“PLAYIN’ BALL”: we seem ORGAmzmm
or PICKUP BASKETBALL GAMES.

Thesis for the Degree of M. A.
MICHEAN STATE UNIVERSITY
MICHAEL PEER NAGY
1973

 

7 -— —vvv

‘VIK‘IILIEGIL U 5.» w

University

   
   

 

 

 

ABSTRACT

"PLAYIN' BALL": THE SOCIAL ORGANIZATION

OF PICKUP BASKETBALL GAMES
By

Michael Peter Nagy

I began with a desire to understand how it is possible for a group
of unattatched, though not necessarily unaquainted, men to gather in a
setting and there engage in violently active motions that are mutually
relevant and, for all of them, are defined as "playing a game of basket-
ball." A

My method of gathering data was participant observation. I im-
mersed myself in the world of the Men's Intramural Building, trying as
much as possible to be both player and observer. I took the occurrence
of games as problematic. I entered the situation to try to gain an un-
derstanding of what it is that makes the occurrence of basketball games
possible.

I spent a total of approximately forty-four hours observing and
playing pickup basketball games. Thirty-seven hours were spent at the
IM, and I played in sixty-six games there. Seven additional hours were
spent observing and playing (eleven games) at different outdoor basket-
ball courts in the area. The circumstances denied me the luxury of
making notes on the spot. I was forced to make hasty notes upon leaving

the scene and then expand them later in the day.

Michael Peter Nagy

My major contention is that there is a circumscribed world of
meaning that goes with "playin' ball". The person who plays basket-
ball at the IM passes through three different worlds of meaning in
the course of his journey through the IM. Initially the person is in
the everyday world in which he lives the majority of the time. This is
the world in which his actions have consequentiality. When he enters
the IM, the person leaves this world behind and enters one of the
gyms to play basketball. Immediately he becomes part of'a social struc-
ture that is focused on organizing basketball games. This structure
has its own rules of sociability. The player-to-be finds that his
actions no longer have consequences in the everyday world. He has lost,
to a large extent, the statuses that he held in the everyday world.
And, if he is to play basketball, he must submit himself to the rules
of social interaction that Operate in the gym. Finally, the individual
enters a game of basketball as a player. As a player, the individual
finds that his actions once again have consequentiality for his life.
Only, thistime, the consequentiality is for his life as a player. His
actions will affect the results of the game in which he is involved.
They are consequential, therefore, not only for himself, but for the
others on his team.

. The player needs only his player’s point of view to act in the
situation. The everyday world’is forgotten as the player becomes part
of the action system of the game. His actions are based on the pattern
of men in motion according to specified rules with a specific goal in
mind: mainly, the rules of basketball, and the goal of scoring points
for the purpose of winning the game. He becomes part of the system as

he observes the patterns of movement and synchronizes his movements to

Michael Peter Nagy

the pattern. Thus, the players are able to synchronize their actions,
with differing levels of skill, into the action system that is meaningful
for them as "playing a game of basketball."

I discuss the ways in which the action system of the game is
maintained by the players. First, the game itself provides a "cut-and
dried" system of meaning: a system of measuring time, a definition of
spatial properties,.and rules for interaction. The social structure
of the players provides the organizing capacity for starting and refer-
eeing games. And the "rituals of return" provide for ways in which the
game can be continued over breaks in the action. Finally, various sub:
ordinate elements: the use of a specialized vocabulary (jargon), expla—
nations of unusual occurrences, humor, and allowable physical contact,
reinforce the definition of the situation by taking it for granted. The
world of the IM is not totally foreign to its inhabitants. However, the
particular content of the forms, relative to each other, and relative
to the everyday world, serves to differentiate the two worlds most
successfully.

The world of the IM in its entirety is part of the larger world
of "masculine activity." The individual who moves through the IM acts
in a "masculine" manner as a matter of course. The way in which games
are organized and the nature of the game provide modes of acceptable
behavior that reinforce "male role" behaviors by taking them for granted

as the way of interacting in the situation.

"PLAYIN' BAL ": THE SOCIAL ORGANIZATION

OF PICKUP BASKETBALL GAMES

By

Michael Peter Nagy

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Sociology

1973

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank Professor Barrie Thorne for her invaluable

assistance in the preparation of this thesis.

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter

I 0 INTRODUCTION 0 O O O O O O O O O O O 0

II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE . . . . . . .

Aspects of Play in General . . . . .
Note on Non-Problematic Sports . . .
Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . .

III. THE IDEALIZED GAME . . . . . . . . . .

Physical Boundaries . . . . . . . .
Game Boundaries . . . . . . . . . .

IV. "PLAYIN' BALL": GENESIS OF GAMES . .

"Shooting Around" . . . . . . . . .
Starting a Game.‘. . . . . . . . . .
Preferential Ordering of Activities

and Social Groups . . . . . . . .

V. "PLAYIN' BALL": CONTINUANCE OF GAMES

Technical Decisions . . . . . . . .
RUIe-Covered Breaks ' o o o o o o o o
Breaks Outside the Rules . . . . . .

III-Game continuances o o o o o o o o
g .

VI. BASKETBALL AS PERFORMANCE . . . . . .

VII. SUBORDINATE ELEMENTS . . . . . . . . .

Jargon O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O 0
"Hot" 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
Hmor O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O 0
Physical Contact . . . . . . . . . .

VIII. CONCLUSION: BASKETBALL AS MASCULINE
ACTIVITY 0 O O O 0 O O O O C O O O O

FOOTNOTES 0 O O O O O O O O O I O O O

BIBLIWRAPHY O O O O O O O O O O O O 0

iii

Page

13
16
18
18
21
28
28
3O
38

44

45
51
57
61

66

.73.

74
75
76
81

83

87

91

I. INTRODUCTION

I ran into Willie today in front of Berkey Hall. He was

leaving, I was coming, so we didn't converse long. "Hel-

lo." Myself: "Hi." Willie: "Been playin' any ball

lately?"1

The one phrase, "playin' ball," includes within its meaning a
large realm of social structures and game structures. This paper will
describe the social structures and game structures and show how their
interaction aids men in translating their desire to play basketball
into the actual occurrence of games.

Basketball may be analyzed as a specific example of the more
general phenomenon of play. The games of basketball played at the Men's
IM Building and elsewhere exhibit the characteristic forms of play in
process, forms which serve as boundaries to separate "playin' ball"
from the everyday world. A spontaneous social structure of the partici-
pants aids them in making the transition from the everyday world to the
world of "playin' ball."

I became a participant-observer of "playin' ball" to gain an
understanding of the modes of interaction that form the objective ex-
perience and condition the subjective experience of playing basketball.
The interaction takes place in a setting reserved for that purpose among
men whose only structural relationship to each other is a common desire

to enter the circumscribed play world of basketball. I began with a

desire to understand how it is possible for a group of unattatched,

though not necessarily unaquainted, men to gather in a setting and there
engage in violently active motions that are mutually relevant and, for
all of them, are defined as "playing a game of basketball.".

The rules of the game itself place certain demands on the men if
they are to play it. Teams must be formed, games must be started, and
must be continued smoothly if the desires of the men to play basketball
are to be fulfilled. The social structure that emerges in the setting
helps to insure that the necessary actions to play a game will be taken.
Other modes of relating to people: a specialized language, the use of
humor by the participants, and their explanations of extraordinary
happenings also help to maintain each of the participants' understanding
of the situation as "playin' ball." Added to this is the taken-for-
granted fact that the game will be played only by men. This reduces
the effect of extraneous sexual pressures which might threaten the smooth
continuance of "playin' ball."

In this paper I hope to make clear how play aspects of the game
and the processes of the social structure interact to assure that there
will be games of basketball taking place and that these games will be
started and continued smoothly so that the participants will be able

to "play ball."

II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Aspects 2£_Play 12_General

The relevant literature offers no concise definition of play.
Various authors list various characteristics of play, but many of the
characteristics may or may not be present in any given activity that is
called "play.” Other authors try to get at the essence of play by
examining the subjective experience of the "player." Here again, how—
ever, the range of activities and feelings that are part of play are
so varied that any one description of them cannot do justice to the
phenomenon as a whole. I shall examine some of the formulations and
thoughts that others have had regarding play in an attempt to point
out some of the factors that will be seen when the discussion shifts to
the concrete setting in which play takes place.

Play is bounded. It is not "real life." Yet for the players
their play is often more real than anything they do in "real life."

To understand this seeming paradox it is necessary to understand that

we will be talking about play from two different points of view. The

first is that of looking at play from the "outside,' examining those
aspects of play that are at the boundaries between play and real life.
Secondly, once we have established the boundaries of play we must move
inside those boundaries to consider how play is carried out and the

boundaries maintained. Gregory Bateson points out the paradoxical

nature of play.

. . . expanded definition of play: "These actions in which

we now engage, do not denote what would be denoted by those

actions which these actions denote." The playful nip denotes

the bite, but it does not denote what would be denoted by the

bite.2 ‘

Bateson likens this to Epimenides Paradox ("Everything I say is
false.") and problems of figure versus ground. He goes on to define the
play of two individuals as:

. . L the set of all messages exchanged by them within a lim-

ited period of time and modified by the paradoxical premise

system which we have described.

The meaning of play for the individuals involved can only be
understood from within the boundaries of play itself. Yet the indivi-
duals must have some way of knowing that they are within the boundaries
of play. It is this necessity of canstantly having to shift perspective
from within the boundaries of play (i.e., experiencing the actions of
play directly) to outside the boundaries of play (examining what the
boundaries are), that makes any overall definition and description an
impossible task. Within the boundaries of the "play frame" the actions
of the individuals at play are given meaning in terms of the rules of
what is being played. These same actions, however, may have different
meanings in the everyday world.4 This ambiguity of actions, whether
they are play or not play, presents a continuing threat to the definition
of the situation by the players as "play." One of the major tasks of
this paper is to explore the ways that individuals maintain the boun-
daries within which their activities are defined for them and by them
as play.

The three authors who deal in the most general fashion with the

nature of play are Johan Huizinga, Roger Caillois, and Richard Schechner.

I quote from each of them in turn:

Summing up the formal characteristics of play we might
call it a free activity standing quite conciously out-
side "ordinary" life as being "not serious", but at the
same time absorbing the player intensely and utterly.
It is an activity connected with no material interest,
and no profit can be gained by it. It proceeds within
its own proper boundaries of time and space according
to fixed rules and in an orderly manner.5

Play is defined as an activity that is essentially:

1. Free: in which playing is not obligatory:
if it were, it would at once lose it attractive and
joyous quality as a diversion;

2. Separate: circumscribed within limits of
space and time, defined and fixed in advance;

3. Uncertain: the course of which cannot be
determined, nor the result attained beforehand, and
some latitude for innovations being left to the player's
initiative;

4. Unproductive: creating neither goods, nor
wealth, nor new elements of any kind; and, except for
the exchange of property among the players, ending in
a situation identical to that prevailing at the beginning
of the game;

5. Governed by rules: under conventions that
suspend ordinary laws, and for the moment establish new
legislation, which alone counts;

6. Make-believe: accompanied by a special aware-
ness of a second reality or of a free unreality, as
against real life.6

play —- games & sports - theatre -- ritual
Several qualities are shared by all the activities;

1) a special ordering of time, 2) a special value at-

tached to the objects used in the activity, 3) non-pro-

ductivity, 4) rules. As we move to the right on the

continuum space is more formally acknowledged.7

All these definitions of play deal with play as a bounded activity
separate from "real life" and distinguished from it in various ways that
make it clear to the player that he is "just playing." We see in play,
then, a separate reality where the rules of everyday life are suspended

yet the player feels no lack of directives for behavior.8 His behavior

takes place in a different context of meaning from that of everyday life.

Let us now examine some of the results of the fact that play is
bounded activity. In doing so, it must be remembered that not only
do certain consequences stem from play's bounded nature, but that these
consequences, in fact, constitute the boundaries themselves. When they
are no longer in operation the boundaries of play have broken down and
play ceases to be. Once again we see the paradoxical nature of play.
Its boundaries are both cause and effect, initiator and result.

Since play is "separate," and "outside ordinary life as being
'not serious,'" the player may reasonably expect that his actions when
at play will not carry consequences for him in his "real life." Sherri
Gavan uses this fact as one of the major means by which she understands
and explains the actions of bar patrons.9 Since their actions are in-
conquential with respect to their everyday lives, bar patrons evidence
a greater freedom of action within the setting, and less formal intere
action with the other patrons present. When play begins to have con-
sequences for "real life," when the players begin to feel that their
actions in play "count," they lose the freedom of action within play.
Play becomes serious and ceases to be play.

Play creates a separate reality in which the actions performed
take their meaning from the nature and rules of the play itself. If
the play is of a competitive kind the winning and losing are defined by
the contest.

It is always a rivalry that hinges on a single quality

(speed, endurance, strength, memory, skill, ingenuity, etc.)

exercised, within defined limits and without outside

assistance in such a way that the winner appears to be

better than the loser in a certain category of exploits.10

For the outcome of the contest to be valid, if the winner is to

truly demonstrate his superiority in a certain category of exploits,

the players must begin the contest on an equal basis so that only their
respective expertise will determine the outcome. This requirement has
two consequences for play. First, anyone who attempts to subvert the
initial equality of the players, either surreptitiously by cheating,

or openly by demanding an advantage that makes the players unequal,
destroys the basis of fair competition, and thus play itself.

The second consequence is that when two players engage in competi-
tion the only thing that should be important about them is their rela-
tive skill at the task that is the basis of competition. Ideally, all
other facts about the players are superfluous except those that bear
directly on the outcome of the contest. In play, the forms of social
life take precedence over the contents." Only the player's skill with
the forms matters, not who he is. Goffman deals with the same problem
of extraneous social statuses when he talks about "rules of irrelevance."12
In playful contests it is the individual's social characteristics which
are irrelevant, only his competitive skills are important for the game.
To place the game on a fair and equal competitive basis, a more skillful
player often gives an advantage to his less skillful opponent. The
player who uses his everyday status to take advantage destroys play.

The player who, because of his game skill, gives advantage encourages
play.

Social life is still a game itself, but its outcomes,
its victors and losers, are all profane, deceptive il-
lusions, while on the field of sport outcomes are "sa-
cred," that is they reconcile "essence" and "existence,"

they make that which appears-to-be, real.
It is exactly because play is separated from the everyday world,

that within the play world all social statuses are irrelevant, and

because the players begin the contest on an equal footing, that out-
comes of play contests appear more real than anything that occurs in
real life. The degree to which the "rules of irrelevance" of play can
be maintained by the participants affects the degree to which they are
able to consider themselves "at play," and the degree to which the
results of playful contests are "real."

In play the actions one takes are inconsequential for everyday
life. To discover the attraction of this circumscribed world we must
enter into it in an attempt to discover what holds the player's attention
and creates for them and through them a real world. Returning to the
formulations of Caillois for a moment, he states one of the defining
aspects of play to be uncertainty. The course, and therefore the out-
come, of the playful contest cannot be determined beforehand. The players
must "play out" the contest to determine the victor. The tension gen-
erated by this uncertainty is one of the important factors that allows
players to move wholeheartedly into the play world. If we once again
look at the issue of player equality we see that it takes on renewed
importance in light of the requirement of uncertainty of outcome. If
the players are not equal at the start of the contest except for those
attributes that will determine the outcome of the contest, then there
is "no contest" and the foreseeable result destroys the tension of play

and play itself.

. . . should the final score come to be predictable, as often
happens near the end of the play, concession by the loser is
likely, terminating the action in the interests of both the
play and gaming encounter.

Also in many sports we see the institutionalized practice of

handicapping to equalize the players and make the result of the contest

uncertain. In team contests the teams are often balanced by changing
personnel to insure an unpredictable outcome. The determination of
the players to achieve an outcome in a playful contest is essential if
the players are to become completely immersed in the play world, and
thus be able to achieve an outcome.

Play is going. It is what happens after all the decisions

have been made--when "let's go" is the last thing one

remembers. Play is action generating action: a unified

experience flowing from one moment to the next in contra-

distinction to our otherwise disjoint "everyday" exper-

iences.15

The individual at play is totally involved with his play. He
maintains only the player's viewpoint, all other viewpoints being
irrelevant and unnecessary. He is able to maintain a unity of thought
and action, he does not view his actions from the point of view of one
who is not playing. His actions are determined by his perception of
the game situation, the possibilities for action in that situation, and
his capacity as a player to carry out his program of action.

