fouls as a competitive strategy. However, this tis theoretically, at least, notb u s f i & i c F inr Ultimate r Game’. possible distr a n because it would, ‘not be in the Spirit ofothe ofs – N n ro o io p t t u s fo ib & F i r t c r s ran di ofs – N n o r o io p t t bu fo & is tri

p

No

t

Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta

yl o yl o yl o yl o yl o yl o yl o yl o yl o yl o yl o yl o yl o yl o yl o

ofs ro

n io t u s fo ib & F i r t c r ran dis can play this game’ 185 o f s –‘Anyone n N o r o io t During the beginnings ofpUltimate in the late 1960stsport in North America rwas&undergoing profound bu s f tri F r a n c i and wide reaching changes. All ofothe r major sprofesi d sional sport leagues in North America and beginning to pay f swere–expanding N ocrass money making and oo on athletes huge sums of moneyr to play games. The i p t t u by the owners rexploitation s and managers of sport institutions f o were also being ib & i c F r a nArguably, r that widely exposed. these are some of the cultural issues istr d Ultimate o f s – N going to develop a game originators were responding to. o n r They felt they were o io p and no star system’ (Ultimate ‘with no rules, no boundaries Players Association t t u r1988). srelationship to corporate sponsorship f o and competition ib & The i r t c F rambivalent r s a n and continues to be a major unresolved issue, dhasi a fairly that has developed, ofs – N n clear grounding in the origins of Ultimate. ro o io p t t example, the accepted history of Ultimate suggests a constant and b u r For fo i & based i s the way to conduct oneself within broad sport F r struggle r and str d i beyond. a n c over f sdubious – 7N Ultimate players regularly drawoonothe alterity of ‘flower power’ and r on o i ‘hippies’ to make claims about from more mainp its uniqueness and difference t t rstream bu s at the same time many players’f o However, actions and words & sports. i tri c F r s r i n d a tend to refute the associations with the – N of ‘skinny guys’, ‘stoners o f s stereotypes n and acid freaks’ (Zagoria 1998). r oAll of these stereotypes o seem to suggest conio p t t of certain types of whiteness and white bodies personified in the rnotations bu s fo & characters tri MTV c i and Butthead’. This struggle has developed, F r a n‘Beavis r d i in s part, due to the history of most of theo‘originators’, out of the late 1960s o f s – who N came r on o i and are often associated with Players Association p ‘hippy culture’ (Ultimate t t r1998) bu of the fewi vestiges of this identification are the s f onumerous tie-died i & One r t c present at Ultimate tournaments and parties, F r are r d i and s the a noften t-shirts that fs – N o o many debates over how to do or r embody the Spirit ofothe Game. It is also comon i p t t the music and culture rmon&to see team namesslike ‘Purple Haze’ that reference bu fo of the 1960s. Franci r distri Strictly speaking Spirit of theo Game o f sis not– a rule. n N o Intended to limit ‘overly r it enshrines an idealised aggressive’ and or ‘dangerouspplay’ notion of fairness and io t t r‘respect opponentsi and to demon-i b u s team-mates’, which players arefsupposed & for o c F r r n distr strate in even ain the most intensively competitive situations. s f – o No ro on i p t t to the rules? r &ADT: How does thesSpirit of the Game operate in relation bu fo i i r t Franc r dis s In I saw it live and then I saw itoonf TV. – theNchampionship game played n o r o to catch the disc in the this year a player made p a spectacular play, a lay out io t t r &end-zone, but, theres was some discussion whether heflanded in bounds…i b u i o F r aa great istr n c effort d end-zone He made to touch down the tips of both feet rin the s f – o n and then rolled over ontor the play. Looking at N wonderful o cinder track. A o My memory of it was io t in slow-motion replay p he may have just been out. t r &the guy himself went, s ‘I’m not entirely sure’. And the f odefender camet rini b u Franci r dis and said, ‘It was a tremendousoplay, s let’s– score it’, and it went as a score. f No ro on And that’s the type of spirit it doesn’t always i p I like to see. Unfortunately, t t u r &happen. s fo ib i c Fran r(Eric/Interview) distr ofs – N n ro o io p t t r & bu s fo Franci r distri ofs – N n ro o io p t t r & bu fo is tri

yl or

p

No

t

Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta

yl or yl or yl or yl or yl or yl or yl or yl or yl or yl or yl or yl or yl or yl or yl or yl or

