Violence, Fighting, and Masculinity
Gruneau and Whistson’s article, “Hockey night in Canada” from the book, “Violence, fighting, and masculinity,” discusses a very controversial issue of violence in hockey. The article touches on the theories behind violence in hockey and how the game permits violence and even encourages it. The physical aspects of hockey within the rules of the games sort of promotes fighting and violence. As stated in the article, “Fist fighting becomes a safety valve that helps to preclude more dangerous attacks with sticks” (Gruneau & Whitson, 1993) which have been a problem in the past. The most thought provoking element of this article is the concept behind human aggression, which is the catharsis hypothesis.
The first thing that came to mind while reading this article was the incident between Chris Simon and Ryan Hollweg. At 13:25 of the third period, Rangers forward Ryan Hollweg checked Simon, knocking him face first into the boards. Simon suffered a concussion; no penalties were assessed, and play continued. Simon then struck Hollweg in the face with a vicious blow from his hockey stick. Simon was suspended for 25 games and luckily for Hollweg the blow struck his shoulder pads before it actually hit him in the face to decrease the intensity of the blow. This incident directly relates to this article and the catharsis hypothesis and what the catharsis hypothesis attempts to prevent.
The catharsis hypothesis suggests that fighting in sports helps let out aggression in a controlled outlet that if not released can manifest itself in more serious forms of aggression. I can personally relate to this as a former football player, even though I was never the type of guy that had built up animosity I’ve seen it in other players. I’ve seen players that just look for an opposing player to hit even sometimes after the whistle. In my eyes aggression can be looked like as an addictive drug, of course metaphorically, but nonetheless an addictive drug. According to the catharsis hypothesis, “without this outlet, it is argued, frustration would build up until it erupted in even more violent and dangerous ways,” (Gruneau & Whitson, 1993) my thoughts on this statement are if hockey already allows violent acts within the rule book, why must the rules be broken to take out built up frustration? At the same time I can understand how opposing players getting under a player’s skin combined with emotions and adrenaline can result in a fight. The catharsis hypotheses view is that aggression will somehow find a way to express itself in more or less damaging ways, so it might as well express itself in a controlled manner.
1 comment:
Actually the chapter is entitled "Violence, fighting, and masculinity," and it comes from the book that is titled Hockey night in Canada. You bring up a great point about aggressive behavior being addictive. I never thought about that before, but I am sure for many who employ it, it has the same effect as a strong drug. I have always thought that professional sports offer a kind of "high" that many athletes cannot find through any other outlet. I think that must be why many "retired" athletes return to their sport when they find that living in the real world just does not offer the same "high." (e.g., Brett Favre, Michael Jordan, etc.)
You raise a provocative point about why aggressive behaviors or violence has to escalate when a certain amount of aggression is accepted as "part of the game." The only thing I can speculate about that is perhaps players want to test the limits to find out where the line is drawn between acceptable and unacceptable behavior. Then again, perhaps it is impulsive and cannot be controlled. Whatever the rationale, it seems clear that there is a line that must not be crossed when it comes to behavior that can be harmful to an opponent. The example of Chris Simon and Ryan Hollweg seemed to illustrate that, and I know there have been other cases that happened before (Marty McSorley, Tai Domi, etc.).
Post a Comment