Play i§_experienced when it is impossible for the actor to

differentiate projects available by_voluntary fiat from
assessed situational possibilities.lb

 

When the individual is able to become so engrossed in his activity
the boundaries of play lose their problematic nature and the individual
is able to maintain the boundaries simply because he has lost any sense
that he is in a circumscribed reality. The play field becomes his world,
the players, that world's population, and the rules of the game its laws
of nature. This state of conciousness is not one that is easily attained
and easily maintained, however. The nature of play as a paradoxical

system must be remembered. There are always factors that threaten to

destroy the world of the player by their intrusion into his conciousness.

10

The engrossing nature of play is the reason why play must be
freely entered into. Much as one cannot be commanded "Be spontaneous,"
so also play on command neglects the fact that the individual will have
to maintain his "non-player" view of the situation as carrying out a
command and thus fail to become totaly engrossed in his play. People
can only be allowed to play. That is, they may be excused from having
to maintain an "everyday world" outlook. They cannot be forced to
attain a "play world" outlook.

Within the world of play, the rules of play are the paramount
guides to action. The rules of the game, if that is the particular
form of play, define for the players how they may institute action to
attain victory. Submission of one's try from victory to action within
the rules of the game is the initial social agreement of the players
implied in the commencement of any game.

The rules of the game prescribe that certain concrete actions take
place. The continued occurrence of these actions is essential if the
game is to continue. They are the visible evidence that all the
players are within the world of play as they must be if play is to
proceed smoothly. Other actions often come to be associated with games
and help maintain for the players their identification as people who
are playing. These actions may not be strictly required by the rules
as set forth in rulebooks (if there is a rulebook for the game). They
are rather on the order of etiquette and are performed as rituals. As
used in anthrOpologic and psychoanalytic works, ritual refers to a
practice that once had a relationship to a task to be accomplished but

is now something that is done almost compulsively, a reflection of times

11

past.17 I use the term "ritual" in a broader sense, to refer to a
repeated action that mutually indicates to people their similar view
of a situation, and their mutual submission to a higher task. Thus,
ritual is not an end in itself, nor can a unique act be termed a
ritual. A ritual may or may not be the best way to accomplish a task,
but it does indicate to the interactants their mutuality of orientation
in trying to accomplish the task.

Closely related to play is humor. Both play and humor can give
the interactants involved the subjective feeling of a mild euphoria.
Like play, humor relies for its effectiveness on the element of paradox.
Individuals have a particular perspective on a given situation. Perhaps,
as in a joke, the perspective is created by the humorist. The moment of
humor comes with the "punch line", the moment when there is a sudden
shift in perspective that shows the individual that what he had pre-
viously taken to be reality was, in fact, an erroneous assumption.

. . . when the joke breaks open and the implicit levels have

been touched, and have met each other, and the oscillation

has occurred, the laughter verifies an agreement that this

"unimportant," it is "play," and yet, within the very sit-

uation which is defined by the laughter as play, there is

a juxtaposition of contrasting polarities, which contrast

may be compared to commission and correction of an error.

The laughter lets those who laugh know that there is a com-

mon subsumption of how they see the universe.18

Humor, and its indicator, laughter, are much like play in their
aspect of inconsequentiality. Yet with the fact that there are con-
flicting perspectives on reality, there is a threat to both of the
realities. Laughter lets the laughers know that there are others who
have the same precarious view of the world. Humor is the futile attempt

to synthesize two incompatible perspectives on the world so that the

only way to overcome the insecurity is to "laugh it off," admit the

12

insecurity and incompatibility and carry on. Humor and play are close
to each other. Both involve paradox and thrive in situations where the
prevailing definition of the situation is threatened.

In summary:1 Play is bounded. It is activity that is set-off from
the everyday world. Certain aspects of play follow from its bounded
nature, and in fact serve as the boundaries which must be maintained
if play is to continue as play. These aspects include:

1.) Inconsequentiality (the actions that one takes in play do
not "count" as far as the individual's everyday life is concerned, but
derive their meaning from the nature of what is being played;)

2.) Equality of participants within the circumscribed world of
play (only the player's skill at the game counts, his everyday social
statuses are irrelevant;)

3.) Uncertainty of outcome (the course and outcome of the game
cannot be determined in advance; with the practice of handicapping and
equalizing competitors to help maintain uncertainty);

4.) Unity of thought and action (the participants in the course
of a game are able to unify their mental and physical processes);

5.) Single required viewpoint (players need only pay heed to the
game conditions and take actions according to those conditions; the
limits and possibilities for action in the game define the player's
world);

6.) Ritual aspects (repeatable actions by the players mutually
demonstrate their continuing focus on the course of play).

With all this, play is paradoxical. Since the actions of the players
have meaning only within the circumscribed world of play, the players

must constantly understand that they are within the world of play. They

13

must continuously give meaning to their actions and take meaning from
other's actions as involved in play. The aforementioned aspects of
play are ways in which players indicate the context of their actions
to be that of play. Closely related to play is humor which also deals
in paradox and incompatible realities. The instant of humor is the
instant at which the individual realizes that previous assumptions of

reality were wrong and that other ones are at least as valid.

Ng£g_gn_Non-Problematic Sports

This paper deals with a particular sport, basketball, as a prob-
lematic occurrence. We do not take it as inevitable that games of
basketball will take place. Rather, we look at the event and examine
the social structure through which games are organized and the definition

of the situation as play is maintained by the participants. Most of the

literature that deals with sports takes the occurrence of the event a
game of basketball," or other sports as given and proceeds from there.
Thus, the literature deals with the technical problems of winning the
game, the political aspects of sports, the psychoanalytic analysis of
motives in sport, and sport as a laboratory. 4

Athletes who survive the high attrition rate associated
with sports competition are characterized by all or most
of the following traits:

1) They have a great need for achievement and tend
to set high but realistic goals for themselves and others.

2) They are highly organized, orderly, respectful of
authority and dominant.

3) They have large capacity for trust, great psycho-
logical endurance, self-control, low resting levels of
anxiety and slightly greater ability to express aggression.19
Twelve Traits Which Aggressive Coaches Possess
. . .Every_move hg_makes must bg_for the good gf_his players.
He drives them with only one thing in mind--to make them
better men. The aggressive coach.... (2) is a stern disci-
plinarian: one man runs his program and practice schedule,

 

l4

and hg_is the one, (3) is demanding, and will require more

physical exertion from every boy on his squad than any nor-

mal human being can give, .... (9) does not like weakness

and shows little sympathy for chronic injuries, (10) never

brags about any of his players until they graduate and then

talks about them constantly and has a deep affection for all

of them, (11) must despise losers and losing...20

These traits of athletes and coaches are presented by their authors
as a part of discussing "the technical problems of winning the game."
Two things may be said about them. First, the two groups of traits
are complementary, bordering on identical. Athletes and coaches pos-
sessing these traits would be expected to get along with each other and
work together quite well. Secondly, presented in this manner, the traits
appear to be objective descriptions of those qualities necessary for
success within the circumscribed world of play.

Critics of American sports organization (perhaps best typified by
Jack Scott) maintain that the congruence between the descriptions of
winning coaches and athletes is not coincidental or objective. They
maintain.that the hierarchical nature of sports organization means that
these traits will be selected and fostered by those in authority as the
gg$z_traits for winning athletes. Notice the degree of similarity between
the traits of winning athletes and coaches and the traditional ideal
of masculinity in America: aggressiveness, demanding and driven, pater-
nalistic authoritarianism, and an obsession with not losing. In terms
of the previous discussion, the confrontation between critics of the
sports hierarchy and its supporters may be thought of as dealing with
the rules of irrelevance in organized sports. Critics maintain that the
masculine traits emphasized by American sports are irrelevant to actual

competition, but that by requiring these traits the hierarchy of organized

sports denies athletes who are competent on the field but no "masculine,"

15

the opportunity of competing.21 So we see athletes confronting the
sports hierarchy over matters of racism, and life-style. Traditionalist
maintain that the traits are not irrelevant, that only masculine ath-
letes are worthy of competing. Critics maintain that this only appeared
to be the case because there was no counter-reality to call the selec-
tion practices of coaches into question.

Another area of literature on sports is the psychoanalytic analysis
of motives. Sports provides psychoanalysts, professional and amateur,
with fertile ground for growing their theories.22 For purposes of this
paper, however, such theories are not important. We will not be inter-
ested in the motives that men have for entering the IM to play basketball,
but only in the social and game structures that enable them to do so.

Finally, because it is a circumscribed world, sports provides an
excellent laboratory for researchers.23 The criteria for success in
sports events are well defined. The rules dictate exactly the manner
and method of victory. Organizational sociologists especially have
used sports as a laboratory where they can vary organization and per-
sonell to find the combination that produces success (victory).

I have made this digression not only to do some justice to the
growing body of literature on unproblematic sports, but also to indicate
that sports play a large part in American society. As I write this, the
bill in Congress which has received the greatest coverage in the popular
media of late is one which will forbid hometown television blackouts
of professional football games if the game is sold out. I don't think
that it is at all coincidental that the image of masculinity and the
image of the winning athlete are identical. All this sets part of the

context in which the social structures and game structures at IM exist.

l6

Methodology

My method of gathering data was participant observation. I
emmersed myself in the world of the Men's Intramural Building, trying
as much as possible to be both player and observer.24 The paradoxical
and problematic nature of play at the IM does not lend itself to research
techniques that would take the occurrence of the game for granted. Only
by interviews or participant observation could one discover the dimen-
sions of the social and game structures. And only through participant
observation can one see the structures in process.

I spent a total of approximately forty-four hours observing and
playing pick-up basketball games. Of that total, approximately thirty-
seven hours were spent at the IM at various times of the day and evening.
Seven additional hours were spent at other location (such as the out-
door courts on Alton street, and on campus). The average length of
each observation period was ninty minutes (thirty observation periods).
The length of observation periods ranged from a halthour to two and
one-half hours. During the period of observation I played in seventy—
seven games of basketball, sixty-six at the IM. Probably little more
than two-thirds of the time was I actually playing games. The rest of
the time was spent between games, watching from the sidelines when I
wasn't playing, and "shooting around." The circumstances denied me the
luxury of making notes on the spot. I was forced to make hasty notes
upon leaving the scene and then expand them later in the day.

In succeeding pages I hope to make clearer the social structure of
"playin' ball at the IM." As a prelude to that analysis, let me des-
cribe my position in the social structure. Although the men who play

basketball at the TM are not permanently attatched to teams, there is

17

a network of players who form a group of "regulars" at the
players are distinguished by their frequent attendence and
erally higher than average skill in the game of basketball
Often players in this core group enter the gym in pairs or
indicating their "outside" aquaintanceship. Another group
attends with varying degrees of regularity, but most often
are characterized by average skill at the game. I was one

players. Another group of players that is relatively rare

IM. These
their gen-
itself.
small groups
of players
alone, and
of these

is the large

group of four or more men who are primarily "non-basketball" friends and

who come to play as a group in the IM. The social structure that I

will describe, then, is seen from the point of view of one

skill who entered the structure alone.

of average

III. THE IDEALIZED GAME

Physical Boundaries

The primary boundary of "playin' ball" is provided by the walls
of the Men's IM Building. The course that one travels to get to the
area of play cannot help but impress upon the participant (in Goffman's
sense, the subjective being behind the game player) that he is entering
a specially set aside area.25

The first indication of altered, or special reality is the need to
travel to a particular place rather than being able to enter the game
just anywhere. The Men's IN is a large building that is located in an
area of the compus that seems, by design on one side by the football
stadium, and on the other side by the ice arena. Behind the building is
'the outdoor pool, next to that, and obliquely from the building is the
outdoor track. Across the street, behind the present ice arena, is
another one now under construction. The whole area is quite separate
from the academic and living areas of the campus.

Within the building also, there is a separateness of reality.
Probably the first indication is olfactory. There is the noticeable
smell of sweat throughout the building. Vicual factors are also dif-
ferent from those found in other university buildings. Trophy cases
line the corridors proclaiming the past victors in various intramural
events.

Approximately 85 to 90 per cent of the people who play basketball

at the Men's IM wear special garments when they play. These garments

18

19

include a wide variety of T—shirts in different degrees of decay, shorts
and sweatpants, most brands of gym shoes, and some airtight plastic or
vinyl garments designed to produce the maximum amount of perspiration
and weight loss. The large majority of players-to—be, therefore pass
through the locker room area to change their clothes before starting to
play. The locker room serves as a transitional area. There one takes
off the clothes of everyday life and puts on the clothes of the player.
I must hasten toadd that although this transformation takes place in
the locker room, it is not a sudden transformation. The whole building,
in fact the entire area in which the building is located gradualizes the
change which is most abruptly indicated by the change of clothing.

The locker room suggests other themes besides the one of purely
play. For one thing, the locker room is a totally male place. It is
distinguished from most everyday settings in that men can walk around
nude in each other's presence. Withing the locker room, metal lockers
are arranged in rows parallel to the main walkway. The showers are
opposite the walkway on the other side of the lockers. The locker room
is divided into two separate half-rooms connected by the walkway and
the showers. In between is a courtyard with a cement floor. Men sun-
bathe here nude in the Spring and Summer rather than using the pool,
where suits must be worn.

Facing onto the main walkway is the "cage," so called because of
the thick wire mesh that prevents direct access from the walkway. On
each occasion when I observed at the IM there were at least two men
working there. In exchange for an ID and/or a small rental fee, it is
possible to rent a locker, towel, basketball, handball, paddleball

paddle, or any one of various other sports related equipment. Although

20

I do not know the names of the men who regularly work at the IM, their
presence helped to continue the definition of the situation as play
and male. Requests for articles, in my case basketballs, were on
occasion met with humorous retorts.

Myself: "May I have a basketball?” Man: "What have you
done for us lately?" He turned to get the ball.

Myself: "Do you have a pump that I can use to blow up

this ball?" Man: "No, but we have a pump that wg_can

use to blow up your ball."

The most noticeable thing about the nature of this humor is its
aggressiveness. In the first instance, a request for rental service is

redefined (but not "really") as a demand for payoff prior to recipro-

cation in a quid pro_quo exchange. In the second instance, a request for

 

a loan, which was perhaps badly stated, was redefined as a service to

be rendered, with the implications of private university property to

be used and lack of trust or competence of the requestor to use it. The
redefinitions were stated aggressively--masculinely.

There is one very strong thread of information that loosens the
definition of the situation as play in the IM. This is in the form of
signs at the end of every other row of lockers, along the front wall, and
on the doors that say in large red letters: "Do Not Leave Personal
Belongings Unattended or Lockers Open Even For One Minute!" The immanent
possibility of theft intrudes upon the play reality reminding one of a
grimmer side of the everyday world--the world where precautions must
be taken actions may have untoward consequences. However, in this situa-
tion the intrusion is limited, since proper precautions can be taken with
a minimum of effort (like locking valuables in a locker).

There are three gyms in which one can play basketball at the IM.

21

Gym I is located below the level of the main floor. Gyms II and III

are located on the second floor of the building. The corridors at the

IM are large, probably twelve-by-twelve feet cross sections. However,
each of the hyms contains two full sized basketball courts about four
feet apart, side-by-side, and bleachers along the side walls. The gyms
are very large rooms, and when one enters, one can sense a noticeable
change in pressure, temperature, and acoustics. The "interaction mem-
brane" that must be traversed to play basketball has a very real physical

counterpart.

Game Boundaries

Basketball, in its pure form, that is, only according to the rules,
without the addition of flesh and blood players, provides further boun-
daries that operate to transport the players into the world of play. The
game and the setting require of the players that they change their "nor-
mal" ordering of the world with respect to time, the value of objects,
and the reckoning of space.

Schechner distinguishes three kinds of special time orderings:
symbolic time, set time, and event time.26 Symbolic time is used pri—
marily in the performing arts. It is the maleable time of performance
where we may seepeople pass through a lifetime during the performance.

Set time is the time ordering used in many sports, including or-
ganized basketball; in these sports time fixes the boundary of play.

The events that determine the outcome of the game are performed in
their manner for a specified length of time. At the end of the time

the winner is declared according to the scoring rules, regardless of the

total nunber of events performed or scores made. Thus in college

22

basketball the game is over at the elapse of forty minutes of playing
time, as determined by the time-keeper. The winner is declared to be
the team with the most points, regardless of whether the score is 30-28,
or 130-128. In the case of a tie, additional periods of specified
length are played until a winner can be declared.