ofs ro

n io t u s fo ib & F i r t c r ran dis 186 Andrew Thornton ofs – N o r on o p There is a form of self-regulation, as seen in the above t quote, which seems to u t i b s f o or line judges & due arise lack c i of external referees. There are no referees F rtoathe r d i s t r iat n 8 any level of play. And significantly fthes Spirit – ofNthe Game does not identify speo o (except on cific acts that contravene its rlimits for ‘taunting o of opponents’). It works i p t t to assess the moral and u more as a broad interpretive device which players use b s fo & i tri F r a n c of one or a series of plays and players. Thus, r Ultimate legal acceptability d i s players – their o f s in are intended to be entirely self-regulating N oplay and organisation. ro on p is the struggle that Ultimate What is interesting here t players are contending u t i s f ocontexts. Perhaps ib with so the icomparison to other sport histories and & and c F rless r d i s t r the n a struggle over the ideals of ‘fair play’ – Na deeper issue concerning the o f srepresents n nature of sport. It is more interesting to suggest that ro o perhaps sport cannot be io p t t played ‘fairly’. ‘The Spirit as ab u s of the Game’ in Ultimate is intended f o to function & Fand ethicalcguide t r iof moral r din ia svariety r a n i to the game and its meaning is interpreted f s – N but rather the cycle of not being ways. It is not the sheer varietyoofointerpretations, r on o i able to decide on any clear p definition that is most revealing. t t u s identification is the notion that f oUltimate players facet ofi this ib &Another t r are c F r s r i n d a enterprising and stretching the boundaries There is an almost heroic o f s –of sport. n No o international stance of some of the local rand organisers as they set out to proio p t t mote a game that rejected the nastier parts of institutionalised sport: u s fo ib & F i r t c r s ran di f shaunt – you Ultimate is not like life where losses forever, there’s always another o N o r on i game. It is true Ultimate you pursue excellence p is a Field of Dreams,owhere t t glory…Ultimate tob u s is a flower child, invented by skinny f o guys who strove i & and i r t F r aa truly r again s again n cnew game with new rules…You were pressed d i and create fs – N o o to go all out, and then ifr you failed to catch the on o disc, to exercise your moral i p t t some arbitrary boundary, u sense in calling the point. And the measure was not s it the judgment of some official, butf o & netF or goal, nor i rib was rather c r your s t maxiran d i own mum effort and potential. o o f s – N n r o ‘The Field of Dreams’, n.d.) (Quote from io p t t u s fo ib & F i r t c r s r i n This notiona of being ‘enterprising’ is one that is at work in thisdquote and in fs – N o omainstream Ultimate circles. Dissatisfiedr with sports being corrupted by compeon o i p t external regulation, the u t tition and elite structures and unwilling to submit to b s fo & F heroes cof iUltimate ‘ancient’ set out to invent ‘the Ultimate tri r game’ ran d i s(Zagoria s –up of all the best aspects of all other 1998). A game beyond all games,oyet, f ‘made n No ro games’ (Lewis 1994; Ultimate Players Association 1988). io p t t u are a number s of connected identifications that f oare suggested tbyr the ib &There i c F r s r aand n the Spirit of the Game, which include self-regulation, d i rationalquote above f sSpirit– clause oThe n ity, and an entrepreneurial spirit. in the rules suggests that the N o r o aggressive but fair, willing io p is intended to be rational, t subject of Ultimate Frisbee t u ib to&negotiate, that s i sequal respect for all concerned, tof accept or d t rmay F r a have i they n c an have made an error and to accedeotofasrule – structure. N o is arguably founded on the r oby Ultimate players on Spirit of the Game as used i p t t good will. This philoso- u underlying assumptions of rational thought and universal fo ib & i c F r easily r d i project s t r of phy could a n be construed as a re-enactment of the Enlightenment ofs – N n ro o io p t t u s fo ib & F i r t c r s ran di ofs – N n o r o io p t t bu fo & is tri

p

No

t

Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta

yl o yl o yl o yl o yl o yl o yl o yl o yl o yl o yl o yl o yl o yl o yl o

ofs ro

n io t u s fo ib & F i r t c r ran dis can play this game’ 187 o f s –‘Anyone n N o r o io t the modern Western world p (Dyer 1997). The premise tof Euro-Western science rand&knowledge is that humans bu s f ospecific nature are capable of identifying the Franci r d i s t rofi the world. There is supposed to be aoone sto one correlation between the objects N o that we apply to those o f (or–symbols) on of human perception and ther categories i p t t u This would include robjects. s the meaning of ‘fair play’ in sport f oas an object conib & i rto bedcapable structed F by rhuman i s t rof a n cbeings. Theoretically, humans are supposed s – and causality of human action. o f meaning identifying and pinning down theoexact n No r io p or relation is identified Once the meaning of an object it is presupposed to be t t u rconsistent s time (Seidman 1994). In this case, f othere is an (unreib and & F across space i r t c r s r a n that the Spirit of the Game is a predefined set of i d meanings alistic) assumption ofs – N n o that everyone agrees upon in rdifferent places and different times. One of the o io p t t messages in the rules self even b u rclear s is that one is supposed to call a foul f o on ones & person c ifouled does not (i.e. be fully self-regulating). if the F r who r 9distri a nwas s – is to see the Spirit of the Game, Another, perhaps a more revealing n N o o fapproach r io in Foucault’s (1995) terms, as p a panoptic mechanismooft power. It works to cont rstruct bu formi ofs moral control and thereby, a broadf form behavioural & a pervasive o r of d tri c F s r i n a regulation (Harvey and Rail 1995). Players f s awareness – N of this regulatory device n o obehaviour serves to define and constrain rtheir by internalising ‘the gaze’ of the o io p t t ‘Spirit’ in the same way that Foucault’s (1995) prisoners reacted to their runseen bu s f o widespread tand & guards unseen c icentre of the Panopticon (prison). The F r ainnthe r dis ri s ongoing discussions over the definition N oof the Game’ serve as the o o f of the– ‘Spirit r on i ‘regulatory mechanisms’ (Foucault 1995) through which players actively particip t t rpate&in their own regulation. ofi b u s There is no agreed upon definition f o of the Spirit i r t F but r Spirit r athere n cis a pervasive sense that one should play by it. The d i sof the the Game, fs – N o o Game is the Police inside Ultimate r players’ heads. o on i p t are supposed to discuss infractions of the rules,t which can include asku r Players s ffrom ib i o r ing &otherF players for clarification. This is very different other sporting t c r ran dis s –all decisions and there is virtually environments, where a referee orojudge o f makes n N r or affecting a decision. o no possibility of players changing Thus, in mainstream io p t t rsport power athletes from thei b u s is removed from the control of fthe & decision-making i o tr c F r d i splayers r n outset of play a (Collwell 2000). This is a crucial difference as Ultimate s f – o N own empower themselves with the right r o of ‘making their on o calls’. i p t t Spirit of the Game clearly has power as both a symbol and a structure and r The bu s among equals. Nevertheless, there f ois an implicit hieri & to i appears signify a relation r t Franc r dis archy in Ultimate, as in most sports, – isN similar to that of modern o f swhich n o r colonialism (e.g. team o captain, assigned posiEuro-Western patriarchal capitalist io p t t u rtions, and committees). Part of this structure is the obeying s f o of orders tand ib & rules i r c F r s r ‘one’s i idea n betters’ that signifies a deferral to ‘survival of thedfittest’ obedience to s – identity formation was intended o fcolonial n ology. Walvin (1987) argues that this N o r o those who lead in sport io p (racial) superiority. Thus, t to illustrate masculine, British t rwere&the embodiment ofsa classed, gendered and racially superior f o identity. t r i b u Franci r dis The Spirit of the Game is a guideoused to organise a similarly supesby players f – r o embodimentN ofo the Spirit of the Game on rior identification. Ultimate players’ i p t t to represent a desire social difference. b u rseems s for moral purity and the negationf of i & i c s t ris UltimateFasks fairr play’, r aplayers n to abide by ‘the highest standards of o d iwhich ofs – N n ro o io p t t r & bu s fo Franci r distri ofs – N n ro o io p t t r & bu fo is tri

