Marxist Mixed Martial Arts?

Before jumping into a Marxist analysis of MMA, I wanted to follow up on my previous opinion piece posted here a few days ago, titled “Theorizing Violence in Sport: The Case of Mixed Martial Arts (July 23, 2010).” The essay gained a little bit of traction across the MMA blogosphere discussed on BloodyElbow, Sherdog, and the UG. Not a terribly big deal, but I believe responses were a bit unfair to Zuffa, LLC and the UFC specifically, both in the receptive headlines and general discourse. My original article did not mention the UFC too much more than Strikeforce. However, it seemed the UFC was presented as the sole MMA organization to be held responsible, as opposed to an example of a profitable organization that may want to foster safety measures beyond its current organization.

Additionally, I was careful not to explicitly state that any MMA organization (UFC, Strikeforce, whichever) should be responsible for investing in a kind of minor league, MMA farm system. From the final paragraph in my original piece: “Perhaps this means larger MMA organizations like the UFC and Strikeforce need to consider investing their profits in smaller organizations to help improve an infrastructure that bolsters safety precautions…” Considering broader investment in safety-based infrastrcutre across smaller organizations is not radical by any means.

A good example of a model would be the WEC before the folks at Zuffa decided to cut the heavier weight classes. Under the Zuffa umbrella, the WEC ostensibly served as a farm system for fighters in multiple weight classes (155lbs – LHW) who could matriculate into the UFC when their talents warranted promotion. And with the WEC under the Zuffa banner, it was (and still is for the WEC fighters in lighter weight classes) understood the strictest, most thorough safety precautions would be taken, in large part because the parent company (Zuffa) could afford them.

If we are going to focus on Zuffa, this could mean the Fertitta brothers, Dana White, and company identifying smaller, regional MMA organizations with whom they would like to forge formal partnerships and investing in their organizational development (e.g., promotional strategies, fighter recruitment). This would also mean enforcing the most thorough medical/safety precautions that may frequently exceed state regulations. In return, hopefully the best fighters would gravitate towards those farm organizations and safely progress to the UFC.

No model is perfect. Tensions could emerge between whatever parent MMA organization is running the show and the smaller feeder organizations over any number of issues. Mapping out and implementing such a plan would take years, but prominent, successful organizations have vision and make long-term organizational plans. One central focus (and the one with which I am obviously most concerned) is broad-based prevention. This was never and is not now an alarmist response to two deaths in sanctioned MMA. This is a public health-type prevention response, arguing those tragedies are important, and long-term, it would benefit the industry if wide-spread measures were taken to prevent/minimize future deaths and major injuries.

If we can agree that Zuffa provides the best medical precautions, why not work to expand that infrastructure? Then the issue of cost comes up, and presumably, Zuffa shrunk the WEC at least in part because having so many weight classes was not fiscally profitable, leading me to my next point…

A Marxist Interpretation of MMA

In a developed society like the United States that leans heavily towards capitalism and the free market, a highly successful private enterprise is obviously not responsible for ensuring other, smaller companies are implementing any level of worker safety. As noted in the original essay, although the bigger MMA organizations rely on the smaller ones for worker development/recruitment, there is to my knowledge no formal relationship between them. On the contrary, MMA organizations big and small may even identify one another as competition and have antagonistic relationships. And that is part of the crux in this discussion (sorry, what follows is gonna get a bit lengthy and lecture-ish).

If applying a very Marxist viewpoint, in a for-profit company, those at the top will never pay its workers their full value, let alone workers outside of their organization. In fact, capitalist companies world-wide know that the best way to maximize profit is not via sales (though sales are necessary), but via under-paying labor. Hence, within a capitalist system, the proletariat (fighters) will always be at odds with the bourgeoisie (promoters/owners), as maximizing worker cost minimizes profit margin. Thus, it is not in any company’s best interests financially to support workers, especially workers industry-wide.

Sticking with the Marxist lens, the difficult part for fighters is so many have what Marx called “false consciousness” – they genuinely believe that to a large degree they benefit from more than they are harmed by the bourgeoisie, industry, and social structure. Not only does the promoter pay the fighter, but through the industry, fighters report learning positive values (e.g., discipline) and attain a certain status (e.g., celebrity, alpha male). This status coupled with financial compensation helps fighters cope with a sense of alienation from their own bodies. Their own bodies become defined as tools for the MMA industry, in this case tools valued for their ability to destruct other fighters and absorb pain in the short-term, rather than healthy bodies over time.

And while previous research shows that fighters are keenly aware of their own exploitation (see Loic Wacqunt’s qualitative work with boxers), fighters will inevitably invest their efforts in fighting each other rather than the power structure. Supporting the company line and defeating a fellow fighter yields far more social rewards now than working with fellow workers to secure worker rights years from now (never mind trying to do so individually). And management knows this. Keeping workers invested in the company and divided among themselves means there is no collective working-class resistance to conquer.

Hence, even when the most socially powerful fighters like Randy Couture challenge management, the collective silence of all other fighters vastly outweighs Couture’s protest, and eventually he is compelled to return if he wants to continue practicing his craft at the highest level. And high-level, well-compensated fighters, like Couture, Brock Lesner, and Chuck Liddell, are portrayed almost as a norm, even though they are outlying exceptions with regard to worker compensation across the MMA landscape.

The other issue at hand for Marx is the broader public, or in this case, MMA fans. Capitalism functions more efficiently when workers as a whole have leisure time to re-charge (hence, we have weekends, holidays, vacation). Sport functions in society for workers as a site where one can have a reprieve from work, only to go back to work without complaining about it. The MMA industry is built largely from the reality that much of our society values and has commodified violence as a form of entertainment.

Thus as capitalist enterprises, MMA organizations know they can increase profits not only by increased gate and pay-per-view sales, but also through advertising deals, DVD sales, clothing sales, and so on. And as long as enough of the larger society values violence as a form of entertainment, the broader public will support the industry that creates this manifestation of violence, but not the workers that enable the industry to run.