In IM basketball event time is used. It is the occurrence of
events, rather than a fixes period of time that bounds the game. The
game ends following the occurrence of a predetermined number of speci—
fied events, regardless of the length of time required to perform the
events. In IM basketball, games are ended when one team reaches a
certain predetermined number of points (usually fifteen) regardless of
whether the game took ten minutes or thirty minutes to complete. Ties
are impossible under such a scoring system. However, the winning team
must have demonstrated their superiority over the losers to the extent
of "winning by two." A score of fifteen-fourteen is not a winning
score. Before they can be declared the victors, one team must have
at least fifteen points and also two more points than their opponents.

In set time games, tension is generated by the "race against the
clock." The uncertainty of the game's outcome is resolved, amid in-
creasing tension, as each team trys to perform as many scoring events

I!

as possible before "time runs out, and the game ends. In event time

games, tension is generated by the confrontation of the teams, each

trying to perform the required number of scoring events before the

other.

There got to be a crowd watching the game as more people

came in...When one team could have won the game on a shot
members of the crowd would yell, "Game!" When Chris missed

a layup that could have ended the game, I heard a, "He choked."
As the game went into overtime and the chance for victory

23

moved from team to team, Chris began saying, "You got to

give it everything you have now," "Don't give up now,"

when we moved up the court on offense, or fell back on

defense.

Within the frame of the game, the objects of competition take on
a special symbolic value that attatches to them only in the course of
the game. In basketball the two material requirements are a basketball
and a basket, ten feet high, and supported by and aligned with a back-
board.

The value of the basket is such that one "guards the basket" on
defense to prevent the other team from scoring. On offense one "goes
to the basket" to score. As one player put it to a new teammate,
"Chip, just remember, during the game, always break for the basket."
The basket becomes the goal sought by the players, and in spatial terms,
the focal point of the activity. The action of the game is characterized
by alternating movements of the teams up and down the court to cluster
beneath one basket, then the other, until (from the offensive point of
‘view) the goal is won, a basket having been made, or the goal is frus-
trated by the other team taking possession of the ball.

The basket is the goal of the players, and the ball is the means
by which the goal is attained. In this respect the ball becomes the
extension of the player. It is his vehicle of achievement. The ball
is thus the immediate object of attention for the players. In the
majority of cases, the rules of the game concern which team shall have
possession of the ball, and the manner in which the ball may be legiti—
mately manipulated to achieve the goal, a basket. Notice that the pen-

alty for an illegal manipulation of the ball is loss of possession.

Since the players contend with each other in order to obtain

24

possession of the ball, it assumes a quality between the symbolic one
of the game, where the physical aspects of the particular ball are
irrelevant for its point scoring ability, and the everyday world value
that can be measured by dollars and cents. The physical aspects of the
particular ball become important since the players must manipulate the
ball. It is necessary that the ball be within a narrow range of charac-
teristics of size, weight, inflatedness, and surface texture to be
easily manipulated by those accustomed to manipulating basketballs.
When manipulating the ball the players should not have to contend with
disturbing characteristics of the ball. A bad ball introduces problems
into manipulation that are irrelevant for outcome of the game but result
in chance assuming too great an importance for a contest of skill, and
interrupting the smooth flow of the game. Deciding which ball will be
used when there are more than one available becomes an issue that must
be settled before the game begins. The ball with the best physical
properties is preferred.

When the second game was to start, there was some question

as to the ball. Marvin: "Where's the ball we were using?"

"He took the good one over there. He's got to take it with

him when he leaves." Marvin: "Which one we going to use?"

Phil picked up an IM ball, "363, that a pretty good ball."

(IM balls, those owned and loaned out by the IM, are num-

bered for identification.) Marvin wanted to quit halfway

through the game, "You want to play for me?" Myself: "Do

you want to quit?" That was the last he said to me. Next

time down the court he yelled at the men shooting at the

other basket, "One of you guys over there want to loan me

your leather ball?" He didn't get the ball, but he kept

playing.

Marvin was one of the most proficient manipulators of the ball

that I observed. Perhaps to him, therefore, the ball used was especially

important. However, there was apparently enough wrong with the ball

 

25

being used to warrant an attempt at change, but not enough to warrant
quitting when a change was not made.

Just then a man came into the gym with a brand new ball.

Robert: "Here's another man now. You want to play?" "0K."

He approached the basket where we were gathered. Vern:

"You want to warm up a little first?...We're pretty warm

already." In answer he took a shot. I think everyone

took a shot with the ball. After each, the shooter made

a brief complimentary remark, "Nice ball." Vern carried

the ball back to start the game.

In this case, the new ball was used by silent consensus. No one
suggested it be used instead of the ball used for the previous game.

It was "obvious" that it should be used. Also, no one asked permission
of the owner to use his new ball in the game. By his consent to play
in the game, he had given tacit approval to the use of his ball.

In basketball, as in other sports, there must be formal recognition
of space in order for the game to take place. Just as the game is
bounded in time, so also there is an "out of bounds." The basketball
court is a large rectangle with baskets on each end, in the middle of the
short sides. The two end sides are the "baselines"; one moving past
his man to the outside down the baseline is said to "go in the back
door." In front of the baskets there is another rectangle with a
semi-circle on the end. This is the "key," or the "lane." At the end
of the rectangle is the "foul line"; the rim of the semi-circle is the
"top of the key." The court is divided in half by a line across the
middle. In half court basketball this line becomes the end of the
court, and thus an out of bounds line. The area close to the basket,
within ten or twelve feet is "inside", or "underneath." The area away

from the basket is "outside." This may be further divided into "out

front," which is toward the middle of the court, and "the side," which

26

is toward the sidelines. "The corner" is the area near the juncture of
the sidelines and baselines. Space is acknowledged by the jargon of
the game, even as it is provided for in the rules. The rules specify
that a ball going out of bounds, that is, past the limit of the court
is "out of play" and must be put "in play" by the team other than the
one that last touched the ball before it went out of bounds. Thus, I
letting the ball leave the area designated for play is penalized by
loss of possession.

I assume that the reader is generally familiar with the rules of
basketball to avoid a digression necessary only for purposes of dif-
ferentiating organized basketball from IM basketball. There are three
major differences between organized basketball, as know to spectators,
and IM basketball. The first difference is that IM basketball lacks
formally organized teams. This means that teams must be created on the
spot for the occasion of a game. Somehow, teams must be organized from
a group of unattatched, but no necessarily unaquainted, men. Secondly,
there are no referees in IM basketball. The games are unsupervised as
far as having any person of authority who can make rulings and enforce
them. Therefore, interpretation and enforcement of the rules falls to
the players themselves. Third, space restrictions at times make it
impossible for all those present to play unless some of the games are
half court. Half court games are just that--two games can take place
simultaneously on the same court. The mid-court line becomes an out
of bounds line. The greater ambiguity of the fules dealing with out-
of bounds plays that results from the changing definitions of the play
space must be ironed out.

These three differences-~lack of teams, lack of referees, and

27

changed rules because of changed play space--present problems in or-
ganization for those who come to the IM wanting to play games of bas-
ketball. The ways in which these problems are solved help comprise the

social structure that makes possible the reality of "playin' ball."

IV. "PLAYIN' BALL": GENESIS OF GAMES

There are basically two ways that games can be formed at the IM.
First, unattatched individuals or small groups may organize themselves
into teams. Alternatively, once a game has been played, according to
the custom that has developed, challenge teams may form to play the
winners of the previous game who remain as a team until they are de-
feated.

During the period of my observation, I played in sixty-six games
of basketball at the IM. Of these sixty-six games, twenty—five were
newly formed out of a collection of individuals with no previous team
connections. In thirty-one games I was either on the winner's team
continuing on the court, or on the challenger's team taking on the
winners. In ten games I was added to an ongoing game, or the game
changed from half court to full court with the addition of other players
(four cases).

New games may be formed at any size. Sixteen games were half
court, ranging in size from two on two (i.e., teams with two players
each) to five on five. Nine new games began as full court. There are
two ways that new teams can be formed. Each of these emerges from
another activity with its own social rules. This activity is known to

the players as "shooting around."

"Shooting Around"

 

Since games take from twenty to thirty minutes to complete (usually),

those individuals waiting to play often shoot at an unused basket, if

28

29

there is one. On other occasions there are no games in progress in the
gym because there are too few people present. On these occasions people
in the gym shoot at one or more of the baskets.

The men at a basket use all the balls being shot at that basket to
shoot with themselves. Thus, there is no personal possession of balls.
Once an individual takes a shot at a basket where others are also
shooting he must expect that his ball will be used by the others to
shoot with also.’ Balls circulate among the players. No one objects
to this because, for the purposes of shooting around, all balls are
equal in quality. Since there is no game, no competition, all the move-
ments that are necessary to escape from the man guarding you in a game
are unnecessary when shooting around. The ball does not have to be
handled with speed and alacrity so it does not have to be of the same
quality as a game ball. Shooting around is characterized by an absence
of body tension that goes with cooperation and sharing of resources.
Players shoot at the basket, shag balls that bounce away, and rebound
individually and non-competitively.

There are two situations in which the shooters do not share the
balls in play. The first case is when there are as many balls in play
as there are shooters to use them. In this situation, when a ball is
shot at the basket there is no one who does not have a ball, therefore,
there is no one to take possession of the shot ball so the shooter must
chase his own shot. This effectively ties up all the individuals present
in shooting or chasing balls and reinforces the individualness and lack
of sharing. However, in this case there are "services" rendered between

the participants.

30

One man was shooting at the near end, right. I went over

to that basket. We both had our own ball so we did not use

each other's, although each of us stopped the other's re-
ciprocal one. Even when the other man was quite close to the
ball the one would stop the ball and flip or bat to the other if
he was closer.

The following incident illustrates the naturalness of the shift from

exchanging "Services" to sharing balls.

Meanwhile, on the other half there was a group shooting at
either basket. Not a word was said between the participants,
but everything went smoothly. There were three guys and three
balls, so each man shot only his own ball. Each time a ball
came near, or looked as if it might roll away onto the court
or far back, one of the shooters would stop the ball and
throw/tap or ball-block it back to its rightful owner. One
of the participants left. He was replaced by a balless
shooter. Then all three used the two balls indescriminately,‘
even though I and the other had refrained from doing so only
minutes before.

The other occasion when balls are not shared is when someone delib-
erately refuses to enter into the common action of shooting around with

another.

I went over to one basket where three men were shooting,

doing more talking than shooting. They were discussing gym
shoes on a cost/value basis. I started shooting at that basket.
I could not integrate myself into the group, so I went to

the other basket. I define integration as a mingling of objects
of interest, in this case basketballs. That is, they did

not use my ball, I did not use their's. Since I was but one, my
ball was "in play" as soon as I shot it. So one of the others
would have had to take it out of play, control it, for me to

use the other ball.

In the integrated group, taking together is reinforced by the
common use of a ball. As I was not a member of the conversational

group, so also, I was not able to make use of the conversational group's

ball.

Startigg 2 Game

There are three ways of organizing teams to Oppose each other in a

game. The men may "shoot for teams," or teams may be "picked up." Of

31

Of the twenty-five new games that I played in, eleven times teams were
made by shooting, fourteen times by picking up. There were two cases
in which full court games were started by a mixture of both. Two groups
of over five both shot to determine which five members of the group
would get into the game.

Previously I defined "ritual" as "a repeated action that mutually
indicates to peOple their similar view of a situation, and their mutual
submission to a higher task." On the basis of this definition, shooting
for teams is a ritual activity. The basic procedure of shooting for
teams varies little from incident to indident. When one person asks
that a game be started by shooting for teams and the procedure begins,
the men go through the performance smoothly. Each man who takes part
realizes that the ritual will end with teams determined. This is the
"higher task"--to organize teams so the game can begin. And by par-
ticipating in the ritual the players demonstrate that this is their
task also, and that they share a desire, individually and collectively,
to generate a game.

After a few minutes of warm-ups, Robert said, "Let's

shoot. First five." He shot and missed. The other men

clustered around the circle, two others stood at the botton

of the key.

The physical arrangement and pace had changed noticeably

(from shooting around). Men were standing around the

lane and the key, a cluster of four or five right in back

of the shooter, a couple standing on either side near the

foul line, and one man under the basket to retrieve the

balls. The number of balls in play had been reduced also,

and the man at the line was the only one who was doing any

shooting...Each man took a shot in turn. If he missed he

moved bask into the pack at the back of the day. If he

hit he moved forward towards the bottom of the lane...

Shooting continued until five men had hit- After the first

round of shooting there was a second. Before starting it

the man who did asked, "Everybody taken one shot?"...

Someone asked, "How many have made it?" The men indicated
by a movement and "I have."

32

After shooting for a few minutes, one of the men, Pat,

said, "How about playing a game?" Steve: "How many guys

we got?" Pat (calling down court): "Hey, you guys wanna

play a game?" They came down court. Steve: ”We got nine."

But one man remained at the other end of the court. I

was very aware that after Pat called for a game those pre-

sent around the basket held the balls and directed their

attention to the foul line. Pat: "First five to make it?"

He began the shooting.

These three examples could be added to with others. The course
of events is very similar in each case. When there is an even number
of men at the basket, anyone may call for a game simply by suggesting
or asking that shooting take place. Those wishing to engage in the
game show their intention by holding the balls they've been shooting
around with and lining up to shoot.

Although anyone may call for a game, the man who does is usually
not the best player, nor the worst. The man calling for shooting to
take place generally shoots first. He must therefore be aggressive
enough to take upon himself the initial generation of action, and
this places him among the most aggressive players. The most aggressive
players generally continue to exhibit these aggressive qualities in a
variety of other ways, in situations that require assertive action on
the part of at least one player if games are to start and continue
smoothly.

The ritual of shooting for teams helps maintain the boundary
between play and everyday life. One trait which differentiates play
from everyday life is that the players begin the contest from a situation
of equality. The victory of one team demonstrates that team's superior
ability, and not operation of "extraneous" advantages it may have had

at the outset. Shooting for teams is the way in which equal teams are

originally organized. In the absence of information about the actual

33

abilities of the players, or if the abilities are known to be about
equal, the players let chance dictate the composition of the teams.
Any team is assumed to be as equal as any other team. The logical
alternative, therefore, is to decide teams by chance rather than try
to make decisions on the basis of very limited information. The one
factor that might prejudice a game's outcome is a large height dif-
ferential between the two teams. When, there are two men taller than
the rest who would probably be able to control the game if they were
on the same team, the practice at the IM is to place the men on dif-
ferent teams and let the rest of the players shoot.

The unstated reason behind organizing equal teams is that the
players desire an uncertain outcome at the start. The outcome must be
discovered through playing'the game. If the outcome is discernable
at the start, why play the game? Thus, players often remark after
teams have been made and the game is about to start, "We can switch
around after this game." That is, "I assume these teams to be equal.
However, if the game should demonstrate that one team is vastly superior,
the outcome of subsequent contests would not be in doubt. Therefore,
in the event of such a demonstration, I suggest we decide now to ex—
change players on the basis of more information to re-equalize the
teams." I never observed the player's statement to be denied.

"Picking up"--the other way of organizing a team--is a simplified
version of shooting. For the purpose of easily identifying and dif-
ferentiating the teams, one team wears shirts, the other team plays
bare chested. If it happens that the players are roughly divided into
teams on the basis of shirts and skins prior to the organizing of a

game, shooting may be dispenced with. Teams are simply those with shirts

34

versus those without shirts.

Finally, with ten men present, the older of the two black
men called for a game. He did so by asking each man in
turn, "Do you want to play a game?" As the men were asked,
and agreed, they held their ball so that a relative order
was established. At this point one man asserted himself,
"Nick, why don't you take off your shirt, then we'll have
five on five." "We going full court?" "No, we can just
go half court."

Picking up teams is also based on a chance arrangement of men.
The assumption is made that wearing (or not wearing) a shirt is in no
way related to skill. Picking up teams in this manner is a more 3g Egg
way of determining teams. The players must be roughly divided in
advance or they are faced with the problem of making numerous decisions
as to who will take off (or put on) a shirt.

The final way that teams are picked up is when two or more pre-
existing groups of men start a game. The groups are retained for the
game. This occurs most often in cases when the gym is uncrowded so
that there are small groups at different baskets. When there is more
of a crowd, games on other courts force the unattatched players into a

crowd to begin with,

The two of us left shot for a while. Then two other men
came over, both older. "You guys want to play a little

two on two?" ”Yeah," we looked at each other almost simul-
taneously with the agreement. "You young guys want to

take on us older guys?" "OK." "We'll play age against
youth. Of course, we prefer to call it experience.