yl or

p

No

t

Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta

yl or yl or yl or yl or yl or yl or yl or yl or yl or yl or yl or yl or yl or yl or yl or yl or

ofs ro

n io t u s fo ib & F i r t c r ran dis 188 Andrew Thornton ofs – N o r on o p similar to other sporting ideologies of the past and thet present. However, notions u t i b s difference in attitude, ability, access f o and commitment of&‘fairFplay’ tend cto iignore r distri ran to an activity. What is different isothat f sUltimate – Nassumes that everyone can and r oGame because there on will abide by the Spirit of the iso no question of difference from i p t t the outset. ‘We’ are among equals here and a ‘true sporting gentleman’ wouldb u s f & i ri s tGame. never F cheat r aanother n c or question their judgment! It is not inotherSpirit d ofi the o f s – N a referee, a team player, and a The ideal subject of Ultimate o n r is a judge and jury, o ideals as they lie in conio leader, all at once. No onepcould possibly embody these t t u f o in a hierarchy iofb tradictory ofspower that imply incompatible positions & F relations i r t c r s di authority.r a n ofs – N n o r o io p t t bu fo Ambivalence in thes play: ‘laying out’ & F r distri ranci – Ncontact in every way possible. o f s to avoid It is the responsibility of all players ro on o Players Association 2002b) i (Ultimate p t t bu s fo & F i tri c r s r i n d a Guys are not as intimidated ...they for the disc. Guys catch better – N o f s dive n because of football. ro o io p t t (Lucy/Interview) u s fo ib & F i c r ran distr f s ho’ – areN phrases used to describe a parAs noted earlier, ‘Laying out’ and o o‘Going r on o frisbee. ‘Going ho’ is short i ticular action and way of playing the sport of Ultimate p t t bu for horizontal’ and sand is synonymous with ‘laying out’: f odiving headfirst i & ‘going i r t c fully to catch a ‘disc’ or knock it down. To F r one’s r ‘lay i s is cond out’, a n body extending fs – N o o sidered by many Ultimate players to be a sign of one’s r on o ‘Ultimate commitment’ to i p t t athletic feat to perform u the sport and team. It is also a spectacular and difficult sthe fact that the rules state that players f o are to ‘avoid ib & observe. i and c F r a Despite r d i s t rconn s – tact at all costs’, the lay out iso only o f accomplished N oby making contact with the r meanings that Ultimate on ground.10 Laying out andp the t players attach to it is u t i another b s ambivalence that structures identities f o in this community, & F example cof ithe r distri r a that n goes beyond sport and the Spirit of the Game. ambivalence ofs – N ro on o i p t in learning the game? u t AT: Are there similar problems for men and women b s fo & F i r distri ranc Yes, but they’re not gender specific – N One of the reasons I like it so o f s problems. n r o you can do competitively o much is that it is something in a mixed setting. io p t t u football, itswould be more difficult to have a competitive game. Ultimate fo ib & Unlike i r t c F r s n gender specific which makes it easier to have a competitive d i game. skills rareanot ofs – N n (Frank/Interview) o r o io p t t bu s in Frank’s comments here and his f ocomments referred & Fis an inconsistency There r d i s t r ito ranci earlier (see page 185). His comments point–to ambivalence about gender. Frank ofs r onot be surprising N on concedes (earlier) that it should to see o women layout, but he then i p t t football together. He says u states that men and women could not play (American) s fo & i rib c F r awould rof football, that women n not be able to handle the physical contact d i s at ‘skill’ ofs – N n ro o io p t t u s fo ib & F i r t c r s ran di ofs – N n o r o io p t t bu fo & is tri

p

No

t

Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta

yl o yl o yl o yl o yl o yl o yl o yl o yl o yl o yl o yl o yl o yl o yl o

ofs ro

n io t u s fo ib & F i r t c r ran dis can play this game’ 189 o f s –‘Anyone n N o r o Frank’s interpretation for io p So while it is okay in t not required or desired in Ultimate. t rwomen bu s f o players. When & to c i they are rejected as possible football F play r distri r a Ultimate, n examined together, these two statements powerful exemplars of the ambivao f sare – N o is significant because it is r o Frank’s statement on lent desires within Ultimate identity. i p t t ralso,&I suggest, a racial and bu s class coding due to the association f o of contact sports, i tri F r afootball, r d1991; like American i s Cole n c with black and working-class bodies (Messner ofs – N and Andrews 1996). The association and blackness with the n r o of the working-class o (Holmlund 1994; Dyer io body and not the mind haspa broad cultural resonance t t u r1997; f oof physical and Bys de-emphasising the body as the site ori b & Fleming i r t c F r a2001). r s di social dominancenUltimate players are f s – Nskill and intellect, and in their o emphasising n o own terms ‘Spirit’. Thus the feminisation of Ultimate, o something Frank’s ‘wife can r io p t t with femininity and middle-class whiteness. If we apply b u rdo’,&elides non-physicality fo i i s dimension it would seem that Ultimate a binary F logic r isdsomething r atonthec racial istr s – men can do, too! that non-physically aggressive middle-class N o o f white r on i Going ho is an embodied p knowledge of one’s limitsoand then testing those limt t rits. & bu s f o for recognition’ Desire, Butler has isuggested is ‘in some sense always a desire tri c F r s r i n d a (1992: 89). The recognition of others and o f sself –formsNa community, and thus desire n forms the boundaries of that community. Desire is always ro o related to difference in io p t t also simultaneously constructs and suppresses what u rthe&sense that what is desired s f o constructed ib i r t is detested 1990). Thus what is by implication, and by action, as c F (Hall r s ran di s –and aggression. However, Ultimate detestable in Ultimate is overt physical o fcontact N o on o i players seem to demand that pther act of ‘laying out’ be celebrated, yet overtly reject t t rthose bu sporting embodiments that are defined preciselyf by physical violence s i & other i o r t F r a American r black nc d i sbodies such as boxing, football or ice and f shockey. – Working-class o N o practically and symbolically populate these sports. r on o i p t t out is s a signifier of ‘going all out’, one’s commitment to the game and u r Laying s which are central to dominant bodily f o ideals of mainib & F one’scbody’ i r to ‘sacrificing t r ran dis f s – of NUltimate’s athletic legitimacy is stream sport. The desire for physical o evidence n o r o further established by the way are shown and talked io p in which bruises and scrapes t t rabout all Ultimatei b u sThese marks are ‘badges of honour’f among & onFa regular basis. i o tr c r r n d i s cona physical contact is openly rejected the markers of physical players. Though s f – o odocumented N tact or injury are celebratedr (as in other lifestyle sports, see on o i p t 1). Knee braces and surgery scars are a regularttopic of conversation (I rChapter bu smy own knee operated on due to fano Ultimate injury). i & know i should I have had r t Franc r dis One of the regular prizes sometimes o given is for ‘worst injury’. f sout –at tournaments n N o r o It appears as though the abject aggression is a necesio p category of direct physical t t u rsary&part of the formation s of the Ultimate identities. Not able f o to knock people ib i r t c F r s ra n d i aggresdown, wrestle or punch, ‘laying out’ recuperates vestiges of extreme physical s too – areN‘real athletes’. Other forms of o fthey n sion and reassures Ultimate players that o r o io t athletic prowess are admired,plike running speed and jumping ability, but the most t rpraise f othe same typet rori b u & is Freserved for i s out’. Certainly, no one is given r dis r a n c ‘laying amount of recognition for being ableotof catch, s –which is definitely more important N o 11 It is in this celebration o in terms of winning. on than the occasional spectacularrdive i p t t out,’ Ultimatesplayers preferred image of themselves, rof ‘laying bu f owhere we cant see & i c F r a ofn a series of points of difference. r dis ri the intersection ofs – N n ro o io p t t r & bu s fo Franci r distri ofs – N n ro o io p t t r & bu fo is tri