If workers outside the MMA industry value quality MMA fights but don’t want to pay unreasonable costs to watch them, they are not going to seriously advocate for the fighters’ rights. Doing so would increase MMA company costs and in turn costs of MMA pay-per-views, tickets, and merchandising. Consequently, those who utilize their bodies as labor are resigned to (in this case literally) fight for themselves and against one another. They don’t get broad-based, radical support from the bourgeoisie, each other, or the broader public.

One could reasonably argue, fighters engage in fight sport as a personal choice, and that is ultimately true, but it is true to different degrees for different people. People are born with vastly different life chances. It is no coincidence that such a high proportion of boxers from different ethnic demographics have come from very working-class backgrounds over the decades.

And while MMA currently has a larger proportion of fighters from middle-class backgrounds, one can go back to the way our society values masculine violence as a form of entertainment. This will inevitably influence heavy numbers of males to pursue a pro MMA career, often at the expense of other, more likely and lengthy vocational paths. And back to the issue at hand, sacrificing the more likely career path means not crossing the boss once in the MMA industry.

With all this in mind, who is going to support the fighters, and not just the ones that already make six figures?


Blogosphere

Punching with the Boys ... or with the Girls

Eileen McDonagh and Laura Pappano's Playing With the Boys: Why Separate is Not Equal in Sports argues that athletics in its current form perpetuates gender inequity in society. In essence, because we automatically separate boys from girls and women from men in sporting competitions, society does not allow for females who can out-perform males or compete on an equal basis with them, to do so.

McDonagh and Pappano's thesis rests upon the notion that gender exists along a continuum, as does athletic ability (or really any intellectual/physical quality). Therefore, females and males should practice and compete together in sport, just as they do in school and work, and competitive brackets should be based on ability, thereby eleminating segregation resting upon rigid gender norms. Of course there would still be gender disparities in competitions, but socially constructed understandings of gender would not be a fundamental divisive factor in athletic competition.

Yesterday, I watched an interesting video over on BloodyElbow.com, "Sam Stout's UFC 113 Vlog - Episode 2." As seen embedded in the video below, UFC fighter, Sam Stout is shown sparring quite extensively with a female kickboxer, Germain DeRandamie. Stout's commentary is quite refreshing in a sport that is obviously dominated by males from top (owners, management) to bottom (fighters, ring girls) (go to 2:35 of the video).

Watch Road To 113: Sam Stout's Birthday, Episode 2 on RawVegas.tv

I wouldn't say this is an exact example of what McDonagh and Pappano hope to see in sport. DeRandamie is still framed in the story in reference to Stout, who serves as the vlog's central focus. Also, this is heavy practice, not a formal competition per se. Still, this is a pretty unique example of progress in the striking dimensions of an MMA practice setting. DeRandamie has certainly garnered her male peers' respect by practicing with them at high speed.

I would argue this in more of an example of co-option in sport -- females (or in this case 1 female) entering a male dominated terrain without changing the overall nature of the institution, as opposed to co-operation, where women and men work collectively to revamp institutions such that they are gender neutral.

All this theoretical stuff notwithstanding, I say we have some progress demonstrated here, with much more to go. Oh, and it would probably be good if people weren't hitting each other in the head too much...the jury's still out on MMA and traumatic brain injury.

How Sports and Leisure Stunt Social Resistance

This blog is quickly turning into the “Sports Sociology Blog.” LeBron James of the Cleveland Cavaliers recently came out with a book titled Shooting Stars, co-authored with Buzz Bissinger. As such, James has been making the rounds across talk radio. He was recently interviewed on NPR’s Fresh Air with Terry Gross (9/9/09) and then on Talk of the Nation with Neal Conan (9/15/09).

I particularly enjoyed the first interview with Gross in which James discusses his childhood friendships (that serve as the basis for his book), racial politics in high school athletics, getting dunked on, and his relationship with his mother. I noticed one of his comments illustrates the way that popular culture subdues social resistance in contemporary society. From a transcript of the interview:

GROSS: You're one of the people who went very suddenly from poverty to wealth. You write in your book, you know, your mother had you when she was 16. Her mother died when you were three. It was hard for your mother to support you. You had to keep moving a lot because of eviction notices and, you know, rent problems. Did you think of basketball as a way out, as more than just a game?

Mr. JAMES: Oh, I think it is more than a game. Basketball, and I think sport period, gives you an opportunity to forget about anything that may be going on in your life, back away from that particular sport that you may be playing. You know, I definitely used the game to get my mind off some of the bad things that may have been going on as a child.

GROSS: Like what?

Mr. JAMES: You know, just things you never want your kids to see, you know, violence and things like that. You never want your kids to see that. So, you know, I used the game of basketball to keep me away from that.

While it is unclear from what type of violence (e.g., family) James was escaping when playing basketball, what is clear is that in escaping from the violence, the violence went unchallenged by James. Granted, James was describing a time when he was a minor, so this example is not to be taken literally by suggesting James should have been expected to challenge the violent perpetrator(s).

Rather, James’s comments exemplify one of the functions of popular culture in a society rooted in conflict – to help the exploited escape temporarily from their problems, thereby allowing the exploiters to go about their business unchallenged by the masses. From John Storey’s An Introductory Guide to Cultural Theory and Popular Culture:

The function of the culture industry is therefore, ultimately, to organize leisure time in the same way as industrialization has organized work time. Work under capitalism stunts the senses; the culture industry continues the process: ‘the escape from everyday drudgery which the whole culture industry promotes … [is a] paradise … [of] the same old drudgery … escape … [is] predesigned to lead back to the starting point. Pleasure promotes the resignation which it ought to help to forget.’ In short, work leads to mass culture; mass culture leads back to work. (p. 105, 106).