At this time the guys from the other end of the court

came cown toward us led by a 6'8" man, "You guys want to

go full court?" Ralph: "Alright, we'll have to shoot to
see who plays." We shot and they shot. The original court
groups were maintained.

Making teams from already constituted groups is the easiest way

to make teams since it involves no decisions except the one to retain

35

the groups. It also provides players with an opportunity to play on

the same team with friends, or at least with people they have experience

playing with.

When there is a game in progress, a different set of ritual actions
are required to get into a game. There are signs posted on the walls

of the gym that say:

SHARE THE FACILITIES

-Play a full court 15 point game when others are waiting.
-Winners will remain on court.
--Losers drop out and may get in line again to return to court.

This bit of authority from the IM has been operationalized in a
social custom in which one man calls the next game. He calls the game
merely by saying in a loud voice,"I got next game." He then becomes

the captain of the team of challengers with the right to choose the

players he wants on his team.

After the game ended we asked, "Who's got next game?" The
guy in the chair got up and went over to the court. Four
others, including me, followed. Wes: "Where's your team?"
He seemed reluctant to name a team. He said nothing. Roy
said, "There's five guys here. He was here, so was he, and
him. You mean that one guy can come in here and call next
game when there's already five guys here?" Gary: "If none
of them has called it he can." Wes: "That's the way we've
been doing it."

The ritual for getting into a game when the team of challengers
is captained by a stranger is similar in form to the ritual of homo-
sexual solicitation described in Laud Humphreys in Tearoom Trade:

Impersonal Sex ih_Public Places:

 

Every encounter reduces, ultimately to the basic steps of
positioning, signaling, contracting, and payoff: but no
two of them quite alike.27

In a public restroom the would-be participants in sexual encounters

must be guarded in their intentions and careful who they approach because

36

not everyone entering the restroom does so to engage in homosexual
acts. Approaching a plainclothes man may even result in arrest and
disgrace. The tearoom participant therefore positions himself to
indicate an interest in sexual encounters. There is no such stigma
attatched to activities in the IM. However, the IM gym is not as
accessible as a public restroom; men do not enter the gym unless they
intend to play basketball. By his presence alone, the individual
entering the gym expresses an interest in playing basketball.28

Humphreys uses the term "signaling" to refer to the overt ex-
pression of a desire to engage in homosexual activities. In the case
of the men in the IM, signaling is the overt expression of a desire
to enter a particular game, the next game, made to the captain of
the challenger's team. The intention is eXpressed as a question
directed to the captain, "You got next game?" The question indicates
a desire to play and is responded to with a simple "Yes" or "No". If
the answer is no the would-be player must continue questioning people
until he finds the individual who does have next game. His search is
usually simplified by the fact that the first man questioned usually
knows who does have the next game, if he doesn't.

If the would-be player succeeds in signaling his intention to
play to the captain of the challenger's team he must still contract with
the captain to play on his team. As Humphreys points out, the partici-
pants in such a ritual sequence, although they have expressed desire
to interact, have given little actual consent to do so. Both the
would-be player and the captain must be certain of each other's con-
sent to play on the same team. Otherwise there may be too many or

too few men to play the next game when the time comes. The payoff for

37

for both parties, of course, is playing in the next game.

Ollie was seated on the sidelines, far left. I went over
to him and asked, "You got next game?" "Yeah.” "Got five
guys?" "We got four. You make five."

I asked Larry "You got next game?" "Yeah." "You got five
guys?" "Yeah, we got a team." When the game ended, that
team went over to play. I walked down to the other end

of the court and asked Benjy, "You got next game?" "Yeah."
"Got five?" "If our friends come down from the locker

room, we got a team. If they don't, you can play. We
aren't going to take any of the guys who are playing."

I had asked Hank, "You got next game?" "Yeah." But I had

not cemented the contract any tighter than that. I had

assumed I was playing the next game. But when I started

to make moves like I was going to play the next game: I

got up, put on a shirt, and moved out to the area in front

of the basket where people were shooting. Hank: "I pro-

mised five guys already that they could play."

This ritual is replayed time and again at the IM. The custom of
"captainship" is a strong one. When there are already games going in
the gym, an individual must be on a challenger's team if he is to play.
The middle quotation suggests the "abuse" that the custom is subject
to. The captain of the team has the authority to pick the men that he
wants on his team. He can pick men from the team that just lost the
game, if he wants to. This means that a relatively small group of
men can control access to games by picking the same men continuously
off the losing team to form a new one. Although I did not witness
anyone openly oppose the use of the custom of captainship, even when
it resulted in restricted access to games, awareness of abuses, and
bitterness over the system was present. Both of these sentiments are
reflected in these comments during a private chat with one of the players.

Phil: "The only way you can get into the game is to call

the next game first. They always pick teams from the losers,

instead of getting other guys, they just make teams from the

losers. Even when there are guys waiting to play, the same
guys will play another game." Myself: "I think that's from

38

this idea of a captain picking his own team. I wonder

how that got started?” Phil: "Sometimes, even when

you call the next game, some other guy will say he called

it first, even when you know he didn't. So you still

don't play."

The way of fielding teams I have described allows controlled
access to the playing of games. This is where my social position as
a person who came alone was most acutely felt. People cannot be
faulted for wanting to play basketball with their friends, but in this
case, other people are eliminated from the competitive use of the IM
courts. The system of controlling access to games is instrumental in
the emergence of a hierarchy of players that can be ordered on the
basis of access to games. A closer examination of the social hierarchy

necessitates a brief discussion of how games are ordered on the basis

of their preferability.

Preferential Orderihg g£_Activities and Social Groups

 

The basketball players at the IM prefer contests that are close
in numbers of players and amount of space, to full court, five on five
games. (Rather than fewer players playing half court). Any contest is
preferable to shooting around. Hence there is a preference of different
activities.

Shooting around is the least preferred activity. It is considered
primarily as a warm up, or a diversion while waiting to enter a game.
If both courts are being used for full court games, men shoot at the
baskets when the teams are at the other end of the court. When the
ball changes hands and the teams come toward their end of the court,
the shooters hold their balls and move off the court. Thus, use of

the court space for a game supercedes use of the court space for shooting

39

around.

One of the players suggested, "How about a little two on

two?" Bruce declined, "Those guys down there always play

full court." The one: "They're just fuckin' around.

They don't want to play." The same man made the same

suggestion a little later and was dissuaded by his friend,

"They don't want to play two on two."...Finally Bruce

decided to go down to the other end and talk to the

three. He spoke for about five minutes, quite a while

to arrange a game. He came back, ”Well, they're going to

play, but they want to keep the same five guys. They don't

want to lose."

The group, acting as a unit, had the power to make or deny a
game for the separate individuals. For this reason, the group was
able to control the level of preferability of the activity they entered
into ("Those guys...always play full court.") and also control the
selection of teams ("They want to keep the same five guys.") Their
power was a function of their solidarity as a group in Opposition to
individuals in a situation Of low population (at this instant in time
there were less than a dozen peOple in the gym). Apparently, the group
was content with the non-game alternative of group interaction and
"shooting around." The alternative for the separate individuals was
a two on two game. For the separate individuals, the price for moving
from a low preferability, two on two game, to a high preferability,
five on five game, was letting the group remain together, with the
expected outcome, "They don't want to lose." 'The individuals were
willing to pay the price.

Players can be ranked according to the level at which they enter
the activity order. The ranking of individuals in this manner is closely
related tO friendship groups that can also be traced. Two reasons for

this are indicated above. First, a group requires the addition of fewer

players to play full court five on five than any individual. Therefore,

40

a group can make a game by its participation, or deny a game by its
forbearance, something an individual is hard put to do. Secondly, a
group has the additional alternative of non-game sOcial activity, along
the sidelines, while individuals must engage in game activity.

In the course of my observations I found that there were at
least sixty-one people whom I Observed playing at least twice. (I say
"at least" because there may have been some people I did recognize as
seeing more than once, or an occasion on which I did not note the pre-
sence of an individual. This would have occurred only with individuals
who were not present very Often.) I saw two men playing on ten dif-
ferent occasions. They were present together every time except once
each when they were present alone. They always entered and left the
gym in close time proximity, called each other by name, and were observed
to engage in "banter".29 They formed the core Of the social group of
black players that regularly played at the IM. I saw another black
player on nine occasions. He always entered and left alone. Although
he was well known to the players, he was not a member of the black group
Of players that was most Often present in the late afternoon-~he
played earlier. One man, John, was observed eight times. This indiv-
idual seemed to me to be the best known man in the IM. He was on a
name basis with men of different groups who did not appear to know
each other. Three men whom I observed early in the study, but who
subsequently disappeared from the IM, formed another group. Other
men who were around frequently included other members of the black social,
group, and the white players who formed the core of the white "regulars".
Three men whom I saw frequently entered and left the gym alone. These

men seemed closest to me in social position.

41

Friendship groups would be determined primarily by who entered
and left together, or in close time proximity; by use of names in
address, greetings and good-byes upon entering or leaving, and by en-'
gagement in "banter."

I have mentioned the hierarchy of preferability of activities
from shooting around to full court, five on five contests. One measure
of the status of social groups and individuals is the level at which
they enter the hierarchy of activity preferability, that is, the size
(in number of players and court space used) of the games they regularly
play in. Of the members of the balck social group, I observed one
member, one time, engaged in less than a full court, five on five
contest. John was observed shooting around once, on a Saturday, when
the population of the gym was under ten. As has been noted about the
three men mentioned previously, they "always play full court."

Another indication of an individual's status in the world Of the
Men's IM is the amount of time it takes him to get into a game once he
enters the gym, and the number of games he plays. As has been dis-
cussed, the custom Of a captain choosing his own team makes it possible
for an individual or group to play numerous games in succession.

John and his friend talked to the guys on the bench for a

while, then went over to the other empty basket. A guy

came over and yelled to them, "Next game, you two are in!"

I walked over to the bench and asked Rich,"What are the

teams?" "Oh, there's about two or three teams." There

were only six non-players in the gym, so his statement

was obviously in error unless some people were on more

than one team...Bronson played in every game while I was

there. John and his friend played every one but the first.

The game would end and the losers would break up with two

or three new players joining with two or three of the

losers to form a new team.

This incident demonstrates the difference in social position

between myself and John. He and his friend were solicited for a team

42

shortly after their entrance, I was told there were "two or three"
teams already formed.

For the individual in a social group, as Opposed to an individual
alone, the ritual of approaching a captain to get on a team is different.
Players who are known to each other are less formal in their inter-
action. The newcomer is as likely to be approached by the captain as
the other way around.

I went over to the man who had next game. "You got five?"

He: "I only got one." "Need another man, then?" He:

"I might take some from these guys." (Those already in

the game.) ...A man walked in who was apparently known to

the captain. He: "Charles, what's happening? You want

to play ball?" ...After the game I walked over to the

captain, "Got your team?" He just nodded.

The social situation I have described was not lost on others. For
example, here are excerpts from a conversation with one of the men
who, like myself, was a social loner in the IM:

Tucker: "That's the difference between playing over here

(there was a game of individuals going on), and over there

(there was a game involving social groups). Over there

you could argue for a half hour." Myself: "Yeah, those

guys come over here all the time and they take the game

very seriously." Tucker: "Yeah, I've played eight man

games with them." Myself: "Eight man games?" Tucker:

"Yeah, the same eight guys play over and over again."

One Of the largest problems and major disappointments of this
study was my inability to be able to describe the framework of social
structure from the point Of view of those belonging to a social group
of players. Doing so seemed to be virtually impossible from my pos-
ition of observation. The origin of the social groupings depends not
only on the non-basketball friendship structure, but also on the player's

skill. It is the player's skill which makes him a desirable teammate.

The prerequisite for entering a social group, barring the existence of

43

a non-basketball friendship (which I didn't have) is the skill at
the game itself to be picked off of losing teams as members of the
social groups are. And I am a player of moderate skill.

I mentioned that there are three organizational problems that
must be overcome if games are to take place at the IM. The first Of
these involves the fielding of two teams. The social structure that
exists at the IM, both in terms of the rituals involved in beginning
games and the social hierarchy Of skill and friendship, is the mechanism
by which would-be players coming to the IM can be sure that there will
.be games played. Actual involvement of the individual in the games
remains problematic and dependent on his use of ritual enterings
and/or membership in a social group. The social structure serves not
only to insure that games take place, but to prevent some people from
playing. In Goffman's terms, the social aspects of the gathering for

one group spoils the focused gathering for another group.30

V. "PLAYIN' BALL": CONTINUANCE OF GAMES.

Teams must be organized before a game of basketball can begin.
When an individual comes to the IM, changes his clothes, and enters
the gym with the intention Of playing basketball, he leaves behind
his "everyday selves" and assumes the self Of the "basketball player".
The focus of his activities shifts from the consequential world of
everyday life, to the world of the IM which is inconsequential for
his "everyday" activities. With the start of the game he is par—
ticipating in, the individual's actions once again become consequen-
tial. This time, however, the consequentiality of his actions is
limited to the narrow world defined by the game. The player enters
the world of play. Once the game starts, the only viewpoint that he
needs to maintain is that of the player.31 He becomes engrossed in
the game. He experiences a unity of thought and action defined in
this case as "playing a game of basketball."

Basically the individual's experience at the IM is divided into
two parts. The first part is defined in a negative way. The journey
to the IM, a different set of clothes, a different social structure,
and different rituals of action that characterize the pre-game exper-
ience serve primarily to separate the individual from the world of
everyday life rather than to immerse him in a new world. With the
start of the game, however, the transfer is complete. The individual

has left one world and entered another. Play is fleeting, however, it

44

45

threatens at every moment to lose itself in boredom, explode into
serious aggression, or be destroyed by an intrusion of the "real
world." The pIayers must be constantly assured that the game is
progressing as basketball games normally do, that it will continue

to progress correctly, and that the only viewpoint they need to have
is that Of the player. If the players lose this viewpoint, then play
has ended, at least temporarily. The play world must be continuously
recreated by the efforts and belief of the players. In this section
we shall examine the ways in which the players mutually recreate for
themselves their definition of the situation as "playin' ball."32

Technical Decisions

 

Technical decisions are of the type that must be made before the
game can start. The game is well bounded in time. Its beginning can.
be exactly determined. However, the game is gradually led into by the
preparatory decisions. These decisions may be made in any order. How-
ever, the decision about which team will be shirts and which team will
be skins is usually made first, and the decisions about guarding are
made last. In between, three other decisions are made: which ball to
use, which team first gets possession of the ball (this is called
"first outs" by the players), and the respective baskets that the teams
will guard.

People entering the gym to play basketball generally wear a
variety of types of gym clothes; or occasionally street clothes: there
is uniformity of clothing on a team only by the rarest chance. If
the game is to continue smoothly, the players must be able to make

decisions about their play on the basis of information concerning the

46

whereabouts and movements Of their teammates and the Opposition. To
do this they must be able to instantaneously distinguish between the
two teams. There is no homogeneity of clothing, no uniforms, as in
organized basketball. There is, however, one very effective way of
telling the members of opposing teams apart: one team plays with their
shirts on, whatever their style, the other team plays bare-chested.

As I pointed out earlier, the ball used in a game does affect
the play. However, in most cases there is a choice of balls, all of
which meet the requirements of the players. Some players have balls
which they bring to the gym. John, for example, brought a ball that
was of such good quality it was inevitably used in the games in which
he played. Although there is an Objective basis for deciding which
ball to use, any player is competent to make the decision. Very little
acquaintance with basketball is needed to be able to tell a good ball
from a bad one.

IM basketball lacks the services of an impartial referee to
SUpervise a jump ball at the start Of the game. Therefore, one team
or the other starts the game by putting the ball in play, by taking
the "first outs." Direction is decided along with first outs.
Whichever way the team with first outs decides to go makes the decision
for both teams.

"Who's skins and who's shirts?" Pat: "Skins made it."

A short man stood at half court with the ball. Mickey:

"We going to play half court or full court?" Pat: "We've

got four on four." Shorty: "Let's play half court."

(definite) He started the game by passing the ball to one

of his teammates.