yl or

p

No

t

Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta

yl or yl or yl or yl or yl or yl or yl or yl or yl or yl or yl or yl or yl or yl or yl or yl or

ofs ro

n io t u s fo ib & F i r t c r ran dis 190 Andrew Thornton ofs – N n o r o football!’ on plays where io p t I heard it regularly repeated, ‘This is not [American] t u s f o than one player ib & F made contact someone r d i s t r say r a n c i with another player. I also had more to me, ‘Oh sorry, I’m used to playing o f s[ice] –hockey’, after they had run into me. on These statements are crucialrtoothe constructionNof oUltimate’s difference to other i p t u sporting identities. Ultimate players have a generalt disdain s f o for overt physical ib & i F and r also contact football in general. The rules on contact r aAmerican i s t rconnc d highly f s – concerned. strain potential bodily harmo too everyone Some of my female n No r io p identified the ‘non-contact’ team-mates have specifically rules of Ultimate as t t s reasons that they were attracted f oto the sport: t r i b u one & ofFthe most important i c r dis ran s – f o n N owomen to shy way from the The physical contact inr ao game might cause io p t t game, unless they are somewhat used to it. Maybe all-women’s ultimateb u i & would i s players. Some women would neverf play o ra sport F r attract s ta rman d iwith a n cmore ofs – N on the same field without a referee. ro on o i (Lucy/Interview) [emphasis added] p t t bu s fo & F i tri c r s r i n d a I take this philosophy and practice off non-contact be fairly unique and central o s – N to n 12 to understanding the game and It r oplayers of Ultimate. o defines an identity that is io p t t productive of different bodies and relations to one’s body and the bodies of oth- u s f & within rib ers c i sport. The important aspect of thisodifference F r and r d i sas tI have a nbeyond fs – Nsporting ideals. shown is how it relates to common dominant o o or r on o i Yet, ultimate embodiment physical dominance p is also clearly about exhibiting t t bu over of spacerand s the play of the game the forceful occupation fo i & anF Other. Within i t r d ho’ i s is about a n cothers is prominent. The exemplary act of ‘Going aggressionr against fs – N o o mastery of the individual body which reveals the indir (another side of discipline), on o i p t t vidual body to be enmeshed in relations of power and domination with other bodies. u sas an ‘Ultimate player’ can control my f obody so well that ib & Fis a sense that i There I c r ran d i s t rI do s to– accomplish my objectives. This connot need to knock someone down oin forder n No r o yet deadly, control ception evokes the arms length, processes of modern capitalist io p t t u governance s organisations (e.g. ‘surgical strikes’foro‘collateral damage’ iinb & F and military i r t c r s r i n d is that one a of American military language). The central point here the double-speak s o o f on–theNbodies can and does assert force andr dominance of others without placing on o i p t one’s own body in direct physical jeopardy. There is some danger in Ultimate of u t b s in ‘laying out’, but it is of a fairly limited f o type. & F injury to coneself i physical r distri ran s – There is a progressive value inothe n N onature of the game, however, o f non-contact r players the emphasis that Ultimate place on showing off scrapes and bruises, io p t t u seems to serve as a reminder that this is a ‘real’ (manly) sport get s f o where one does ib & F i r t c r s r a nplayers are not ‘hard’, but neither are they ‘soft’! d i hurt: Ultimate ofs – N n ro o io p t t Theoretical reflections bu s fo & F r distri ranci There is a deep ambivalence that players’ images, talk and f s in – Ultimate o resides No on behaviour. This ambivalencer isoexpressed in the rejection of overt physical coni p t t tact in Ultimate and the via the ‘Spirit ofb u s desire to keep the flow going in fgames i & i t rstill c F r aItnis also the case that physical prowess andodominance r d i s are the Game’. ofs – N n ro o io p t t u s fo ib & F i r t c r s ran di ofs – N n o r o io p t t bu fo & is tri