In other words, those who are victims of violence in various settings (e.g., family, work, school, religion), can temporarily go off and play a game of pickup, catch a movie, take a vacation, pray, or engage in whatever form of leisure/escape they choose. Doing so simply recharges the victims’ batteries, makes them feel rewarded, and ultimately encourages them to return to their place of exploitation. Popular culture and leisure activities are part of the capitalist system, secretly painted as social rewards. In reality, sporting and leisure industries in general help those in power go unchallenged.

Today, sporting institutions have become so popular that society virtually ignores the way athletic industries symbolize and perpetuate global exploitation. Unlike some athletes from yesteryear who cared about social issues and actually attempted to do something about them (Martina Navratilova, Muhammad Ali, Arthur Ashe, Jackie Robinson), today’s LeBron James, Tiger Woods, the Williams Sisters, Roger Federer and so on, follow the lead of an utterly apolitical Michael Jordan.

Corporate ties to athletic industries, such as Nike, inhibit athletes from using their social power in ways that oppose the most hideous forms of globalization. In the 1980s and beyond, multinational corporations shifted in five ways that perpetuate global disparities:

1. …1890s firms largely employed Americans to produce their product; in the 1990s, the firms extensively employed foreign labor and made the overwhelming bulk of their goods abroad.
2. …while the late-nineteenth-century firms largely traded in natural resources (oil, iron) or industrial goods (steel, paint), the late-twentieth-century firms traded in designs, technical knowledge, management techniques, and organizational innovations.
3. A third characteristic of transnationals, such as Nike or Coca-Cola, was their increasing dependence on world markets – not solely U.S. – for profits.
4. …transnationals of the late twentieth century depended on massive advertising campaigns to make people want their products…. Such advertising often sold not merely a product (as sneakers), but a lifestyle (“Just Do It”) that in most instances was based on American culture.
5. The new transnational…became so global by the 1980s that a single government had power over only a part o the firm’s total operation… Thus, for example, when the makers of athletic equipment were found in the 1990s to be exploiting low-paid Southeast Asians who worked in horrible conditions, the U.S. government’s power to remedy the problem was limited. The transnational was, as its name declared, transcending the boundaries of individual nations.

From Michael Jordan and the New Global Capitalism (LaFeber, 2002, p. 55-57).

Today, transnational corporations (like Nike) continue to exploit Southeast Asian workers and only claim awareness of the exploitation and do something about it after it has been exposed by others (see below).



In the meantime, society’s athletes and sports fans go about getting ready for the next sporting event while the corporate executives' oppressive and global work-leisure-work system goes on unchallenged.

(Photo courtesy of NPR).

Using Mobile Phones to Teach Sociology

So in the last decade-plus, mobile phones have truly come into their own. They're part of our everyday lives that many of us (including me) cannot seem to do without. This presents an excellent topic for that Intro to Sociology course.

Fuctionalism (mobile phones help to bring social structures together):

From an NPR story/podcast, "Mobile Phones Do Much More Than Make Calls" --

In Asia, Africa, Europe and elsewhere, cell phone technology has always been way ahead of what's available in the states. Around the world, people use their phones in innovative, creative ways.

For example, mobile phones help rural farmers gather information about crop prices, and bargain shoppers download coupons on the fly.

At the recent Mobile World Congress in Barcelona, LG unveiled a touch phone in a watch, and Sony Ericsson's new mobile phone (codenamed 'Idou') with a built-in 12.1 megapixel camera got plenty of attention. Also in Barcelona, Samsung showed its Blue Earth touchscreen phone. It's made from recycled water bottles, and has a solar panel that charges the battery.

And from a story on TMCnet.com, "Beyond Voice: How Your Cell Phone is Evolving into a Business Productivity Tool" --

In the early days, cell phones were used merely for talking. Today, cell phones have a myriad of other applications. For many people, their cell phone is their daily organizer, music player, camera, GPS system, and news and weather device. But that’s just the tip of the iceberg. In the very near future, cell phones will also be people’s banks, credit card, keys, remote control, and video conferencing platform, just to name a few. Clearly, today’s cell phones are much more than phones, and tomorrow’s will revolutionize the business world.

In addition to identifying the connecting/inter-dependence of social structures through use of mobile phones, also identify their latent and manifest functions, and when they become dysfunctional (e.g., in class! And cell phone addiction).

Symbolic Interactionism (mobile phones as physical objects and abstract symbols):

From a BBC story, "Chic gear to suit next generation" --

Some designers are experimenting with putting wires and electronics in their clothes.

Most examples of these are purely for the high-fashion catwalk, one-off concept pieces designed to look good rather than do anything.

Access to the technologies is a problem for designers too, and there is a gulf between the fashion industry, technologists and engineers in the thinking around wearable technology and computing.

Find out how mobile phones and their accessories are provided with meaning and in turn give individuals different types of status.

Conflict Theory, with a particular emphasis on race and global inequality (those who own the means of production exploit others to profit from mobile phones):

From an AlterNet.org story, "War, Murder, Rape... All for Your Cell Phone" --

Cell phones, laptop computers and other portable electronics rely for their power on lithium ion batteries, which aren't just made of lithium. They contain copper and cobalt (often found together in a single ore called heterogenite) as well as nickel and iron, and generally have to be replaced every one to three years. (Up to 6 million will need to be replaced all at once with the recent recall of Dell and Apple laptop batteries). The DRC has 10 percent of the world's copper reserves and 30 to 40 percent of its cobalt, and with the prospect of a stable central government, the country's importance as a source of those materials for batteries and other uses is expected to grow.

The DRC's mines are in its southernmost province, Katanga, which went largely unscathed by the war that raged far to the north. Nevertheless, artisanal miners work under conditions that are only marginally better than those in the tin and coltan mines. They crawl through incredibly hot, cramped tunnels lit only by small flashlights or candles, using only shovels or their bare hands as tools. The BBC reported last year that the Ruashi mine employs 4,000 miners, some as young as 8 years old, who "dig and sieve from dawn to dusk."