Notice that in this case four decisions were made in the space

of a few seconds and with few words: shirts or skins, half or full

47

court, the ball to use, and first outs. These decisions are essen-
tial but unimportant. That is, in order to play a game it is essential
that teams be distinguishable from one another, that the play space be
determined, that one ball be chosen for use, and that one team actually
begin the game by taking the first outs. From the standpoint of the
players, however, these decisions are unimportant, since the actual
decision itself will not affect the outcome of the game. The

decisions are generally made by fiat. The assertive action of one man
indicating his decision on a technical matter is enough to decide the
issue. The distribution of decisions made among the members of the
group is not random, however. Some men are more inclined to make
decisions, to take assertive action than are others. Further, as I
previously discussed, the men who play in the gym on a regular basis
are not total strangers. In this situation of prior knowlege, some
men assert themselves on a regular basis and other players begin to
expect certain men to make the technical decisions. For lack of a better
term, I will call these men "team leaders." By making the technical
decisions essential to the occurrence of games, team leaders may be
thought Of as those men most responsible for the organization of

games at the IM.

The technical decisions made prior to the start of a game ac-
tually involve two decisions: the technical decision itself, and a
"meta-decision," a decision about deciding, which most Often means
who will be the one to make the technical decision. Three different
fieldnote excerpts illustrate this point:

The game started with Claude designating the take out. He

did the same thing at the start of each game. "Shirts
take the ball out.” He did.

48

One Of the Opposing players: "Which ball do you.want to
use?" Ralph: ”We don't care. You decide."

When we came down the court Eddie asked, "Which ball do you

want to use?" He passed me his ball, I was holding mine.

Myself: "I don't care." Eddie: ”Let's use yours, that one

isn't very good."

In the first case, Claude by his assertive action makes both
the meta-decision about who will make the technical decision (he will),
and the technical decision (his team takes the ball out first). In
the second case, the opposing player declines making both the meta-
decision and the technical decision. He does make the meta-decision,
in a sense, by posing a question. However, Ralph makes the meta—deci-
sion very definitely, and thrusts the technical decision back upon
the man who had initially declined to make it. In the final case,
both men decline to make both of the decisions. Each trys to make the
meta-decision negatively, by refusing to make the technical decision.
Eddie makes the technical decision, putting an end to what could have
become an endless chain of negative decision making through refusal
to decide.

These sequences describe power relationships. I use "power"
very loosely: exercise of judgement in the present which changes
conditions and creates the circumstances under which future action will
take place. In the first case, one man takes power. He makes two
decisions and thus implies a power relationship with himself as the
most important and powerful member. In the second case, Ralph gives
power. He also implies a power relationship with himself as the power-
ful member, able to delegate decision making authority. In the final

case both men refuse power, implying an equality of powerlessness, with

Eddie finally making the technical decision.

49

The final technical decision relates to guarding. During the
time just prior to the beginning of the game, each man must enter into
a special dyadic relationship with a member of the Opposite team. These
men are said to "guard" each other. Each one attempts to overcome
the other during the game. Each tries to stop "his man" from scoring
when on defense, and to score "on him" when on Offense.

Players match up on the basis of height. Short men guard short
men, tall men guard tall men. The team that takes the ball out first
has a less problematic time of getting guarding assignments. The
other team will be on defense first, so they will be matched with a man
when they come down court. In every game but one, when there was a
"man—on-man" defense the dyad remained stable regardless of which team
was on offense. In each case, each man would follow the dictum, "take
the man who's got you." As long as the assignments are fair on the
surface, that is, no great disparities in height, the decision of
guarding fades into unimportance.33

Decisions are made in three ways: by continuance (if the same
two men are playing in consecutive games they retain the guarding
relationship through both games); by choice (one man calls out his
choice among the Opponents); by parcelling out (the team huddles and
mutually makes the decisions).

Decisions about assignments Offer another occasion for the
emergence of team leaders. Men who call out their choice of opposing
players to guard, or who are most instrumental in the parcelling out
Of assignments often turn out to be the same men who made earlier
decisions. These same men continue to provide organizing capacity

during the game by encouraging their teammates and by coordinating

50

their movements. The following fieldnote excerpts illustrate "choice"
and "parcelling out."

Jason picked the man he wanted to guard, the guy who was

the best ball handler. As the game was about to start he

pointed at the man he wanted to guard and said, "That's

my man right there!"

"Skate", Hank and Arnie gathered at the foul line to talk

strategy. Hank: "How do you want to work this?" I

sidled over to them. Arnie: "I'll take the one in the

light blue. You're (me) tall. Why don't you take the

man in the blue trunks?"

A final decision that must be made involves the special case of
half court games. In half court games the play space of the court is
cut in half with both teams shooting at the same basket. To prevent
the game from turning into a chaotic mass of men shooting, teams are
required to play the ball from the back of the key (or other agreed upon
place) each time a basket is made. And they must "take back" the ball to
that line whenever possession of the ball changes between the teams.

Two different games are possible: "possession" (the team making a
basket retains possession of the ball) or not "playing possession" (the
ball changes hands after a basket). The negative definition of the second
game attests to its rarity. Of the sixty-six games I played at the IM,
thirty-two were half court and only one was not possession. Yet there is
sufficient ambiguity that a team leader may take it upon himself to an-
nounce the rules.

Ralph stated the rules loudly enough for everyone to hear.

"Play to fifteen. Call your own fouls. Take everything

back."

There are a large variety of rules to choose from. What is impor—

tant is not which variety is played, but that everyone is playing by the

same rules. When cases of ambiguity come up during the game, and, hence,

51

to prevent continuing ambiguity.

One of our men went past the half court line to get a
ball. Fred: "Our ball. You went out of bounds."

Ted: "That's not out of bounds." "Let him have it. He
didn't know." This.from the bearded man...Myself: "Are
we playing half court out?" Fred (sarcastically): "We
usually do when we play over here." Myself: "Well, we
usually play possession, too." Fred: "That's true."

He then raised his arm and said loudly: "From now on,

a ball back past half court is out."

Rule-Covered Breaks

 

The rules of basketball provide for different occasions when the
continuing movement of the players up and down the court stOps. The rules
also provide for the manner in which the ball is to be returned to play
and the flow of the game reestablished. IM basketball does not have a
referee to supervise the actions of the players in breaking and re-es-
tablishing the flow of the game. Therefore, players have developed con-
ventions for continuing the game once a break has occurred.

When the game is broken up by a rule infraction, there is a
well defined "ritual of return" that must be played through before the
rythmic up court and down court movement can be re-established. This
ritual is referred to as "taking a check on the ball" or just "check".
"Checking" involves two primary parts and eight subordinate ones, and
each player must take part if the ritual is to come off smoothly. When
an incident occurs that requires a "check" in order to re-establish the
"game flow" (the uninterupted movement of teams up and down the court),
a member of the team to receive possession of the ball must stand out
of bounds and throw the ball inbounds to one of his teammates. In

organized basketball, the referee holds the ball to prevent the Offense

from taking unfair advantage Of an unready defense. In IM basketball,

52

this task falls to the defensive team itself, there being no referee
to regulate the play. When the ball is to be played inbounds the man
playing the ball in will give it to the man guarding him. The de-
fensive man retains possession of the ball until all his teammates are
ready. Practically-speaking, he holds the ball until the other eight
men are in their "guarding dyads," standing in close proximity to one
another and not running around. He then returns the ball to the of-
fensive man, sometimes with the words "Ball in," or "Ballgame" to in-4
dicate the change of hands. The offensive man then passes the ball
inbounds and the game continues. T

The "check" is one means by which the players maintain the
boundaries of play for themselves and each other. When a break in the
game flow occurs as a result of adhering to the rules of the game, the
players do not lose their players' viewpoint as they do at the end of
the contest. This type of break is only a "time out" in which the players
lose the unity of thought/action the game flow provides,'but not their
definition Of the situation as "playing a game of basketball." The
smooth operation of the ritual of return of the ball to play assures
each player that the other players see the situation as essentially the
same, i.e., as a "time out," and a way to return to the game with the
correct team getting possession of the ball.

The ritual is a product of the actions of the players. The smooth
operation of the ritual depends on the players taking action in a com—
plementary fashion. The two primary parts to be played are complemen-
tary: someone to throw the ball in and someone to "chec " it. The
eight subordinate parts are also complementary: the defensive and

offensive players matched in guarding dyads. The ritual breaks down if

53

players attempt to assume the same parts rather than complementary ones.
When the ritual of return breaks down, or threatens to, the "game frame"
is threatened also. The game cannot continue with the ball "out of
play," and the ball cannot be returned to play unless the ritual of
return is followed through. When two players try to assume the same
part in the ritual, there are nine other men who also must take their
parts (one of the two trying to take the same part is "correct"). The
parts that the other men take will be complementary to the part one of
the men has taken, the other man will find himself "out of tune" with
the other nine men. Pressure is thus applied to the "out of tune" man
to take another part. For if he does not, the game cannot continue and
he will be responsible for destroying the game for the other nine men.
In this manner the rules are enforced by a majority "vote" of the the
players. Whatever parts the majority of the players take forces the
other players to either take complimentary parts or destroy the game.

Another argument occurred when Paul went over Ben's head

to slap a rebound out of bounds. The ball bounced against

the wall, Ben got it. Paul also stepped out of bounds,

turned toward the court and said, "It's our ball. I hit

down, you hit it out! I ain't movin' 'til you give me the

ball." Ben: ”Well, we're going to be here a long time then."

The two men remained, both in the same position with respect

to continuing play. Both had assumed the role of "thrower

in." They stood side-by-side for a few minutes, perhaps

while everyone caught their breath. Then one of Paul's

teammates moved in front of Ben to "take a check on the

ball," thus ratifying his position. Paul moved back on the

court, without a word, to pick up his man.

The ball went out of bounds, apparently off Ken (my teammate).

Everyone turned and moved back up court. We were all accross

the half court line when I turned to see Ken had to check the
ball. Ken saw everyone up court and called, "Hey! It's our

ball. It went off him!" His man nodded assent. We went
back down court. It was an occasion of humor. Ken laughed
especially.

The last incident demonstrates that it is the two men most directly

54

involved with the ball when it goes out that control the return to
play. Eight thought that Ken hit the ball out, but the knowledge of
the men "at the scene" decided the matter. Humor was generated by the
'"commission and correction of an error." The frame of reference shifted
as the error in perception was discovered and corrected by the men. Ken
and his man had the additional humorous experience of seeing eight men
"ridiculously," (in the light of their knowledge) run up and down
court.

The game is threatened if the ritual of return fails to come
off smoothly. After the flow of the game has been stopped, if the
players do not assume complementary parts in the playing out of the
ritual, the flow of the game cannot be re-established. The game can also
be threatened from the "other side." If one of the players, or teams,
feels that a violation or foul has occurred which should stop the flow
of the game and require a ritual Of return, the refusal of the other
players or team to stop the game flow also generates friction which
threatens the game.

The most frequent occurrence that stops the flow of the game
is when the ball goes out of bounds. This occurrence definitely stops
the game flow. It is obvious to all the players what has occurred;
the only disputable fact involves which team should receive possession
of the ball upon completion of the return ritual. The other occurrences .
that stop the flow of the game are fouls, violations, and jump balls.
Jump balls are rare occurences; I witnessed only three in the time I was
observing. Violations take place at about the rate of one per game

(although this varies). Fouls are more numerous, and out-Of-bounds plays

55

account for about sixty per cent of the stoppages of play.

When a player feels that he has been fouled or a violation has
occurred, it is up to him to make his feeling known to the rest of the
players. He does this by withdrawing from the flow of the game himself
and loudly calling out the foul or violation. The ball ceases to be the
Object of his immediate attention. He retains a position of immobility
with respect to the movements of the others who are still assuming new
positions in a continuously changing configuration, their moves dictated
by the movement of the ball and the other players. The more obvious
the foul or violation, the easier it is to stop the flow of the game,

because other players will also withdraw themselves from the flow in

anticipation of the call.

I think the confrontations began with Chris making a call

of travelling on the other team. They refused the call
outright...The verbal exchange: Chris: "I got travelling!"
Oscar: "He wasn't travelling." The other team.went on just
as if the call had not been made. That is, they did not stop
the flow of the game by holding the ball, etc. Which, since
they had possession, they could do. About three rushes later:
Chris: "Travelling again. I'm sure they won't take it." It
is significant that no one on our team backed the man up.
(Our team also continued the flow of the game, rather than
stopping the game by withdrawing and forcing into the ritual
of "taking the ball out.") The call remained on the level of
a call made and ognored by the other team.

There were numerous disputes about the score. Every few
rushes some one would shout out the score and someone on the
other team would dispute him. One of the longest disputes
in terms of time, was at eight-six. Bert: ”It's eight-six." Oscar:
"What do you mean? It's seven-six. You guys aren't up by two."
Then the recanting of the baskets started. Bert: "He just made
that layup down there." Oscar: "That's the only one you made."
Bert: "No, there was that jumpshot that this man made before."
Myself: "We agreed on six-six (previous dispute) and we've
made two since then." Bert, who was the most embroiled re-
peated my statement in a louder voice, and no further protest
was made by the other side.

The calling of fouls also got to be a disputed matter.

Chris called a foul after a drive and was questioned by Oscar,
"Who hit you?" No response. "You can't even say who hit you."

56

But he was allowed to take the ball out without any further

protest. One of the Opponents called a foul on a rebound

tip. Chris: "you got to call them quicker than that."

Bert: "Let him have it." I think he realized that he had

fouled. Jim B. went up for a shot. He called a foul while

the ball was in the air, but it went through. Chris: "He

called the foul! Take it out." There were "Aw's" from the

crowd waiting and watching. Chris: "He can't have his cake

and eat it too."

In this case the game was threatened by the refusal of the teams
to stop the flow of the game and reintegrate the players back into the
flow through the ritual of return. The game became a fragmented contest
interrupted by unresolved disputes that were merely passed over. The
players' trust an each others' integrity and mutual submission to the
rules of the game diminished, and with it the smooth continuance of
the contest also became disrupted.

The fieldnote excerpt also indicates the small number of men who
were actively involved in the dispute. There were ten men playing, but
only three, Bert, Oscar, and Chris, were actively engaged in arguing.
By their aggressive action, these men took upon themselves the position
of team leaders. To further quote from the same day's fieldnotes:

Chris was the only man on the team that really did any

talking. He yelled orders as the course of the game

demanded, mostly stuff regarding getting back on defense'

and, "Com' on big men, you got to run!" and "Move big man,

move!"

One other fact about the disputants must be made and discussed.
All three men mentioned (Bert, Oscar, and Chris) were black. They were
not the only black players in the game, but the players who argued the
most were all black. I did not find in my observations that games

involving black players were more filled with arguments than other games.

Most argumentative games followed a pattern of increasing tension and

57

decreasing trust as described above. I did find, however, that in those
argumentative situations, and in other situations of team leadership,
_black players were more likely to argue and to lead than white players.
Any cultural explanation of this fact is beyond the scope of this paper.
I might offer the hypothesis that in the IM gyms, since they are free of
any outside authority structure, black players feel free to act in an
aggressive manner which they might not do in a more structured situation.

We were leaning against the wall watching the game in

progress. Phil: "I hate playing with those baStards."

I think he meant "black bastards," but I'm not sure (Phil

is white). Three members of the black social group, and two

other blacks, not in the social group were playing. "They

argue all the time, and they're always right. No matter

what they say, they're right."

Thinking such as this has implications for play. One aspect
of play is that all statuses of the players in their "everyday life"
should be irrelevant. If the play world is to successfully be main-
tained by the expectations and actions of the players, they must main-
tain their player's viewpoint, which, in this case, demands that they
ignore extraneous characteristics of the players, like color. Each
player must maintain the boundaries of play in himself and others and

the entrance of "outside" statuses weakens the boundaries of play, and

threatens to destroy it.

Breaks Outside the Rules

Breaks in the game which are outside the rules have been men-
tioned briefly in the previous section. They include disputes regarding
the content of the rules (such disputes are not covered by the rules
themselves); and scoring disputes (there are rules regarding scoring,

I

but a dispute over what the score is is a "bookkeeping,' memory dispute).

58

In this section I shall discuss two other kinds of breaks, both caused
by changes in the games participants. One is the voluntary entrance or
exit of players. The other is in involuntary exit of players via injury.