p

No

t

Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta

yl o yl o yl o yl o yl o yl o yl o yl o yl o yl o yl o yl o yl o yl o yl o

ofs ro

n io t u s fo ib & F i r t c r ran dis can play this game’ 191 o f s –‘Anyone n N o r o contact. The readings io t encouraged, but is obscured pby the emphasis on avoiding t u rof ‘going s f & Fho’ that come rib s tread r a n c i from my informants show that theoactr is dalways i through the normative lens of aggressive – masculine physicality of cono f ssporting r oas working-classNand on tact sports which are also coded o black (Carrington 1998; i p t t the social and cultural 1997). This issue deserves much more attention in rDyer bu s fo & i F r athan r distri study of sport n Ichave been able to provide here. ofs – Lucy’s statement, ‘Women tend out’, represents a genn r o to shy away fromNlaying io p dered reading of athletic bodies. However, women oand men who ‘go ho’ are t t u raccorded s for their physical abilities. Thus fthe ib most extremet act & Fthe highestc praise i o r r s r a worthy n di possible is also of the most o praise. f s Therefore, – N Ultimate players talk and n o rules suppress physical aggression, r but then in the finalo analysis, celebrate it. io p t t abject qualitiessof physicality and physical violence associated with b u r The f i & sports ‘other’ F r areturns r d i culture. str n c ias the most desired ways of being inoUltimate f s and – Frantz Richard Dyer (1997), Stuart Hall N o Fanon (1967) have all o o(1990) r on i shown us that the demonisation are the foundations p of physicality and aggression t t rof white bu s heterosexual identification. Dominant f o (white) mascu& Fmale, bourgeois, i tri c r s r i n d a line identities rest on the repression off physicality s – and the assertion of spiritual n No o oGame, the purity/superiority. The Spirit ofr the non-contact rules and the celeio p t t of ‘going ho’ signify a circle back to the knot of anxiety that founds u rbration s fo ib & F masculine i r t Euro-Western sporting embodiments. c r s ran di This knot of anxiety is manifested o f ins the– wayNthe game is played and the o r on o It may be a different i ambiguous relation to physical p aggression in Ultimate. t t rsporting bu sdesire for competitive individualism f oand self-autonomy i & Factivity butcthe i r t r aton drive the players. The desire to continue torresurrect d i sfailed is what seems fs – N o o (colonial) modernist figures of rthe ‘good sport’, like those on o that are evoked by the i p t t versions of the Spirit of the Game, are perpetuated in Ultimate culu ridealistic s fo ib & It Fis at the cmoment i r ture. of indecision between play and pleasure, and t r ran dis f s –masculinities’ dominance and competition that (Thornton 1998) o‘ultimate n N o r o might be seen as a sign of the and the postmodern io p struggle between the modern t t r(Lyotard of mod-i b u s1994). The fear of ambiguity is a fcornerstone & F1986; Seidman i o c r str r i n d players’ ernist science,a knowledge and identity (McRobbie 1994). Ultimate s f – o identifications express a profound r ouncertainty: HowN much on o or how far can we go i p t t Ultimate looks like and competition before rwith&broad inclusion, non-violence bu scould be more incisive to argue that f o players are more i i every other sport? Or it r t Franc r dis concerned with how far they can go f s Ultimate – N is not considered a ‘real’ o before n o r o (masculine) sport. Frank’s comment above about football and ‘playing a game io p t t u rwith&his wife’ are informing s here. Thus, Ultimate is centrally f o concerned with ib i r t c F r s r aitnis to be: a body, to be masculine or feminine, to be dspiritual, i how and what to ofs – N n be an athlete. o r o io p and meanings of Ultimate t I contend that the play, rules, represent a broader t rcultural bu f o dominant groups & formation and difference. In a world where is c identity F r a n of r distri are claiming that social regulation has s –down and social difference has run o fbroken N o(For a review of conservar o threaten disorder on amok, difference and heterogeneity i p t t In Ultimate, this fear rtive&fears see Fiske 1993;sGrossberg 1992; Marqusee 2001). bu fo i tri c F r ina the r d i sgender is expressed n practices of insisting on collective decision-making, ofs – N n ro o io p t t r & bu s fo Franci r distri ofs – N n ro o io p t t r & bu fo is tri

yl or

p

No

t

Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta

yl or yl or yl or yl or yl or yl or yl or yl or yl or yl or yl or yl or yl or yl or yl or yl or

ofs ro

n io t u s fo ib & F i r t c r ran dis 192 Andrew Thornton ofs – N o r on o p competitiveness. However, egalitarianism and constrained t in practice women are u t i s when they conform to masculinist f o standards. It tisralso ib & Fexcluded,cexcept largely r dis ran i the case that mainstream competitive ideals–and structures are firmly entrenched ofs ro on in this culture, and decision-making tends to beNinothe hands of a small group of i p t t individuals. Many female drive andb u s players express every bit as muchf competitive & i tri r dbut fear ofFfeminisation r a n c as many male players. However, it is theosubtle, i snonetheofs – N less obvious negation and fear of (e.g., ‘slow play’, ‘weak n r o feminised characteristics o boundary maintenance of io p throws’, ‘fear of laying out’) that delineates the t t u s f oto embrace extreme ib Ultimate Ultimate players are unable openly & F identities. i r t c r s ran d itheir rejecphysical aggression, as it is inconsistent rules of play and – their o f s with n N o tion of dominant sporting embodiments. r o io p t t ‘Real’ players ‘lay out’ The fear of notb u s and don’t throw like ‘a beach bimbo’. fo & Fseen as a ‘real’ tri being r din ithe s regular a n c i sport I argue is most profoundly expressed f s – Players tion of the boundaries of physical do not want be physically N o oaggression. r on i violent, but they still express and experience p a desire for physicalo dominance t t bu s f o is expressed pleasure exertion. This identification & F throughc iphysical t r iby r s r i n d a Ultimate players’ reservation of thef highest for those who ‘go ho’. So in o s – praise n N o concept of sporting masthis way they are embracingraobroader, more common io p t t culinities in spite of their desire to maintain a distinction between themselves u s f o working-class ib & the and F stereotypical r d i s t rand r a n c i images of physicality associated with s – black identified sports. No oof r on i The corruption and duplicity of athletes have disrupted and unsettled modp t t ernist was formed inb u s good sport’ (Andrews 1996). Ultimate fo i & Fnotions ofc‘the i r t s It is n of vicious competition and greedy athletesr(Lewis d i1994). response rto amodels fs – N o o arguable that Ultimate players r came along to reassert on o the possibility of ‘fair play’ i p t t slogan of ‘Spirit of the u and ‘good sportsmanship’. Ultimate players’ rules and b s tie to this sense of nostalgia for af (non-existent) & Fsuggests a cstrong i o r d i s mythic Game’ tri ran s Ultimate – N players and organisers contime of untainted free play. Long-term n oof o origins and they pine for stantly invoke ‘the Sixties’pasr a reference point for their io t t u the lost idealism of those days. Many other players s f o reject muchtofrthis ib & supposedly i c F r s r i n d a are openly more interested in winning and dominating idealism and (Lewis s – Ntheo glory days for middle-class o o f were only 1994). Those days, I wouldr argue, on i p straight white men, or more accurately, they were onet of the last points at which u t b s fo & an such c i be assumed without question. F identity r distri r a n could ofs – N n ro o io p project? t Conclusion: an unfinished t u s fo ib & F i r t c r s i (gender) a n claim to be developing and living new formsd of Ultimater players f sthese– new oDo embodiment and identification. identities express or exhibit N o r on p race, class, and bodyo dominance? changes in existing gender, Butler (1990) u t i t b fo & Fthat it is in argues i s situationality and repetition of parodies t r iof r ofdthe r a n c the i sideals gender (and identity) that possible exists. Ultimate players play s – o ftransformation N o parody to be transformaro on around with sporting embodiment. However, for any i p t t tive it must, ‘produces a set of meanings that the structures f o they appeart tor ibeb u & i c F would r fails copying r a n preclude’ (Butler 1992: 87). Ultimate largely d itosproduce ofs – N n o r o io p t t u s fo ib & F i r t c r s ran di ofs – N n o r o io p t t bu fo & is tri