Identify our false consciousness regarding mobile phones (how we stay compelled to keep upgrading and buying new accessories), or even the possible false consciousness of those who work under oppressive conditions to get the raw materials for mobile phones.

Conflict Theory, with an emphasis on feminist theory (use of mobile phones perpetuates patriarchal systems):

From a paper by Cindy Southworth, Shawndell Dawson, Cynthia Fraser, and Sarah Tucker, "A High-Tech Twist on Abuse: Technology, Intimate Partner Stalking, and Advocacy" --

Abusers regularly use telephone technologies to stalk current and former intimate partners (Brewster, 2003). While most homes have traditional telephones, many families are also using cellular and wireless telephones, creating a new realm of tools for stalkers to use. In June 2004, approximately 169 million Americans used wireless telephones (Cellular Telecommunications &Internet Association, 2004). As wireless telephones become more sophisticated, abusers are finding ways to use advanced telephone features to aid them in stalking their victims...

Abusers can monitor their victims' cell or wireless telephone use through the call history on the telephone and through billing records. Most cell phones keep an internal record of incoming and outgoing calls. Stalkers also use phone-based instant messaging, simple text messaging, and pagers to maintain constant access to their intimate partners. Stalkers can use new location based services provided by cell phone carriers to track the location of their victims. In Rhode Island one abuser assaulted his wife after finding the shelter telephone number in her cell phone call history; as a result she did not attempt to leave her husband for another year (Safety Net, 2004).

Without suggesting personal disclosure, discuss observations of mobile phones used as monitoring devices, used to disseminate photos, etc.

Social movements (for later in the semester):

Podast from the BBC World Service, "Citizen Journalism - Democracy or Chaos?" and "The rise of Iran's citizen jouranlists" --

It has been 40 days since Neda Agha-Soltan, a young Iranian woman, was killed during an anti-government protest in Tehran.

Within hours, graphic scenes showing her final seconds of life dominated newspapers and bulletins over the world.

Yet this moment wasn't recorded by a professional journalist working for a big news organisation. Instead, a regular bystander captured the powerful footage and uploaded it online.

The clip of Agha-Soltan's death is just one of hundreds of pieces of citizen journalism to come from Iran in the past few month.

With journalists forced to stay in their hotel rooms, or even leave the country, these amateur recordings quickly became the only means of getting uncensored news out of Tehran.

How has increased information technology advanced/complicated social movements?

Fighting for the Right to Fight: Part III -- Blatant Sexism Tolerated

FIGHTING FOR THE RIGHT TO FIGHT: PART III -- BLATANT SEXISM TOLERATED

[Cross-posted on FightTicker.com]

With Christiane Santos and Gina Carano headlining a major mixed martial arts (MMA) card, this 3-part series examines the state of women in MMA. Part I of this series overviews the progress women have made in MMA, with Part II covering the normalized forms of sexism that frequently go unnoticed.

This piece presents the more overt forms of sexism that still transpire in MMA and contemporary sport. While many in the MMA community do not promote or approve of these sexist acts, the acts are ultimately tolerated by the industry since the perpetrators are rarely punished and gender equity is not seen as a priority by the public at large, especially when cast as a threat to the sporting status quo.

When Not Fighters, Women are Relegated to Sexualized Appendages of Male Fighters

Again, the proportion of female fighters relative to males is extremely small. Thus, when women are not included in competition during MMA fight cards, women's inclusion tends to come in the form of displaying their sexuality and nothing else. Obviously, this exemplifies how women are valued within sport -- as voiceless, commodified sexual appendages to the more central male athletes.


In this UFC 100 promotional video shown on YouTube (assist to Steve Ficca), it is glaringly evident how women are utilized in MMA when they are not athletes.

When EliteXC aired MMA's first fight card on primetime network television (May 31, 2008), Gina Carano and Kaitlin Young competed in a marquee match. However, women were also featured as dancers. This theatrical spectacle was not continued in subsequent EliteXC fight cards.

EliteXC did a great deal to promote women’s MMA, but its initial inclusion of female dancers did not reflect well on the organization's overall portrayal of women.

Still, this sexist practice continues across the MMA industry. For UFC 100, rather than have female athletes or commentators for the centennial event, the promotion increased its use of women by adding Holly Madison as a guest Octagon Girl. Occasionally, fighters will have women accompany them to the ring or cage in theatrical arena entrances. And for no apparent reason except to add to this hypermasculine culture, sexualized women are sometimes added for MMA fighter photo opportunities.

Similar practices of course happen in numerous sports -- in football with cheerleaders, in basketball with dancers, in boxing with ring girls. The predominantly male market calls for this portrayal of women, and sporting industries perpetuate the demand. Angela Harris, a University of California, Berkeley professor of law, theorizes that society's patriarchal culture confines men and women to rigid gender roles, which when challenged, result in public shaming (Harris quoting James Gilligan):

The male gender role generates violence by exposing men to shame if they are not violent, and rewarding them with honor when they are. The female gender role also stimulates male violence at the same time that it inhibits female violence. It does this by restricting women to the role of highly unfree sex objects, and honoring them to the degree that they submit to those roles or shaming them when they rebel. This encourages men to treat women as sex objects, and encourages women to conform to that sex role; but it also encourages women (and men) to treat men as violence objects. (p. 789, 790).

Additionally in MMA and sports at large, there are simply fewer financial opportunities for women outside of these limited occupational spaces. Thus, when women do capitalize from their sexuality in or out of MMA, they are turning to a viable avenue to earn income made possible by the industry and broader patriarchal demands.