Of the sixty-six games I played at the IM, I entered six while
they were in progress. I played in four others that changed from half
court to full court with the addition of other players. Whether or
not a game in progress will be destroyed by the entrance of another two
players (players always enter in pairs to keep the sides even), is
diffidult to predict. The game is destroyed if the score reverts to
zero since a new development of tension deriving from the uncertainty
of the outcome must begin, although by the time another pair of men
joins the game, the players may have a fair idea of what the outcome is
likely to be. If the score is low and almost even, the new players will
likely join and the game continue where it left Off.

I got back just as Jim entered, so there were two people

waiting. The game stopped for us. Paul: "Time out. We'

got two more guys now." Ben came over on his way to the

drinking fountain and said, "We'll take this guy, you got

the guy with the ball." There was a man sitting on a chair

on the other side of the gym, he had been setting up the volley-

ball nets. Paul went over to him, "I'm sorry I didn't see you

sitting there, or I'd have asked you to play." "I don't want
to play anyway."

The ecological structure of "playin' ball” is such that persons
in the gym give what Humphreys calls "consent to copresence."34 Since
it takes time and effort to get to the setting, it is a reasonable
assumption that those in the setting are there for the purpose of playing
basketball. Therefore, when a group of players desires to increase the

number of men involved in the game, it is reasonable to ask those men in

the gym, but not actually involved in a game, if they want to play.

59

Invitations to play are often refused. The man refusing an invitation
does not need to offer any excuse for his refusal; often men simply shake
their heads. One of the major aspects of play is that is an activity
freely entered into; no one can be forced to play. Freedom of entry is
recognized and respected.

Rarely do players leave a game while it is in progress. On
three occasions I observed players exiting from a game while it was
going on. In all three cases, the exiting players had made a "provi-
sional contract" to play in the game. Before playing they had given no-
tice that they would play only so long as the game on the next court con-
tinued. The game entered was in each case a half court game. The "pro-
visional player" was a member of the challenger's team in the full court
game on the other court and desired to play half court only as a time-
killing device until he could play full court.

For the player, injury represents an intrusion of the everyday
world into the sphere of play. When an injury occurs the pain is real
enough, bu it is pain in a circumscribed world. After the exit from
the play situation the pain becomes real in the sense that the activities
that one normally carries on must now be carried on with an added bit
of feeling, and perhaps a bandage. Perhaps then, this is an intrusion
of the play world in the real world, but that isn't the way it feels,
there is no "fun" involved. Injury is the way that the activities of
play carry consequentiality for the individual beyond the play world.

For the players, serious injury, that is, injury serious enough
to cause a withdrawal from the game, constitutes a threat to the game

frame. The exit of one of the players leaves an odd number of men.

60

The alternatives are for a game of "x + l on x,' or one member of the

other team to drop out. Notice that if there is a man waiting to play,
this threat does not exist since any player is as good as any other
player from the standpoint of continuing the game, although the re-
sults of the game may be dramatically affected.

The game ended when one of the players drove across the
middle and stopped to shoot. His foot stopped too quickly
under him and he twisted his ankle. He fell to the floor.
The players around him from both teams moved back from him
and looked at him. No one asked if he were all right.
Gary: "Let's drag him off to the side and we can play three
on three." Everyone just stood for a few moments, then
moved further back. He remained on the floor about three
minutes, then he got up to one foot and hopped to the side
of the court. It was only then that one of the players,
Jeff, asked him, "Is it bad?" I heard no reply, but he
began to make his way out of the gym. Jeff said, "I think
I'll call it quits." Bob and I looked at each other, Bob:
"Do you want to leave?" Myself: "Yes." And we left.

After only a few baskets, an opposing player tried to save
a ball at the baseline. He flipped it back, not hard, and
it hit one of our players. Someone behind me said, "That
was a mouthful." The hit player started looking around on
the floor. He: "I gotta get to a hospital quick! I gotta
get to a hospital and get root canal work done!" He had
had a tooth knocked out. He: "Anybody got a car?" "Go
downstairs to the office. They've got trucks. They'll
take you right over." He rushed out. There was a pause

in the action. Nobody that I could see was talking about
the incident. Two of the Opposition moved off the court
and picked up their balls and shirts. One of our men said
loudly, "Ball game!" and started dribbling up court. The
opposition questioned, "We going to play five on four?"

The black guy who had been shooting with me said, "I'll drOp
out." ...The game continued, four on four.

Perhaps the most important thing to notice is that on each occasion
the first response of the players was humor. The tragic possibilities
of the incident were made light of, much as if to say that no real con-
sequences could derive from the play world. In an ethnographic study

of gynecological exams, Joan Emerson points to this function of humor:

61

...humor provides a safety valve for all parties whereby

the sexual connotations and general concern about gyne-

cological examinations may be expressed by indirection.

Without taking the responsibility that a serious form of

the message would entail, the participants may communicate

with each other about the events at hand...If a person can

joke on a topic, he domonstrates tg others that he possesses

a laudatory degree of detachment.3

The occurrence of an injury presents the players with a situation
of ambiguity. Two definitions of the situation are present at the same
time--one tragic, the other, which has been maintained and is now threat-
ened, one of play. By treating the Situation with humor, participants
are able to admit the ambiguity. Concern with the possibility of injury
is "expressed by indirection." Humor allows threatening events to be
dealt with by "defusing" them. Participants show an awareness and con-
cern for the threat, and at the same time demonstrate their detachment
from it.

One further point should be made concerning the occasions of
injury. In the first incident the game ended with the injury. The game
was shattered by the loss of a player. In the second incident the game
continued, but it continued from where it left Off. One of the men simply
started the game up after a pause by going right into the flow of the
game. Since injury is not a "rule break," there were no "rituals of
return" to get the game going again. It started on an.gd_hoc basis.

One man just "picked up the action," and the others joined in, with one

man drOpping out.

InfGame Continuances

During the flow of the game there occur and reoccur many actions
that serve to keep the game on the level of friendly competition. These

"courtesies" continue the definition of the game as play, rather than a

62

"win at any cost" contest. During the flow of the game, also, the
team leaders exercise another aspect of leadership by giving organ-
ization to the team effort. All the players I saw at the IM were
familiar with the rules of basketball and were at least competent
enough at the skills of the game to play it. However, those more
aggressive and more than marginally competent ball players whom I have
called "team leaders" serve as the "floor generals" of their teams.

I have described the threat which major injuries pose to the con-
text of play. Minor injuries do not pose such a threat. Probably
three—quarters of the times that I went over to the IM I was sitness
to at least one minor injury. On most occasions there were two or three.
The major type of injury numerically was eyepokes. I never got jabbed
in the eye, probably because I wore glasses when I played. Of course,
I had my glasses broken, repaired them, and had them broken again.
Another popular injury was "jammed" fingers. The basketball hitting
on the end of a finger produces a painful, but not crippling injury.

Minor injuries do not stOp the game and threaten its contin-
uance; rather, they cause a pause in the game. That is, the flow of the
game stops for a minute or so while the injured player regains his
composure. The injured man generally breaks from the flow of the game.
He stiffens up, touches the injured part of his anatomy, perhaps with
words of pain or swearing until the initial pain passes. All present,
however, realize the momentary nature of the pause. There is an eXpec—
tation of return to the same game within a minute or so. Often the
ball is just held by the man in possession when the injury occurred,
and the game picks up right where it left off.

When a serious injury occurs, its severity is usually obvious; a

63

player stretched out on the ground, or looking frantically on the floor
for lost teeth is obviously hurt. Minor injuries Can cause an injured
player to break from the flow of the game, but the seriousness of his
injury is hard to determine. Therefore, when a minor injury occurs (or
what turns out to be a minor injury) the man closest to the player when
he is injured asks him if he is alright. During the course of play I
lost my glasses four times. On each occasion, the man who had bumped me
asked, "Are you OK?"

In fact, asking a player if he is OK can become a "psych." Players
frequently bump into one another, especially on "picks." A pick is
"set" when one of the offensive men stands still and the man with the ball
passes close to him. The idea is that the man guarding the man with
the ball will run into the pick, and the dribbler will be able to shoot
or drive without interference. If you are a picker and a defensive man
runs into you, or vice versa, asking the other player if he is allright
implies a strong--weak relationship between the players. I cannot be
positive that this was the intent of many of the players who asked op-
ponents if they were allright. But I think that many times the question
was superfluous, even as a matter of courtesy.

Almost every time the ball is brought up court either compliments
or apologies are offered. The compliment is a brief statement of regard
for the play of another. It is confined to two or three words directed
at an opponent or teammate. The quality of the event can be seen from
the number of people offering the compliment. Teammates are quick to
offer compliments; any shot that scores is an occasion for a compliment:
"Good shot," or "Nice move," or "Pretty tap," depending on the exact

circumstances. If a teammate passes the ball, enabling a man to score

64

easily, the scorer, virtually without exception, mentions the quality of
the pass, "Good pass," or ”Way-ta look." By the same token, if a bad
pass is made or the ball dropped, the "Offender" apologizes, accepting
the blame, "My fault." Opponents are not as quick to compliment as
teammates, and the man guarding the one performing well almosts never
compliments.

John was guarding Steve and harasses him verbally. When

Steve hit three long shots in a row, John said, "You can't

miss today," and “Whew, are you hot!"

Both of the players involved were well above average in skill, but
John attempted to define the situation as one of magic, and luck smiling
upon Steve rather than giving him credit for the performance. Usually
the "victim" of a good play says nothing. He tries to maintain the
appearance of an evenly matched duo, not wishing to highlight his being
beaten. He may try to define the situation as a lapse in his own, gen-
erally competent play, rather than a good play by the opponent. ”My
fault. I ggyg him that one." In a particular situation this may be
true. However the excuse wears then quickly. No one wants to "give
away" too many.

The final compliment offered by each team to the other is the

expression "Good game,‘ after the game, This expression is a relative

formality, unless the game was a rout, in which case the expression would

be taken as sarcasm.

After the last game Claude, who was on the winning team each
time, went to each of our players and said, "Nice game, babe."
Although I had not considered the games good, of course, I

was on the losing team.

As we started for the drinking fountain I asked Benjy, "Want
to go again?" Benjy: "Yeah, it was a good game."

Leaders provide another game flow continuance. They serve as

65

"floor generals," coordinating the movements of their teammates. The
men who play at the IM know the movements of the game, but often situations
arise when those movements must be coordinated.

"Superstar" never smiled, never changed facial expression. His

talk was limited to, "Take your man down court," "There's only

two men back on defense, com'on!" And other directions.

We went to a zone the second game. Steve: "Your're under—

neath on that side." He also "directed" the play. "Pinch

out front." "Get back, get back. Alright, good work."

Coordinating orders given furing the game are not resented by the
players. There is no formal authority involved. Coordinating orders
are situationally generated, and no authority beyond the situation is
retained. Those players who are the informal team leaders are generally
better than the average players and can gain respect on that basis. Also,
respect that players might have for those who are team leaders serves

to preclude resentment, since they are considered knowledgeable con-

cerning the strategy of the game itself.

VI. BASKETBALL AS PERFORMANCE

Basketball players, as well as other sports players, are often
referred to as performers, and in many ways, IM basketball is a per—
formance. In basketball, the term "performer" can be used in either of
senses. First, there is performance defined as: the projected defin-
ition of the situation, including his own place in it, that the indiv-
idual desires others in the situation to accept.36 Second, performance
may refer to the individual's objective actions and success on the bas-
ketball court.

The basic "line" that individuals at the IM take in regard to
basketball is that they are competent practitioners of the game, in-
dividuals who are capable of providing competition, and thus enjoyment,
for the other players present.37 The setting in which the performance
takes place gives surface reinforcement to that projection. The phy-
sical location of the IM Building and the gyms, set apart from the rest
of the campus, gives an initial credence to the participant's claim to
competency as a ball player. He has entered into a situation knowing
that his projection of being a competent ball player will be tested. He
cannot "talk a good game," because in the situation he will be required
to demonstrate his competence on the court. Achieving the physical
setting, being present in one of the gyms, requires a journey for the
individual that takes him out of his way, in space, in clothing, and in
rules of sociability. For an individual to undertake the journey purely
out of a desire to be in the setting, to talk a game rather than play one,

66

67

seems ridiculous. Therefore, the initial claim which is generally
accepted, is that if the individual has undertaken the journey into
the situation, he is competent to perform.

When more players are needed in a game, they are solicited from
among those who may be present in the gym. Although players may reject
games, games never reject players. That is, although men refused to
enter games, I never saw anyone not solicit a player because "he
doesn't know how to play." Nor was anyone asked if they knew how to
play. The level of competence within the game might differ, but there

was never any question as to whether an individual could enter into a

game.

(There were five men who wanted to play.) I suggested,
"Why don't you ask that guy down there, and we can play
three on three?" Larry: "I don't want to play with that
guy." But a few minutes later he did ask, "You want to
play?" Garbled reply. "What he say?" Larry: "He's got
a pulled hamstring." Larry also asked a couple of black
guys sitting at the other game in street clothes. "You

guys want to play?" "Naw, we're just leaving." Just .
before I left, I was accosted from across the court. "You
want to play?" "NO thanks, I was just leaving."

The first interchange represents the closest I saw to an initial
rejection of an individual as a ball player. Notice that in all three
cases the question is phrased as a desire, "Do you w§n£_to play?" not
as a matter of competence, "§§h_you play?" Initially competence is
assumed.

Once the game starts, though, the degree of competence is tested.

In IM basketball the division of labor on the team is basically dichot-
omous. In organized basketball, there is a much greater division of
labor. All five positions may be chosen on the basis of the compatibility

of the player with the actions and skill he will need to play the position.

68

In IM basketball, guarding assignment and general area of play are
determined by height. Basically, one plays "inside" if he is tall, and
"outside" if he is short. The projected competence of the player ex—
tends into this area of choosing where to play. It is very difficult
for a short man to project height, and vice versa. Therefore, on the
basis of height, the initially assumed competence is also assumed for
a given area of play. And the players assume that the individual will
choose his game position on the basis of his height.

It is difficult, if not impossible, to project a level of com-
petence higher than that which the individual actually has. The per-
formance of the individual is objective. It is possible, however, to
at least shade the relationship between projected competence and objective
performance.

"GI" missed his first shot, and said, "Shit, I need some
warmups."

He threw his first shots up short. "I just been lifting
weights and my arms aren't used to this."

Excuses are offered. Frequently, an individual swears when he
misses a shot. This demonstrates his separatiOn from the poor perfor-
mance, and shows that he is as upset with the poorly performing self as
his teammates might be with him. His anger treats the poor performance
as an aberation, as not measuring up to his own standards of what his
play should be like. After all, if the performance is to the best of
his ability, what cause is there for anger?

There are many ways of demonstrating competence within the flow of
the game. Players make "moves" during the game, some of which are harder
than others. For example, one move is dribbling the ball behind your

back. The ball is thrown down with one hand, bounces in back of the

69

player, and the dribble is resumed with the other hand. This is an ob-
jective measure of skill, since one cannot "perform" a behind-the-back
dribble. It is done or not done.

Benjy tried to go behine his back--missed. John: "Take
it easy, Benjy. You're not ready for that yet."

The way John states it, going behind the back represents a dev-
eloped level of competence, and posits an accomplished player-novice
relationship between those who can, and those who cannot dribble behind
their backs. Other methods of demonstrating competence are less ob-
jective. These include "style" moves like throwing the ball back to a
man between your legs, or behind your back after a check.

One man, when his turn to shoot (for teams) came, swished
a jumper from the middle of the circle.

He demonstrated his casualness about shooting for teams. Other
men might stand right at the foul line and take time over their shot,
but he shot a jump shot and put it through without touching any of the
apparatus. This particular man demonstrated his competence in the game,
also. He confirmed objectively the competence that he had projected.

The individual presents a "face" of competence that is threatened
by poor play, and defended with excuses or self-criticism.38 As a group,
players on a team also present a "team face" of competence. This face
breaks down in the course of a rout. If the team is badly defeated by
another team, it becomes impossible to maintain the face of team com-
petence. The tension caused by the uncertainty of the game's outcome
disappears, and with it the attempt to maintain face.

Concession comes when the members of the team realize that even

if they should score every time they get the ball, they still would not

70

be able to prevent the opponents from scoring enough times to save the
victory. The team feels unable to maintain the face of equally matched
competition when they are trying to prevent the opponents from scoring.
The team stops hussling. The members relax their body posture, and make
only half-hearted attempts at guarding. The most obvious sign of con-
cession is that men stop running toward the defensive court. The op-
ponents are left to score baskets at will. The game is never terminated
short of a total of fifteen points for the victors, but once a team
gives up, it doesn't take long to reach a conclusion. The losers have
failed to objectively substantiate the face of competence that their
presence as a team implied.