p

No

t

Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta

yl o yl o yl o yl o yl o yl o yl o yl o yl o yl o yl o yl o yl o yl o yl o

ofs ro

n io t u s fo ib & F i r t c r ran dis can play this game’ 193 o f s –‘Anyone n N o r o structures, ideals and io p are beyond the dominant t practices and meanings that t u rpractices s Generally, in Ultimate, when identities fo ib & Fof existingcsports. r darei marked str ran i or signified it is for purposes of differentiating o f s – them from the unnamed general r owhite able-bodiedNmales. on reference group of heterosexual, Ultimate frisbee repo i p t an interesting, ifs unrealised, potential for the tsubversion of dominant b u rresents f & i tri r d sporting Fidentities. Ultimate players’ best intentionsotheir own r a n cDespite i sperfors – o f transformative mances may not be so much politically n N or progressive so much as ro io the production of a new spacepin which to play aroundowithin established boundt t raries&of identity. bu s fo Franci r distri s – n No oof r io Notes p t t r & bu s f o ‘Ultimate’ when 1 Throughout c iof the chapter I will use the abbreviated term F r athenrest r distri referring to Ultimate frisbee. This isocommon among Ultimate players who f s –practice N otalking to cultural outsiders. generally only use the full phrase r o‘Ultimate frisbee’ when on i p t t more detail on the history, rules and current state of Ultimate visit the Ultimate r 2 For bu s or World fFlying & FAssociationc website Players Disc Federation i o tri r s r i n d a o f s – N people play on a ‘regular’ basis n 3 Disc golf sources claim that world r owide up to 500,000 o Professional Gold Disc io p and that there are approximately 6000 members of the t t u r Association. s cent of the disc golf courses as of thefyear 2000 were located ib & F Aboutc90i per o r t r s r a n States. See http://discology.co.uk/pdf/DiscGolfDemographics.pdf di in the United (accessed November 18, 2003) o o f s – N r important aspect of theo culture and I discuss it elseon i 4 The Spirit of the Game is apvery t t r where in more detail (Thornton 1998). bu s fo i & i r t c F r a n Ultimate r world. 5 The Vancouver League claims to be the largest in the d i sGo to: www.vul.bc.ca ofs – N o r fit inside of a sportsobra to help protect women’s on 6 These are little plastics cups that i p t t while playing. u r breasts sof the 1960s went onto become the ‘yuppies’ fo ib & so-called i r 7 The and ‘entrepret c F r a ‘hippies’ r n dis neurs’ of the 1980s. Essentially commodifying o f s –theirN‘alternative’ experiences in the n o form of art, poetry and film, notr to mention taking up positions in Universities. Thus, o io p characterisation of hippies t t the alterity or anti-establishment is suspect. u r 8 However, s pools of ‘official observers’ for some high f o level competitions ib & F there arec now i r t r s r i n d a Championships and UPA Nationals. To this point though like the World these s – o f judgments N boundary omake ‘observers’ can only be ‘invited’r to on calls or clarifications on o i p of rules. t t r 9 This bu s as: could we ever be so fully consciousf that questions such we could do that? i & raises i o r t F we r dIsithe s point ra n c for difference and interpretation inside such a world? How do account f s making – Nan infraction? o avoid that one calls a foul or that one should n o r o io 10 If pushed, one might argue that p laying out is a foul on oneself! t t u r11 Even review of s the many Ultimate websites and newsletters f o will revealt the ib & aFcursory i r c r prominence of images of players ‘laying out’ for the disc. Follow the various hyperlinks s ran di s –Flying Disc Federation home page at to see the many images of layingoout oonf World n N r http://www.wfdf.org o io p t t sports such as Korfball and Netball have similar rules on contact. However, b u r12 Other s f i & Fin these sports players r and s t ris r a n c i are highly constrained to specific zones ofo play d iNetball not, as far as I know, a ‘mixed’/’co’ed’osport. sThus–there is a much larger chance of playf ers running into each other on rinoan Ultimate game.N o on i p t t r & bu s fo i c Fran r distri ofs – N n ro o io p t t r & bu s fo Franci r distri ofs – N n ro o io p t t r & bu fo is tri

yl or

p

No

t

Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta

yl or yl or yl or yl or yl or yl or yl or yl or yl or yl or yl or yl or yl or yl or yl or yl or