Sexist Language

Sports have always been characterized by women's subordination. Too often, this occurs through language used by athletes, coaches and those who oversee sporting institutions (e.g., promoters, commissioners). Use of clichés, such as "You throw/hit like a girl" or "Quit being a little bi*ch" relies on the collective understanding that femininity is subordinate to masculinity. Thus, when one uses those types of clichés in an insulting manner, even if conscious intent to denigrate women is not present, the process supports a broader sexist culture.

Examples of this type of language abound in MMA and undergo minimal scrutiny. In MTV’s MMA-based reality show, Bully Beatdown, characters in virtually every episode utilize language that subordinates femininity. The following are a small sample of such lines expressed in the reality show: "Adam and Josh went to Mayhem for help cause they couldn't do it themselves. They're too much of a little bi*ch to take care of business on their own" (episode two); "On your back like a little bi*ch!" (episode four); "Easy targets. They put themselves out there. They're little girls. They cry about everything. They just don't know how to take a joke. They're not men that's all" (episode three).

And while not the norm, it is not uncommon to hear male MMA fighters use similar language in pre-fight interviews. In the widely viewed special, UFC Primetime, which hyped the UFC 94 match between B.J. Penn and Georges St. Pierre, Penn said of GSP, "GSP, saying he's not a quitter, but I was right there watching him quit. You tap from strikes, you're a little bi*ch."


EMBED-Dana Whites Fight Night 18 video blog - Watch more free videos

In probably the most obvious example from April of this year, UFC President Dana White closed out an official UFC Fight Night promotional video log with the following statement: "You fu**in' dumb bi*ch. Fu** you Loretta Hunt." Additionally in the same piece, White used the words "retard" and "fa**ot" as a way to disparage various individuals. As noted previously in Part II, Hunt is one of the few female journalists in the MMA industry.

Following heavy criticism from numerous MMA media outlets, White quickly apologized for use of the homophobic language. No apology was made for language that belittles women or the mentally challenged. More importantly, it appears no structural changes in the industry have manifested that would aim to shift people's attitudes, raise consciousness, and prevent future discriminatory behaviors (see final section of this post on "equity policies").

In fact, across the MMA blogosphere, although criticism of White's words was quite heavy from online journalists, a large proportion of commenters/readers supported White (see commenters’ statements in response to Maggie Hendricks’s article). Presumably, a high majority of online MMA readers/commenters is heterosexually male, enabling them to interact with one another in anonymous virtual communities where written sexism/homophobia can go relatively unchecked, depending largely on the sites' designers and moderators.

This provides a textbook example of how sexism operates simultaneously on interpersonal and institutional levels. Following a blatant example of sexist language used in an official company promotional piece, support for the victim is minimized because of her minority status in the industry as a whole, where athletes, managers, coaches, fans, and fellow journalists are largely male, and are therefore unaffected (perhaps even privileged) by sexism. Thus de facto discrimination goes on, "business as usual."

Sexual Assault and Harassment

Given the lenient atmosphere that ensconces MMA and sport with regard to sexism, when sexual assault and/or harassment does occur, it is not terribly surprising that it goes on absent of serious scrutiny, even after sexual harassment is carried out publicly.

By now, many sports fans have been made privy to the sexual assault enacted upon ESPN reporter, Erin Andrews who was video taped unknowingly without wearing any clothes through a hotel peephole. The video was then posted over the internet before being removed. Unfortunately, examples of sexual assaults by athletes are bountiful (see for example, here). Nothing so harmful has occurred in MMA (at least not to the public’s knowledge). However, similar occurrences have taken place.

The sexual assault perpetrated against ESPN reporter Erin Andrews was deplorable. Unfortunately, it reflects a broader trend in the sporting industry.

While probably not defined as sexual harassment technically, Gina Carano being forced to undress at the EliteXC public weigh-ins prior to her October 2008 match against Kelly Kobald was completely inappropriate. Although men do this regularly when on the edge of making weight at public weigh-ins, the experience is different since the audience is predominantly male. How many pictures of male fighters weighing in behind towels were plastered across the MMA blogosphere versus those of Carano?

Having a small group of men hold towels around a woman's undressed body while she weighs in as groups of young male voyeurs in the audience take pictures hoping to sneak a peek illustrates a lack of gender awareness and infrastructure in an industry run by males. A simple solution would have been to take Carano backstage and weigh in with a female official and women from her and her opponent's camp. Instead, the public spectacle of having Carano strip down and weigh in behind towels prevailed over a rational and equitable solution.

An example of sexual harassment, this time against MMA reporter Heather Nichols, occurred July of this year when Quinton "Rampage" Jackson, one of the UFC's biggest stars, grabbed Nichols mid-interview and began emulating sexual intercourse with her (see below).

MMA reporter Heather Nichols was not appreciative of how "Rampage" Jackson conducted himself during their interview (assist to Mike Menninger).

Nobody intervened to stop Jackson's actions during the interview. According to a subsequent interview with Nichols, she did not approve of Jackson's actions and at the time of interview had not received an apology from him. That this example happened in the most public of spaces only makes one wonder what occurs throughout the MMA industry behind closed doors and how young males may model their behavior off these types of actions.

Sociological Terms and Models to End Sexism in Sport

What we see in MMA with regard to women's inclusion are the beginnings of "gender equality" with very small degrees of "gender equity." Sports sociologist Richard Giulianotti states, "Equality policies open doors to disadvantaged groups, including women. Equity policies restructure the sports system per se to ensure sport experiences are qualitatively similar for men and women" (p. 89). Though some important structural changes have been made in MMA that indicate equity policies (e.g., 5-minute rounds), what we see much more, are indicators of women slowly being included in a heterosexual men's world, where sexism persists in different forms and on different levels.