On the other hand, there are occasions when the face of team com-
petence is only somewhat less than substantiated. I referred previously
(pages 39 and 40) to an incident in which a group of men was able to
control the level of preferability at which they entered a game, as
well as the composition of their team. One of the men opposing the
group team suggested a motive for this control: "They don't want to
lose." The face projected by the group team was confidence of victory;
implied was a higher team competence than that of the opponents. How-
ever, the unfolding of the game did not fulfill expectations. The "under-
dog" team won.

Julie: "We got to stop screwin' around and start working."

Randy: "You've been saying that for the last twenty min-

utes."

They were losing. The statement implied, however, that the team
had not been trying their hardest ("Screwin' around"), and that increased
effort would produce victory. Effort or not, they lost the game by a

narrow margin.

71

After the game Randy said loudly enough to be generally

heard, "It was like playing the world champions of karate.

They were always hacking at you. Everywhere you'd go, they

were on you like a swarm of mice."

The implication is that the team whose face of superior competence
had been broken was still, in actuality, the better team, but they
were the victim of overly aggressive play. The next game was a rematch.

This time the "overdogs" won a close contest.

Randy: "Look at that. Those guys are going crazy...That's
the only way they can win."

The "underdog" team demonstrated hussle that more than made up for
whatever difference in competence there might have been. Randy separates
hussle from competence and tries to save his team's face by degrading
the competence of the opponents. He implies that the Opponents lack
competence and must try hard to win. A further implication is that a
victory that must be hussled for is not worth winning since it does not
demonstrate superiority, but abnormality ("Those guys are going crazy.").

A more than substantiated team face is another matter. The team
in question had two players who appeared to be still in high school, and
one who appeared to be long out of college. He looked about thirty-five.

Just before the second game started, one of the men opposing the

"highschoolers" and the "oldster" said, "Are we going to

take on these sorry specimens?"...The game on the other side

ended with the same team that had won before winning again, a
minor upset...The other team showed a lot of team spirit. "Let's

hold 'em!" "Com'on, let's get going!" We lost the game. At
the end they evidenced as much cheering as was ever shown "Yay!"
"Alright!" "We're the super team!"

The confirmation in fact, of a face better than the one expected
to be confirmed, is cause for celebration.
Probably eighty per cent of the games played fall between a rout

and an upset. In these cases one team demonstrates superiority, but

72

both teams maintain face. Upsets can occur only if one team is the

favorite, that is, if they project a face of expecting to win. They

may be cast in the role of expected victors by virtue of height.

Part of the eXpectation in the incident involving Randy and Julie was

due to the fact observed by "BD". "We're giving away a little height."
Routs occur less frequently as the skill of the players increases

because more highly skilled players are able to score points and re-

' even if their Opponents are also scoring. More

main "in the game,‘
skilled players and teams of more skilled players can therefore maintain
face more regularly than unskilled players. Notice that maintaining
face is a matter of objective skill. In the IM, false faces, at least
concerning basketball, cannot long be maintained. The face everyone
projects is of competence, by virtue of their entrance into games.

Some maintain this face better than others. Faces are more often lost

than gained.

VII. SUBORDINATE ELEMENTS

I have tried to show how the definition of the situation as
"playin' ball" is maintained by the social structure, rules of the
game, social continuances, and performances of the players in the IM.
I shall now deal with some elements which are subordinate to the overall
definition, and which serve to maintain and strengthen it. These ele-
ments are general ones and may be seen in a variety of social situations.
What is important is that their use in this particular social situation
reinforces the overall definition of "playin' ball."

I shall discuss four such elements: 1) use of a specialized
vocabulary (jargon); 2) explanation of unusual occurences; 3) humor;
4) physical contact. These four elements, in various forms, are part of
many different social situations. They are contextual in nature. A
specialized vocabulary makes no sense in the absence of the speciali-
zation it refers to. The explanation of unusual occurences depends on
unusualness existing to be explained. And what is unusual depends on
the overall context. Likewise, what is humorous, and what physical con-
tact is allowed depends on the context in which the humor and contact
take place. The subordinate elements reinforce the overall definition
exactly because they take it for granted. They can be reconstructed
and changed, but they only make sense within the overall definition of

the situation as "playin' ball."

73

74

Jargon

Group activities that continue over time with regular participants
often develop a Specialized vocabulary that succinctly describes the
social and action situations that are common experiences for the group
members.

Basketball, as is true for other sports, abounds with jargon.

The rules of the game invent and redefine words which have meaning only
in the context of basketball. Withing the context of the game, "ball,"
"basket," and "court," take on new and game-specific meanings. Words
like "backboard," and "fouline" have meaning only within the specific
context of basketball. Words for action possibilities are also numerous:
"dribble", "rebound," and "shot" ("jump," "set," and "hook "). Other

words refer to whole sets of complicated, coordinated actions. "Zone

defense, man-on—man, press," "dog-in-a-box,' and "trap" refer to
different patterns of action that the team on defense can try to act
out. Violations of the rules also havd a very specific designation:
"taking steps," "double dribble", "reaching in," and "foul on the arm."
These possibilities for action are named, and can take place, only as
violations of rules which themselves have meaning only in the circum-
scribed world of basketball.

Many of the jargon phrases are shortened versions of longer ex-
planations that become recognizable units of communication; set phrases
that communicate information about a group of actions. For example,
"first five" is a phrase used just prior to shooting for teams. It

is a set phrase (used often, in the same situation, and with the same

words) referring to the whole series of actions that divide men into

75

teams. "The first five men to make a foul shot will be on one team,
playing against the five men who do not make the foul shot, who will form
the other team." The phrase "first five” might have a very different
meaning in many different situations. But in the IM it designates a
specific program of action for the players. In this way it reinforces
the overall definition of each player's situation as "Playin' ball,"
since each man mobilizing himself into the action program can realize
that all the other men present see the situation the same way he does;

the men can see themselves as a whole group that is "playin' ball."

"Hot"

If someone makes a number of shots in a row, or a very high per-
centage, say eighty percent, he is "hot". "Hot" is a concept that ex-
plains, for the players, a break in the normal course of the game where
the success of any shot is highly problematic.

One of the players made five baskets in a row; one of them

when it appeared that he was just trying to pass the ball.

Since we were playing possession, his streak was even more

pronounced than it might have been otherwise. This incident

provoked laughter and "Oh no's." Jeff: "I'll just stand

here and let him shoot." After five, he missed and remarked,

"The magic's gone."

The man I was guarding had been really hot. One of the men on

our team asked the man's brother, "Does he always shoot like

that?" ”When he's hot."

"Hot" provides a one word explanation of phenomena. All sports and
games have a place for "hot": a run of good cards, a batting streak, or
four birdies in a row. I think that "hot" is a recognition of the tenuous

nature of the physical skills involved in sports. Some players are with-

out a doubt better than others. But the time interval when all the skills

76

come together for a string of successes possesses the quality of a
magical happening. Note the first man's explanation of his success.

In the IM, "hot" can take place only within the context of a basketball
game. To say a player is "hot" presupposes the existence and functioning
of the entire apparatus for "playin' ball." "Hot," therefore, reinforces
the prevailing definition of the situation by taking it for granted.

Two people who find meaning in "hot" must also find meaning in the rest

of the social situation that permits "hot" to exist.

Humor

Humor often functions to reinforce the situation. Bateson de—
scribes humor as occurring when a paradox is created that necessitates
a shift in perSpective by the participant which shows his previous view
of the situation to be in error and a new view to be correct.39 Humor
involves a change in points of view, and thus a threat to situational
definitions. The humor of the IN is like this. However, the shifts in
points of view and threats occur within the definition of the situation
as "playin' ball." The humor takes its meaning from the world created
in the play situation; and by being meaningful, and thus "funny," within
the situation, it reinforces the definition of the situation as "playin'
ball."

As far as number of instances go, outlandish comparison was the
most frequently used type of humor. It consists of calling a player by
the name of a well-known "star" player. The humor involves the fact
that the IM player is not able to accept the comparison without arrogance.

He is not able to identify with the "star" characteristics implied in

77

the comparison, so he is left with his humble self in the shell of
greatness, the son lost in the overcoat of his father.

Chris was left-handed. When he came over to the basket for

the start of the game, one of the players who was there said,

‘"Goodrich." after he shot. One of the men took in a rebound

after a shot and drew the comment, "Wes Unseld."

Paul was left-handed. After the first game, Stanley said,

"We're going to have an interview with Gail Goodrich."

During the game, when Paul hit a shot, Stanley yelled,

"Goodrich!"

This was the most frequent comparison. Left-handed ball players
were equated with Gail Goodrich (of the NBA L.A. Lakers), who, at this
time, is apparently the best known left-handed star. In the second
quotation, the situation of a well-known sports commentator interviewing
the game's star in front of millions of dollars worth of equipment and
millions of fans is substituted without qualification into the "real"
situation of the IM. Stanley's action, in playing the interviewer, in-
troduces the paradox of that possibility, generates a shift in perspective
(from the IM, to national television, and back), and, thus, humor.

Tom was talking about must have been the 440. "I have the

potential to do forty-four or forty-five." The four sit-

ting around him must have heard that before. They all

turned to him and made a short comment in a derisive voice,

"He's being Jim Thorpe again." "Hey, Jim."

Tom is brought down to size by the comparison with Jim Thorpe.
The others have equated his self that can run a quarter-mile in forty-
four or forty-five seconds with the legendary athlete. For him to con-
tinue to claim that capability, he must "seriously" compare himself with
Jim Thorpe--arrogance beyond belief.

The black guys, especially Tom were talking about "givin'

shit," or "fuckin' with." Tom was working on Bronson: "I

love to give that guy shit. He says he's givin' shit...but

but he can't." John tapped a rebound in when Bronson had
position under the boards. Tom: "Hey, Bronson, you pickin'

78

your nose that time?" "Yeah." Bronson attempted to take a

ball away on the dribble, but slapped it out of bounds.

Tom: "Hey, you know you shouldn't be going and stealing any
balls. Your're not coordinated enough...You got no coordination."
He went on to tell a story about high school. One guy, "they
were talking about him so bad that he just walked out and

went back to the bus. Next time, he knew that they'd be

talking about him, so he just sat over in the corner and

didn't say anything. They started talking about me. I told

'em, 'Kiss my ass.'"

Looking at the remards Tom made, they are not in themselves funny,
they are insulting. The humor in "givin' shit" does not come from the.
remarks so much as from the situation of their expression. The shifting
frames of reference are friend-~enemy, joke--insu1t. If I am your friend,
then I am joking. If I am not joking, then I am not your friend. In
this case, it appears that Tom might have used the ambiguity of the
situation to express true hostility, or at least superiority. Insult
humor, as practiced among blacks, goes by the name of "playing the dozens,"
or "joning." It has been discussed in a number of places.40 Ulf Hannerz,
one of the authors who discusses joning makes this point:

An enemy who jones on you becomes a little more of an enemy,

as your resentment grows, but a friend who is joning is a

friend you are playing a game with.‘*1

The humor is in the shifting perspective of "what if he were
serious?" and "is this play?"

When he missed three shots in one rush, John: "Nhya, nhya,
na, nhya, nhya, Steve missed three shots." Done in a sing
songy voice.

When "Doc" stepped to the line "Garb" said, "I hOpe you

don't make it ("Garb” already had made it)...If "Doc" makes

it, it's first three. Otherwise the teams won't be fair."

These two incidents were in such a voice that although they were

"givin'shit" in content, they were not ambiguous. The tone used by the

speaker in both cases, especially the child mimicry of John, demonstrated

79

that in each case the speaker was "only kidding." The humor was
generated by the same serious-kidding ambiguity, but the ambiguity in
these cases was more obviously false. Although I am sure "Garb" would
have preferred to play with someone else, in another game he was "Doc's"
teammate. The humorous attempt, in the way it was stated, revealed it-
self to be as much a veiled acceptance of the person, as a veiled attack
on him.

Harry repeated twice when the teams were about to be picked,

"Let's do this democratically...First two to make it pick."

Ron shot from the top of the key. He made the shot, but went

over to the bleachers and sat down again. Willie missed.

Harry hit. Harry: "Who else has made it but me?" Ron: "I

made it." Tom came off the bleachers and made the shot. Tom:

"I'm the shortest, so I pick first." Harry: "No you don't. I'll

shoot you for it." Tom missed. Harry prepared to shoot. Tom:

"This is do or die." Harry: "You wish it was." He missed.

Tom missed. Harry missed. Tom missed. Harry missed. Tom

missed. Willie was getting the rebounds and throwing the ball

back to the shooters. Willie: "You two want to move in here

a little closer?" Harry: "You didn't even make the first

round." Willie: "I'm saving all my points for the game."

Harry: "You sure you're going to play?" Everyone laughed.
The exchange at the end is an example of shifting definitions, attacks
on projected faces, and competition that all lie within the larger de-
finition of "playin' ball." Willie asks the shooters if they might like
to move closer to the basket. He attacks the projected face of the men,
that they are competent to shoot from the distance they are, in an ob-
lique way that shifts the definitions of the men rather than confronting
them directly (e.g., "You guys can't shoot from there.") The reply re—
defines the situation as a continuing contest that Harry is in, but
Willie is already out of the running. Willie's reply to that is a rather
standard statement. He defines himself as having the ability to hit

whenever he wants, but he is "saving himself" for more important things

than the continuing contest that Harry spoke about. Harry's final comment

8O

re-establishes the primacy of the contest by giving it power over Willie.
He may be saving himself for a chance that never comes because he blew
it the first time. The laughter of the others finalizes the exchange.
Any "comeback" that Willie might have attempted would have been lost in
laughter. Harry is the "winner" of the exchange by acclamation. Notice
that all of the projected faces as competent ball players, the final
threat to face, that Willie may not even be competent to play, and the
reason for the shooting in the first place, all take for granted the
overall definition of the situation as "playin' ball." Of course, Willie
did play. The position he took during the competition, retrieving the
shots, and the verbal exchange, all demonstrate his secure position in
the social structure.

I could tell the men were friends mainly by the competi-

tive aspect which they introduced into the shooting around.

They did a lot of roughhousing while they shot; grabbing

one another, bumping, trying to block shots. In short,

they took liberties with each other's free access to the basket,

and bodies that strangers simply would not. Even during these

periods, there was little conversation. Most of the remarks

had to do with the course of the action. "I thought I'd bump

him to see what would happen." ..."Good defense." "Yeah."

He raised his arm like a railroad crossing barricade. That

had been his defense.

Notice again that the humor follows the action. It takes its
cues from what is going on, and what is going on is shooting around. By
taking the action for granted and commenting on it, humor reinforces
the attention that the men pay to the activity. Thus, humor reinforces
the overall definition of the situation by involving the men more
deeply. It strengthens the boundaries of play by making them unprob-
lematic for the men within them.

I found more use of all types of humor among friends. The attempt

at humor of any type is a shift in definitions that can be best carried

81

off among friends, among people who have a degree of seeing situations
the same way already. In his discussion of humor, Gregory Bateson
makes the observation that humor is important in comfortable relations
with others.

That freedom, the freedom to talk nonsense, the freedom

to entertain illogical alternatives, the freedom to ignore

the theory of types, is probably essential to comfortable

human relations. 2

Likewise, in relationships in which one feels comfortable, with
friends, one is more likely to feel free to entertain illogical alter—
natiVes, talk nonsense, etc. With friends, people can be secure in the
knowledge that they will neither be taken seriously, nor considered

stupid. Friends will accept the shifts in perspective and allow them—

selves to shift their own perspective, to see the humor in the situation.

Physical Contact

 

Basketball is a contact sport. It is impossible to play a game
of basketball without touching other players.

At one point Lance drove the lane, stopped and shot. An op—
posing player got under him. Lance came down on tOp of him.
He rested his full weight on him for a second. They laughed
in the spirit of comradeship.

Before the first game, Benjy and Paul engaged in a mock wrestling
match. One man (who appeared to be in high school) said, "Look,
they're wrestling." They stood bent over with their heads to-
gether and their hands on each other's arms. The first quick,
aggressive move ended the match. Paul grabbed for a hold and
Benjy shook him off. Both of them straightened up.
During the game, touch is inevitable. But is is regulated by the
rules regarding fouls. The setting procides a "safe" opportunity for

close contact, both in fun (as the wrestling match), and in aggression,

comes within the definition of the situation as sport. Contact is "part

82

of the game."