ofs ro

n io t u s fo ib & F i r t c r ran dis 194 Andrew Thornton ofs – N n o r o io p t References t bu fo & F D. (1996) i s fact(s) of Michael Jordan’s blackness: tri r d i sa floating Andrews, Excavating r a n c ‘The – 125–58. o f s 13(2): racial signifier’, Sociology of Sport No o Journal, r on i Beal, B. (1995) ‘Disqualifyingp the official: Exploring social resistance through the subcult t bu s Sociology of Sport Journal, 12(3): 252–67. f &tureFof skateboarding’, i tri r Theory, r a(1986) n c ‘The Other Question’ in Literature, Politicso and d i s London: Bhabha, H. s – Metheun. No oof r on Birrell, S. and Cole, C. (eds) p (1994) Women, Sport, and tCulture, Champaign: Human u t i s fo ib &Kinetics. c i Trouble: Feminist Subversions of Identity, New rYork:dRoutledge r a nGender istr Butler,F J. (1990) ofs – N n Butler, J. (1992) ‘The body you Judith Butler’, Artforum, r owant: Liz Kotz Interviews o io p t (November): 82–9. t bu s on Strong: Gender and Sexuality in Twentieth-Century fo Cahn, S. K. (1994) Coming Women’s & F tri ci r s r i n d a Sport, Cambridge: Harvard University s – f Press. o (1995) N oteam wins open division’, Spirit: o Canadian Ultimate Players Association ‘Women’s r on i p t t The Sport of Ultimate in Canada, (Fall): 5. u s Association (1996) ‘No more ductf tape’, ib & F UltimatecPlayers i Canadian The Sport o r Spirit: s t r of r i n d a Ultimate in Canada, (Spring): 8. o f s – n Carrington, B. (1998) ‘Sport, masculinity and blackN cultural ro o resistance’, Journal of Sport io p t t and Social Issues, 22 (3): 275–98. u s(1995) ‘From the editor: The numbers fgame.’ ib & Ultimate i o r City 1 (Winter): 10. t c F r aNewsletter r s n di Cole, C. and Andrews, D. L. (1996)o‘Look…It showtime: Visions of race in the f s –is NBA N o on popular imaginary’, Cultural rStudies Annual, 1: 141–81. o i p t Cole, C. and Hribar, A. (1995) ‘Celebrity feminism: Niket style: post-Fordism, physicalb u s f i &transcendence i o r t c consumer power’, Sociology of Sport Journal, 12(4): F r a n and r 247–69. dis f s‘spirit’: – Football Collwell, S. (2000) ‘The ‘letter’ and laws and refereeing in the o the N o r on o M. Rowe (eds) The Future of twenty-first century’, in p J. Garland, D. Malcolm and i t t u Football: Challenges for s the Twenty-First Century, London: Frank f oCass. ib & i r t c F r Crossett, T. r (1990) d i s sport’ in a n ‘Masculinity, sexuality and the development of early modern f sMen–and Nthe Gender Order: Critical Feminist o M. Messner and D. Sabo (eds) Sport, n o r Kinetics, o io Perspectives, Champaign: p Human t t u Derrida, s Chicago: University of Chicago Press. fo ib & F J. (1974) Positions, i r t c r s r i n d Achievement, a Challenging the Men: The Social Biology of Female Sporting Dyer, K. (1982) ofs – N New York: University of Queensland. o r on o i Dyer, R. (1997) White, New York: p Routledge. t t bu Edwards, sRevolt of the Black Athlete, New York: The f oPress. i & F H. (1970)cThe i r t ra n Sociology of Sport, Illinois: Irwin Dorsey Ltd. r d i s Edwards, H. (1973) ofs – n Fanon, F. (1967) Black Skin, White r oMasks, (TranslatedNbyoCharles Lam Markmann). New io York: Grove Press, Inc. p t t u s Myths of Gender: Biological Theoriesf o Fausto-Sterling, A. (1985) about Men and Women, ib & F i r t c r s r aBasic n Books. di New York fs – N n o oLeague Fine, G. (1987) With The Boys:r Little Baseball and Preadolescent Culture, Chicago: o io p t t University of Chicago Press. u f o physicality’ tin rBen ib & F S. (2001)c ‘Racial Fleming, i s science and South Asian and black r dis r n a Carrington and Ian McDonald (eds) Sport and British Society, London: – N o f s ‘Race’, Routledge. ro on o i p t Foucault, M. (1995) Discipline and Punish: The Birth of thet Prison, (Translation by Alan u b fo &Sheridan) i sVintage Books (Second Edition) F r aNew r distri n cYork: ofs – N n ro o io p t t u s fo ib & F i r t c r s ran di ofs – N n o r o io p t t bu fo & is tri