Further theorizing gender in sport, Giulianotti relies on work by Jennifer Hargreaves, who offers three political strategies for women in sport: (1) "Co-option" involves women showing greater numbers in sport as athletes, referees, journalists, promoters, etc. In short, co-option pushes for women to join sporting industries like MMA, but without shifting the deeper structural arrangements that privilege masculinity; (2) "separatism" calls for women (or other minority groups) to operate independently from men by creating their own sporting organizations; and (3) "co-operation" seeks for women and men to work collaboratively in creating new sporting paradigms that end gender differences.

A few examples of separatism exist (e.g., women's only MMA promotions), but these organizations are generally not sustainable in a world that relies on capitalism and high ticket sales. Co-operation is a bit harder to identify. That is not to say co-operation does not occur in private settings or in less visible spaces. However anecdotally, it does not appear that co-operation is occurring on significant levels throughout the MMA industry. Of the three models, what we see most in MMA and other sports is co-option. As female mixed martial artists and women in other professions enter the predominantly male world of MMA, they certainly make laudable, courageous progress in fighting for the right to fight and work. But in the process, men are not working with them to create equity policies, at least not at levels that lead to extensive and sustained change. Thus far, women are slowly being included, but on men's terms.


This coming Saturday night, Christiane Santos and Gina Carano will compete in what will surely be the most celebrated women's MMA match to date. As the main event on a fight card full of men, their match marks a symbolic and tangible change in MMA. But simply having one marker of gender progress does not indicate industry-wide equity. We also just had America's first Latina elected to the U.S. Supreme Court, the second woman on the current "roster" and only the third woman ever. In terms of numbers, attitudes, behaviors, and structural arrangements, we've got a long way to go.

Suggested further reading:

• Coming on Strong: Gender and Sexuality in Twentieth Century Women's Sport
• Power at Play: Sport and the Problem of Masculinity
• Public Heroes, Private Felons: Athletes and Crimes Against Women
• Taking the Field: Women, Men, and Sports

Applying Crim Theory to Piracy

I’ve been meaning to write about this issue for quite some time, but the NBA playoffs have gripped of my attention. Thankfully, it seems the Rockets will still push the Lakers without Yao. Back to the task at hand.

After taking Capt. Richard Phillips of the Maersk Alabama hostage in April, Somali pirates saturated our media. Watching CNN was like watching an international crime drama on TNT. Since the theatrics have settled, a sharper set of analyses have emerged, some of which speak to classic criminology theories.

Deviance/Labeling Theory

Society views piracy off the coast of Somalia as violently criminal only because it is defined, or labeled, that way. We witnessed armed kidnapping, attempts to extort millions of dollars and eventually, a violent intervention to save Capt. Phillips that resulted in the death of three Somali pirates. But as Ann Pettifor illustrates in the Huffington Post, violent criminality can take shape in other forms that society doesn’t so quickly label as violent.

Somali Pirates were condemned when they hijacked tankers, took sailors hostage and demanded million-dollar ransoms. But their demands were a drop in the bucket compared to the ransoms demanded by Wall Street. And the Somalis were kinder to their hostages than Wall Street is to millions of unemployed Americans. For while the Somalian pirates returned hostages unharmed, bankers, fraudsters and failed insurers continue to harm the US administration and hold millions of Americans hostage. The latter are being stripped effectively, of pensions, savings, livelihoods and jobs.

In other words, taking away working class people’s livelihood, has substantially worse and lengthier consequences than holding a group of individuals and the companies they work for hostage for millions of dollars. Not that being held hostage at sea is pleasant by any means, but extensive physical violence is not carried out by the pirates “because Somali pirates rarely threaten or kill hostages. The moment crew members get hurt or killed, the pirates lose their most important bargaining chip” (Joffe-Walt, NPR).

Conversely, consider the violence that is bound to emerge from the economic crisis, not only in the form of increased property crime, drug trafficking, and intimate partner violence, but also in terms of the collective years people will have to work after losing their pensions and the psychological effects of mass under- and unemployment, such as suicide.

While the banking industry has been criticized, society does not label its irresponsibility as violent. Clearly, however, the disseminated imagery of Somali pirates evokes notions of highly violent crime – a labeling of violence.

Labeling theorists would argue that the above pictures and the description, below, of Somali pirates perpetuate their mainstream identity as violent criminals, while white collar criminals are portrayed as shrewd, callous businessmen, but not as violent per se. From Chris Parry’s article in The Independent:

The modern-day Somalian pirate comes from a country where some of Africa's worst factional fighting and communal killing has taken place. He is either an ex-militia fighter or a fisherman, and would have known deprivation and insecurity all his life. He will now have access to mobile phones, GPS devices and other expensive technologies, amassed by the reinvestment of cash from ship ransoms. He will be armed with a personalised Kalashnikov assault rifle and will be capable of firing rocket-propelled grenade launchers. And if he has any sense, he will steer well clear of the ongoing conflict in Somalia between the ruling Union of Islamic Courts, the strong al-Qa'ida presence, and the western-backed African Union and Ethiopian "occupation" forces.

Control Theory

Control theory assumes that society needs institutional forms of social control to keep people, well, controlled. These institutions are families, places of work, schools, churches, and so on. Furthermore, the theory assumes there is a dominant code of morality espoused by these institutions that the general populace believes in and follows.

Not only do these institutions socialize society into believing various social norms, but they also keep members of society emotionally attached and socially involved. Members of society develop social bonds with their classmates, teachers, family members, pastors, co-workers and so on.

If someone were to engage in crime or deviance, s/he would be forced to cut those social bonds. Moreover, members of society are busy participating in conventional activities (e.g., attending school, playing sports, planning family outings, working), giving them less time and energy to even think about engaging in criminal acts – “Idle hands do the devil’s work.”