p

No

t

Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta

yl o yl o yl o yl o yl o yl o yl o yl o yl o yl o yl o yl o yl o yl o yl o

ofs ro

n io t u s fo ib & F i r t c r ran dis can play this game’ 195 o f s –‘Anyone n N o r io p Out of This Place: Popularo Conservatism Grossberg, L. (1992) We Gotta Get and Postmodern t t u r Culture, fo & F New York:cRoutledge. is rib t r s r i n d a Gruneau, R. (1983) Class, Sports and Social Development, Amherst: The University of ofs – N o Massachusetts. r on o i p t M. (1996) Feminism and Sporting Bodies: Essays on Theory and Practice, Illinois: t rHall, bu fo Human & F Kinetics c i s r distri r n a Hall, S. (1990) ‘Culture, identity and diaspora’ o f s in J.–Rutherford (ed.) Identity, Community, Culture, Difference, London: Lawrence r o and Wishart. N o on i p t t of the “Other”’ in S. Hall (ed.) Representation: Cultural u rHall,&S. (1997) ‘The spectacle s Practices, Sage, London fo ib i Representation Signifying r t c F r a and r s n di Haman, A. (1994) ‘Coed Ultimate sweeps Spirit: The Sport of Ultimate in o fthesWest– Coast’, n N o Canada, (August): 3–4. r o io p t t J. (1994) Sporting Females: Critical Issues in the History and Sociology of rHargreaves, bu s fo & F Sports, London: Women’s r distri r a n c i Routledge. Harvey, J. and Rail, G. (1995) ‘Body at work: the sociology of sport’, – Foucault o f sMichel N o inand r oIssue: Sociology of Sport on Sociology of Sport Journal. Special ‘la Francophonie’, 12(2): i p t t r 164–79. bu s fo & C. i tri c Hilbert, (1997) ‘Tough enough and woman enough’, Journal of Sport Fran r anddSocial i sIssues, 21(1)(February): 7–36. ofs – n r o and flex appeal:NTheo body, sex, sexuality, and race Holmlund, C. (1994) ‘Visible difference io p t t u r in iron films’, s in Susan Birrell and Cheryl Cole (eds) f o Women, Sportt and ib & theFpumping i r c r s Culture, Champaign: Human Kinetics. ran di – and o f sManual Johnson, S. (1975) Frisbee: A Practitioner’s Definitive Treatise, New York: N o r on o i Workman Publishing Company. p t t rKidd, ‘Sports iand bu s masculinity’, in Michael Kaufman (ed.) f o Beyond Patriarchy: i & B. (1987) r t F by r d iPress. s r Men a noncPleasure, Power and Change, Toronto: Oxford University Chapters – Nand the Construction of Gender, o f sSubculture Klein, A. (1993) Little Big Men: Bodybuilding o r on o i New York: SUNY Press. p t t u rLenskyj, s (1986) Out of Bounds: Women, Sport and Sexuality, Toronto: f o Women’s Press. ib & H. i r t c F r r a n‘Sexuality and femininity in sport contexts: Issues and dalternatives’, is Lenskyj, H. (1994) s – n No oof Journal of Sport and Social Issues,r (November): 356–75. io t Lewis, S. (1994) ‘The Ultimatepsport’, Paper presented at The Canadian Sociology and t r Anthropology sCanadians Learned Societies, June (Calgary, f o Alberta). t r i b u Sessions, & F i c r d12–13. r is n Lind, L. (1992)a‘Spin out with the Ultimate cult’, Magazine, (6 August): s EYE f – o N o on Knowledge, Manchester: Lyotard, J. (1986) The Postmodern r o Condition: A Report on i p t t University Press r Manchester bu s Identities, Societies, Civilizations, Cambridge: fo i & F i Maguire, J. (1999) Global sport: Polity Press. r t r dis ranc McDonald, M. and Andrews, D. (2001)o ‘Michael f s Jordan: – NCorporate sport and postmodern n o celebrityhood’ In Andrew, D. and r Jackson, S. (eds) Sporto Stars: The Cultural Politics of io p t t Celebrity, London: Routledge. u r Sporting s f oLondon. ib & F A. (1994)cPostmodernism i r McRobbie, and Popular Culture, Routledge: t r s ran di Marqusee, M. (2001) ‘In search of the unequivocal in B. Carrington and I. o f s –Englishman’, n N o MacDonald (eds) ‘Race’, Sport rand British Society, London: o Routledge. io p t t M. (1991) Power at Play: Sports and the Problem of Masculinity, Beacon Press: b u rMessner, s fo & F Boston. r distri ranci s f – Miles, S. (1998). ‘McDonaldization and the global sports store: Construction consumer o No r o In M. Alfino and on meanings in a rationalized p society.’ J. S. Caputo and R. Wynyard i t t McDonaldizations Revisited: Critical Essays on Consumer r (eds), bu f o Culture, London: & i c Fran r distri Praeger. ofs – N n ro o io p t t r & bu s fo Franci r distri ofs – N n ro o io p t t r & bu fo is tri

yl or

p

No

t

Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta

yl or yl or yl or yl or yl or yl or yl or yl or yl or yl or yl or yl or yl or yl or yl or yl or

ofs ro

n io t u s fo ib & F i r t c r ran dis 196 Andrew Thornton ofs – N n o r o io p and Others, Chicago: Aldine. Polsky, N. (1967) Hustlers, Beats t t u f o Tour: The tOttawa Price, J. (1994) ‘Women & F i s in Ultimate: Looked off or not looking?’ rib c r s r i n d a Ultimate Review, Summer: 12. – N ofs Seidman, S. (1994) Contested Knowledge: Social Theory in the Postmodern Era, New York: ro on o i p t Routledge. t sCritical Ethnography, Newbury Park: Sage f oPublications. t r i b u Thomas, Doing & F J. (1993) c i r dis r n a Thornton, A. (1998) ‘Ultimate masculinities: of power and social differ– ethnography o f s An N o ence in Sport’, unpublished rPhD thesis, University ofoToronto. on i p t t Ultimate Players Association (1988) ‘UPA Newsletter, 20th Anniversary Issue’, u b s fo &(September) c i Springs, Colorado. F r a nColorado r distri Ultimate Players Association (1992)o UPA 12 (5) (November). f sNewsletter, – n Ultimate Players Association (2002a) r o Homepage ofNthe o Ultimate Players Association io p t t available online http://www.upa.org/ (accessed 21 March 2002). u s fo & F Players Association rib Ultimate (2002b) The Rules of Ultimate Frisbee. r Available ranci d i s tonline http://www.upa.org/ultimate/rules/rules.shtml 20 January 2002). o f s –(accessed N o by r o Comments posted on Ultimate Players Association (2002c) players on the Spirit of the i p t t Game. Available online: http:www.upa.org/ultimate/sotg/sotg.shtml (accessed 20b u s fo &January i c 2002). Fran r distri f s – Slavery, Walvin, J. (1987) ‘Symbols of moral osuperiority: n N o sport and the changing world r o and J. Walvin (eds) order, 1800–1940’ in J.A.pMangan Manliness and Morality: Middleio t t u Masculinity in Britain s and America, 1880–1940, New York: f oSt. Martin’s Press. ib &Class r t ci F rB.aandn Tomlinson, rin sport? s Wheaton, A. (1998) ‘The changing gender order The case of di ofs windsurfing’, Journal of Sport and Social Issues,–22 (August): 252–274 N o r on o domination, and empoweri Whitson, D. (1994) ‘The embodiment of gender: Discipline, p t t in S. Birrell iand bu s C. Cole (eds) Women, Sport and Culture, f o Champaign (Illinois): i &ment’ r t F r Kinetics r dis anc Human f s WFDF – N homepage. Available online: o(2002) n World Flying Disc Federation o r io http://www.wfdf.org (Accessed p March 20, 2002). o t t u s Zagoria, spreads from maplewood to thefworld’. Available online: ib & F A. (1998)c‘Ultimate i o r t r ran dis http:www.upa.org/upa (accessed 21 Junes1998). – N of n o r o io p t t bu s fo & F r distri ranci ofs – N ro on o i p t t bu s fo i & F i r t r dis ranc ofs – N n o r o io p t t u s fo ib & F i r t c r s ran di ofs – N n o r o io p t t bu s fo & F r distri ranci ofs – N ro on o i p t t bu s fo & F i c r distri ran ofs – N n ro o io p t t u s fo ib & F i r t c r s ran di ofs – N n o r o io p t t bu fo & is tri

p

No

t