Thus, social control theorists would explain piracy off the coast of Somalia by pointing out the lack of institutions in Somalia that would otherwise help form conventional social bonds and keep people busy in conventional activities. They would look at the lawlessness that has ensconced Somalia, beginning so blatantly in 1991. From The Ottawa Citizen:

Piracy starts inland. The problem is the lack of a central government in Somalia - there are no jobs, no schools, so there are millions of Somali youths sitting there with nothing... They are recruited by fundamentalists who give them hope of going to paradise in the fight against infidels, or they are recruited by the pirates, who say, 'Come with us, capture one ship and your share is $40,000.' What kid says no to that?

Related somewhat to social control theory is the theory of social disorganization. The theory of social disorganization historically applied to major cities in North America, noting that the concentric zone just outside of downtown business centers was muddled with ethnic heterogeneity, unemployment, poverty, and among other concerns, transience. These conditions were said to cause and perpetuate crime, irrespective of which groups moved in and out of the “criminogenic” zone.

While ethnic diversity doesn’t apply to the Somali situation, unemployment, poverty and transience certainly do. Daniel Howden’s article in The Independent describes Somali refugees’ mass movement into Kenya, noting the chaotic conditions that typify socially disorganized communities and frequently spark criminal behaviors.

The lucky ones come with their families, others appear out of the thorn bushes, walking alone. Five hundred Somalis are now arriving at this bleak Kenyan outpost every day. They join a population of 267,000 and counting, in a facility built to shelter just 45,000. While the world has been captivated by the high seas drama of Somalia's pirates, this human tide has swollen the ranks of Dadaab, turning it into the world's largest refugee camp. The new arrivals sit in their hundreds under a makeshift tarpaulin, trying to keep perfectly still in temperatures that reach 40C in the shade. It speaks volumes for the horrors unfolding in Somalia that people will abandon their homes, risk arbitrary arrest, death or starvation to reach the desolate welcome on offer in this corner of northern Kenya.

(Somali refugee camp)

Social control theorists would argue that in order to stop Somali piracy, there needs to be a bolstering of institutions on Somali land that stops excessive forms of social disorganization. To some degree, the following excerpt from Corey Flintoff’s piece on NPR speaks to this theoretical perspective (although at the end, it's rooted a bit heavily in enforcement).

Most officials and experts agree that the solution to piracy off the Somali coast will require more than enforcement by foreign militaries. It will require mending the failed Somali state, by helping to restore stability and a government in Somalia strong enough to enforce laws and police the coastline.

Rational Choice Theory

Rational choice theorists argue that criminals, like conventional businesspersons, make rational choices by weighing the pros and cons of a criminal opportunity (I’ve always thought at base level, this was the simplest theory ever created). It also assumes people are inherently bad, that if given the free will to commit crime, most people would jump at the chance. Thus, When opportunity knocks, if the negative possibilities that come along with committing the crime are minimized (e.g., low likelihood of getting caught, lenient punishment) in contrast to the possible rewards (e.g., wealth, power, prestige), potential criminals make a “rational” choice to engage in crime.

Substantial chatter around the internet supports rational choice theory, suggesting that the best way to stop piracy is to make the consequences of piracy appear and be more negative than positive. This essentially means fighting force with more force, ships having more artillery and artillery that is more sophisticated than that which pirates have.

According to Michael Sullivan’s NPR piece, piracy around Southeast Asia has dropped due to increased enforcement that was bankrolled through funds stemming from the war on terror, dedicated to areas with high Muslim populations, such as Indonesia.

…Indonesia has done a better job of dealing with the problem. And contributions by foreign governments — such as new coastal radar and new boats for the Indonesian maritime police — also have helped.

Rational choice theorists would argue that similar efforts should be taken in waters around Somalia. From Tom Bowman’s piece on NPR:

Navy ships to patrol for pirates off Somalia — but probably not more than a handful. Other countries are being encouraged to send more ships as well.

Increasing the number of warships makes sense to Rick Norton, a retired Navy commander who teaches national security at the U.S. Naval War College.

"You can do a lot with relatively low-end, inexpensive ships, corvettes, frigates, the types of ships that many navies in the world have," Norton says.

[…]

Pentagon sources say other options in Mullen's piracy review include placing U.S. Navy security teams of a half-dozen armed sailors or Marines aboard some commercial ships. The ships could provide security along shipping routes more at risk of piracy.

Convoys are another option, Norton says.

"You could set up a convoy system, you could set up traffic lanes, and you could patrol the traffic lanes and thereby reduce the amount of water you had to cover to prevent pirate attacks," he says.

[…]

Yet another option calls for military attacks against pirate havens in Somalia — the camps where they live and plan their raids.

On the flip side of that coin, pirates will continue to make rational choices, building their piracy businesses as long as the outcomes are profitable and losses are decreased. Chana Joffe-Walt had an excellent piece on NPR that illustrates this perspective and again, the rational choice theory:

[J. Peter] Pham [James Madison University] cautions, the pirates must choose their target carefully.

"Does it have any value? Who is the crew? Do they have any security onboard? Who owns the ship? All of those things have to be factored. This is a business decision, to seize a ship. Westerners command a lot more money than poor Filipinos, whose country and families don't have the money to ransom them," Pham says.

"A European is going to fetch you a lot more than a Filipino. No one is going to ransom an African. I'm being brutally frank, but it's true," he says.

[…]

If the pirates have made "good" business decisions, they will soon successfully seize a ship — and have "customers" such as Per Gullestrup, CEO of the Clipper Group, a Danish shipping company. One of the company's ships, with its crew of 13, was hijacked last November in the Gulf of Aden.

When it happened, Gullestrup called the company's insurer, who wanted Gullestrup to pay a ransom and get the ship back — otherwise, the insurer would be stuck with covering a $15 million ship. Gullestrup's company could have tried to take the ship back by force, but that is usually when hostages get killed.

So the insurer put Gullestrup in touch with a professional ransom negotiator.

After three days, the pirates called. "They introduced themselves, you know, 'My name is Ali; I'm your friendly pirate today' — not quite, but you almost got that sense. They're not making threats or anything. They're very polite in their whole demeanor," Gullestrup says.

They just politely demanded $7 million.

Just as Gullestrup had hired a professional negotiator, the pirates hired one, too — usually someone who speaks English well, often a lawyer. In this instance the pirates' negotiator — "Ali" — had spent 29 years in the U.S.

And like conventional businesses across the world, pirates are organized in ways that stratify and bureaucratize their work force.

Gullestrup says they actually found time sheets onboard the ship after the pirates had left.

"We could see that there was a time sheet on a particular person who had been onboard and dates they had been onboard and so many dollars per day, and then a total sum on the time sheet," he says. The pirates, in effect, were clocking in and out.

From this and other ransom situations, here's a typical accounting for a piracy operation: About 20 percent goes to pay off officials who look the other way. About 50 percent is for expenses and payroll. The leader of an attack makes $10,000 to $20,000 (the average Somali family lives on $500 a year). The initial investor — who put in $250,000 of seed capital — gets 30 percent, sometimes up to $500,000.

In short, potential pirates look at their occupational options, which include various criminal enterprises and virtually no conventional choices. When the pros of piracy outweigh the cons, they move in the logical direction. Rational choice theorists feel ending piracy means making the cons of piracy more apparent. Here’s the bottom line from the rational choice theory perspective, from Tom Gjelten’s piece on NPR:

Ship owners, like all businessmen, look at the bottom line: Time is money, and when pirates attack one of their ships, owners typically just want to get the whole thing over with as quickly as possible. So they pay the ransom.

And back to Gwen Thompkins’s piece on NPR:

For many Somalis, choosing a line of business is the most practical decision of all. What works is right, and what doesn't work is wrong. That is why piracy has taken hold in the country: It's a multimillion-dollar industry that works.

Critical Criminology

Critical criminologists argue that crime is a ramification of power imbalances in society and that crime perpetuates these power imbalances, often times covertly through the development of laws and infrastructure that protect the powerful and keep the poor powerless. To this end, those within this school of thought argue that the real crimes committed on society are not those we see in the news (e.g., piracy), but those that are not so obviously apparent, including the cultural mores that create poverty, racism, sexism, homophobia, and other forms of discrimination.

Actually, a good deal of analysis on contemporary piracy has taken a critical lens, spotlighting how the Somali people, already reeling from civil war, have been victimized by developed countries and their cargo ships that have ruined Somalia’s fishing waters and dumped toxic waste off Somalia’s shores. In doing so, the cargo ships have ruined the one industry Somalis had – fishing, which has made piracy an even more attractive and necessary occupation. From a video produced by the CBC:

Over the past years, Somali pirates have attacked over 100 ships, holding them for ransom before freeing them and their crews. They’re estimated to have gotten away with $30 million.

All but unnoticed amid the outrage over the hijackings, a different group of pirates has managed to wreak havoc off Somalia without international labor patrols bothering to stop them. In this case, it’s not Somalis who are the pirates. They are the victims. With no government to enforce its sovereignty, foreign ships have been dumping toxic waste off Somalia’s coast, and foreign trawlers have been fishing illegally in its waters.

President of the Canadian Somali Congress: “When you see the coverage of piracy, in most of the national media, you don’t hear much about the $300 million annually that’s lost by Somali fisherman in illegal fishing done by foreign interests. You also never hear about the cost that cannot be estimated, the negative costs of toxic waste.

[…]

It is understandable that outside powers, having been bitten, are now gun-shy about trying to intervene. What is hard to comprehend is why the outside world would make things worse for the Somalis by turning a blind eye to foreigners fishing illegally in Somali waters and poisoning them with toxic waste.

[…]

And as can be expected, the starving people who’ve been robbed have retaliated with some countering of their own. The attacks on foreign ships, Somalis say, started as a reaction to foreign pillages trying to put their fishermen out of business.

[…]

…you could perhaps dump a ton of toxic waste in Africa for about $8, per ton. Versus the cost of safe disposal in Europe or maybe North America for about $1000 a ton. So there’s a huge potential profit in such an illegal trade … (Narrator) It makes the $3 million paid to the pirates who held a Saudi oil tanker for two months look like chump change … Clearly, the international community is culpable to the extent that they have allowed toxic waste to leave ports in developed economies and end up in a vulnerable community, a vulnerable country like Somali with enough problems, let alone dealing with toxic waste.

Johann Hari from The Independent adds to this:

In 1991, the government of Somalia collapsed. Its nine million people have been teetering on starvation ever since – and the ugliest forces in the Western world have seen this as a great opportunity to steal the country's food supply and dump our nuclear waste in their seas.

Yes: nuclear waste. As soon as the government was gone, mysterious European ships started appearing off the coast of Somalia, dumping vast barrels into the ocean. The coastal population began to sicken. At first they suffered strange rashes, nausea and malformed babies. Then, after the 2005 tsunami, hundreds of the dumped and leaking barrels washed up on shore. People began to suffer from radiation sickness, and more than 300 died.

[…]

At the same time, other European ships have been looting Somalia's seas of their greatest resource: seafood. We have destroyed our own fish stocks by overexploitation – and now we have moved on to theirs. More than $300m-worth of tuna, shrimp, and lobster are being stolen every year by illegal trawlers. The local fishermen are now starving.

Critical criminologists would contend that Somali pirates are not the ultimate criminals in this situation. Instead, the true criminals are the international corporations and their executives who take advantage of Somalia’s unsteady government and destroy Somalia's fishing waters and shores. They would also point to powerful sectors in the international community that looked away when Somalis were further victimized.

Thus, while piracy is not applauded, it is seen as a symptom of a much greater crime that has more disastrous effects financially and in terms of human health. Critical criminologists would point to the fact that three of the four pirates holding Capt. Phillips are dead. Since this international tragedy has transpired, what punishments have been dealt to the corporations that dump toxic waste off Somalia coasts? Exactly.