Ralph came over to me between games: "If I bother you too

much, just say so and I'll lay off. I sometimes bump and shove,

and some guys get pissed off. SO if it gets to be too bad,

just say so." Myself: "No, I expect a certain amount of that.

I figure it's part of the game." Ralph: "Well, some guys get

pissed off." Myself: "If I get pissed off, I'll let you know."

My statement seemed to satisfy him as a set of ground rules for
the dyadic guarding relationship. I also felt he might be, in part,
trying to "psych" me.

Another very noticeable fact of "playin' ball" is the Olfactory
awareness of the smell of sweat. A group of men, each trying to get a
rebound or loose ball, packs close together, and the smell generated by
the group is noticeable to those in it. On that level, then, the game

becomes a sensuous experience in the "intimate" senses of touch and

smell, all within the frame of "playin' ball."

VIII. CONCLUSION: BASKETBALL AS MASCULINE ACTIVITY

Throughout this paper, my major contention has been that there is
a circumscribed world of meaning that goes with "playin' ball." The
person who plays basketball at the IM passes through three different
worlds of meaning in the course of his journey to the IM. Initially
the person is in the everyday world in which he lives the majority of
his time. This is the world in which his actions have a consequentiality.
In the everyday world reside families, Master's theses, and traffic
congestion.43 When he enters the IM, the person leaves this world behind
and enters one of the gyms to play basketball. Immediately he becomes
part of a social structure that is focused on organizing basketball
games. This structure has its own rules of sociability. The player-to
be finds that his actions no longer have consequences in the everyday
world. He has lost, to a large extent, the statuses that he held in
the everyday world. And, if he is to play basketball, he must submit
himself to the rules of social interaction that operate in the gyms.
Finally, the individual enters a game of basketball as a player. As a
player, the individual finds that his actions once again have consequen-
tiality for his life. Only, this time, the consequentiality is for his
life as a player. His actions will affect the results of the game in
which he is involved. They are consequential, therefore, not only for
himself, but for the others on his team. The player needs only his
player's point of view to act in the situation. The everyday world is

forgotten as the player becomes part of the action system of the game.

83

84

His actions are based on the pattern of men in motion according to
specified rules with a specific goal in mind; mainly, the rules of
basketball, and the goal of scoring points for the purpose of winning
.the game. He becomes part of the system as he observes the patterns

of movement and synchronizes his movements to the pattern. His movements
gear into the pattern as a part of the basis for movement of the other
players. Thus, the players are able to synchronize their actions, with
differing levels of skill, into an action system that is meaningful

for them as "playing a game of basketball."

I have discussed the ways in which the action system of the game
is maintained by the players. First, the game itself provides a "cut-
and-dried" system of meaning: a system of measuring time, a definition
of spatial properties, and rules for interaction. The social structure
of the players provides the organizing capacity for starting and refereeing
games. And the rituals of return provide for ways in which the game can
be continued over breaks in the action. Finally, jargon, "hot," humor,
and physical contact reinforce the definition of the situation by taking
it for granted. The world of the IN is not totally foreign to its in-
habitants. However, the particular content of the forms, relative to
each other, and relative to the everyday world, serves to differentiate
the two worlds most successfully.

Just as the subordinate elements reinforce the definition of the
situation by taking it for granted, analogously, the social situation at
the IM reinforces sex segregation by taking it for granted.

We drifted back to the door of the gym from the "Tartan Turf"

arena. Myself: "What kind of class is that--basketball?"

Bill: "Yeah. They ought to let us in so they can watch some

pros do it." Jeff: "I wouldn't want to be in a class like
that (co-ed), and have some girl put the moves on me. It

85

would be embarassing." Bill: "I wouldn't mind having some
girl put the moves on me."

This remark derives its humor from the shift in definitions; from
"move" in basketball, a maneuver to overcome the defense, to "move", as
sexual aggression. It also changes the position of women from competent
competitor (Jeff admitting the possibility of being beaten on defense),
to sexual partner.

We slipped into the gym and sat on the floor, on either side

of the door. By the time the class ended, there were about

a half dozen men watching. .It was a professional class, for

phys. ed. majors. The instructor talked about "your kids."

The class was composed of approximately forty students, about half
of whom were women. I assume all the students were aspiring physical
education teachers. The other gyms were in use with classes just starting,
so the waiting ball players congregated at this gym.

When the class ended, quite a few stayed from the class to

play. I couldn't tell exactly how many since others were

also coming in.

The fieldnotes go on to describe the games that developed. No one
mentioned the women, and no women from the class stayed to play. Even
though, as members of the same class on basketball, they presumably were
as aquainted with the game's rules as were the male class members who
did stay. One aspect of the social system of the IM is that it is only
entered into by men.

The social structure and nature of the game provide a setting in
which the acting out of the ”male role" is the easiest course of behavior

for men to take. Thayer Greene discusses three aspects of the "male

role" (among others) in Modern Man in Search gf_Manhood: 1) men have

 

the ”hunger to be a hero;" 2) men do not make personal disclosures; 3)

86

men do not form deep personal relationships.44 The social structure and
nature of the game are such that men entering the IM can "play ball" for
hours, engaging in violent motions, yet synchronizing the motions into

a complex action system, and all time be acting out the aspects of the
"male role" mentioned above. The nature of the game is such that the
player knows the part he played in victory or defeat. He is hero or
goat. And if he finds himself solicited as a player, he may consider
himslef, at least in this setting, a hero. Likewise, I have mentioned
the circumscribed nature of play.' An individual entering the IM loses
his "everyday self." For purposes of the game, the only thing that
matters is his skill in basketball. He need not provide any personal
information--his play "speaks for itself." Lastly, I have pointed out
the ritualized manner in which men at the IM can relate to each other and
still accomplish their desires, to "play ball." Although some relation-
ships begun at the IM may become deep relationships elsewhere, for pur-
poses of "playin' ball" developing a deep relationship would be a waste
of time. The way in which games are organized and the nature of the game
provide modes of acceptable behavior that reinforce "male role" behaviors

by taking them for granted as the way of interacting in the situation.

FOOTNOTES

1. All Quotations, unless otherwise cited, are from my field-
notes. The names used are fictitious.

2. Gregory Bateson, "A Theory of Play and Fantasy," Psychiatric
Research Reports 2 gf_the American Psychiatric Association, (1955), 41.

 

3. Ibid., 46.

4. The most obvious examples of this relate to contact sports.
A cross—body block on an opponent during the course of a football game
has a different meaning (and will be reacted to differently by the per-
son blocked), than a cross-body blosk executed on a patter—by in the
street. The actions involved in less active games, like bridge, often
have no meaning outside the context of the game. The person who
"played bridge" outside the context of the game (by himself at a lunch
counter, using imaginary cards, for example), just making the motions
of the game, would li-ely be considered bizarre, if not just crazy.

5. Johan Huizinga, Homo Ludens: A Study of the Play Element
ih_Culture. (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, Ltd., 1949), 13.

 

6. Roger Caillois, Man, Play and Games, (New York: The Free
Press of Glencoe, Inc., 1961), 9-10.

7. Richard Schechner, Public Domain: Essays gh_the Theatre,
(New York: BobbsOMerrill Company, Inc., 1969), 73-74.

8. "Everyday life" is used in an almost monolithic manner
throughout this paper. It becomes, for all practical putposes, every—
thing that is not "play". This unwarranted cleavage of life is one
of the major shortcomings of the literature on play, also. All
activities are in some way differentiated from other activities. To
group all non—play activities under the one phrase "everyday life"
is unjustified, except from the standpoint that this paper deals
with one of the more strongly differentiated aSpects of life. For
convenience sake, all those activities that individuals normally
caryy on ar "everyday life." It must be remembered, however, that
these activities are, themselves, varied and differentiated.

9. Sherri Cavan, Liquor License: An_Ethnography of Bar
Behavior. (Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company, 1966), 9-13.

10. Caillois, Man, Play and Games, p. 14.

 

87

88

ll. Georg Simmel, "Sociability (An Example of Pure, of Formal
Sociology)," The Sociology gf_Georg Simmel, edited by Kurt Wolff (Glen-
coe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1950), 40-41.

 

 

12. Erving Goffman, Encounters: Two Studies in the Sociology of
Interaction, (New York: The Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc., 1961), 19-26.
Goffman makes clear that "rules of irrelevance" is a generalizable con-
cept. Different social encounters have different rules of irrelevance.

 

13. C.E. Ashworth, "Sport as Symbolic Dialogue," Sport: Readings
From §_Sociological Perspective, edited by Eric Dunning (Toronto: Uni-
versity of Toronto Press, 1972), 45.

 

l4. Goffman, Encounters, p. 67.

 

15. Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, and Stith Bennett, "An Exploratory
Model of Play," American Anthropologist, 73 (1971), 45.

16. Ibid., p. 46. Emphasis in original.

17. "Ritual is a form of prescribed and elaborated behavior and
occurs both as the spontaneous invention of the individual, especially
of the compulsive neurotic, and as a cultural trait...Ritual according
to the accepted usage of the term does not include acts of routine pro-
vision of physical necessities...Ritual is always extra-necessitous from
the technological point of view." Ruth Benedict, "Ritual," Encyclopedia
of the Social Sciences Volume 13, edited by Edwin R. A. Seligman, and
Alvin Johnson (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1931), 396.

 

18. Gregory Bateson, "The Position of Humor in Human Communica-
tion," Cybernetics: Circular Causal and Feedback Mechanisminp Biolo—
gigal and Social Sciences, Transactions of the Josiah Macy, Jr. Founda-
tion, 1953), 28.

 

19. Bruce C. Ogilvie, and Thomas A. Tutko, "If You Want To Build
Character, Try Something Else," Psychology Today, 5 (October, 1971), 61.

20. Robert M. Davis, Aggpgssive Basketball, (West Nyack, New
York: Parker Publishing Company, Inc., 1969), 4-5.

21. Two critics from.within the sports hierarchy who have achieved
some noteriety are Dave Meggyesey and Jim Bouton. See Dave Meggyesey,
Out of Their League, (Berkley, California: Ramparts Press, 1970), and
Jim Bouton, Ball Four, edited by Leonard Scheter (New York: World Pub-
lishing Company, 1970). A more analytically oriented criticism dealing
with the authoritarian and racist aspects of American sports is found in
Jack Scott, The Athletic Revolution, (New York: The Free Press, 1971).

 

22. Slovenko and Knight provide an edited volume of over four
hundred pages which presents a psychoanalytic approach to numerous and
varied sports and games. See Ralph Slovenko, and James A. Knight (eds. ),
Motivations_£h Play, Games and Sports, (Springfield, Illinois: Charles
C. Thomas: Publisher, 1967).

 

 

89

23. See, for example, Fred E. Fiedler, "Assumed Similarity Mea-
sures as Predictors of Team Effectiveness," and Michael Klein, and
Gerd Christiansen, "Group Composition, Group Structure, and Group Ef-
fectiveness of Basketball Teams," both in Sport, Culture, and Society,
edited by John W. Loy, Pr. and Gerald S. Kenyon, (London: Collier-
Macmillan, Ltd., 1969), 352-364, and 397-408, respectively. Also,
Oscar Grusky, "Managerial Succession and Organizational Effectiveness,"
A_Reader 92 Complex Organizations, edited by Amitai Etzioni (2nd ed.;
New York: Holt, Rinhart and Winston, Inc., 1969), 398-410.

 

24. The Men's Intramural Building contains athletic‘facilities
for the use of the university's students. A few of the facilities for
the use of the university's students. A few of the facilities are: an
indoor swimming pool, an artificial grass floored gymnasium, four hard-
wood floor gymnasia, weightlifting room, handball/paddleball courts, and
steam room. The building also contains a few of the offices of members
of the athletic department.

25. Goffman, Encounters, pp. 35-37.

 

26. Laud Humphreys, Tearoom Trade: Impersonal Sex ig_Public
Places, (Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company, 1970), 78.

27. Schechner, Public Domain, p. 75.

 

28. This is not strictly true. The gyms are used for other
purposes. But in the absence of'a physical education class, or group of
men playing volleyball, all those men who are in the gym intend to play
basketball.

29. Banter is mild teasing. I discuss it more fully on pages
79-84. I found that gtoups who were otherwise recognizable as friends
(by entering together, use of names, etc.) engaged in banter far more
often than those who did not appear to be friends.

30. Goffman, Encounters, pp. 7-8.

 

31. The player's viewpoint is the only viewpoint he needs to
maintain, although he may simultaneously maintain other viewpoints.
All the "rules of irrelevance" of the IM (or any other play situation)
are never completely maintained.

32. I use the phrase "definition of the situation" to refer to
participants' mutual recognition that they are engaged in one instance
of the activity "playing a game of basketball." Those in the gym, but
not actively engaged in a game, mutually recognize their activities
to be among those customarily engaged in prior to, between, or after
"playing a game of basketball."

33. Actually, it is the inequality of ability in the guarding
relationships that, to a large extent, determines the outcome of the
game. The team whose members are able to "win" in the guarding dyads,
wins the game. However, before the game starts, the outcome of each

90

dyadic contest cannot be foreseen. Also, different contests may be
"won" by members of the opposite teams. The overall balance of the
victories cannot be pre-determined.

34. Humphreys, Tearoom Trade, p. 179.

 

35. Joan P. Emerson, "Behavior in Private Places: Sustaining
Definitions of Reality in Gynecological Examinations," Recent Sociology‘
E2;.Z: Patterns 2: Communicative Behavior, edited by Hans Peter Dreitzel
(London: Collier-Macmillan, Ltd., 1970), 90.

 

36. Erving Goffman defines "performance" as "all the activity
of a given participant on a given occasion which serves to influence in
any way any of the other participants." Erving Goffman, The Presenta-
tion gf Self ig_Everyday Life, (Garden City, New York: Doubleday &
Company, Inc., 1959), 15. My own use of the term indicates activity
by the given participant for the purpose of influencing the other par-
ticipants to accept the projected self of the given participant.

 

 

37. "a line--that is, a pattern of verbal and non verbal acts by
which he expresses his view of the situation and through this his evalu-
ation of the participants, especially himself." Erving Goffman, "On
Face Work," Psychiatry, 18 (1955), 213. Performance, as I have defined
it, is achieved through taking various lines.

 

38. "face may be defined as the positive social value a person
effectively claims for himslef by the line others assume he has taken
during a particular contact." Ibid.

39. Bateson, "The Position of Humor in Hanan Communication," p. 28.

40. Roger D. Abrahams, "Playing the Dozens," Journal gf_American
Folklore, 75 (1962), 209-220. John Dollard, "The Dozens: Dialectic of
Insult," The American Imagg, l (1939), 3-25.

 

41. Ulf Hannerz, "Growing Up Male," Soulside, Ulf Hannerz, (New
York: Columbia University Press, 1969), 133.

42. Bateson, "The Position of Humor in Human Communication," p. 5.

43. I cannot over emphasize that the "everyday world" is not a
unified system. There are different sub-systems of meaning within the
"everyday world" which can be distinguished, much as I have distinguished
the "play world." Dealing with one system of meaning, as I have been,
however, limits my ability to distinguish others without becoming too
complex and verbose.

44. Thayer Green, Modern Man in Search of Manhood, (New York:
Association Press, 1967). Especially chapters 2-4.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abrahams, Roger D. "Playing the Dozens," Journal pf American Folklore,
75 (1962), pp. 209-220.

Aramoni, Aniceto, "Machismo," Psychology Today, 5 (January, 1972), pp.
69-72 a

Ashworth, C.E. "Sport as Symbolic Dialogue," Sport: Readings from a
Sociological Perspective. Edited by Eric Dunning. Toronto: Un-
iversity of Toronto Press, 1972. Pp. 40-46.

 

Bateson, Gregory. "The Position of Humor in Human Communication,"
Cybernetics: Circular Causal and Feedback Mechanisms in Biolo-
gical and Social Science. Transactions of the Ninth Conference.
Edited by Heinz von Foerster. New York: Josiah Macy, Jr. Foun-
dation, 1953. Pp. 1-47.

 

-----. "The Message 'This is Play,'" Group Processes: Transactions
'2: the 2nd Conference, 1955.

 

-----. "A Theory of Play and Fantasy," Psychiatric Research Reports
2.3; the American Psychiatric Association, December, 1955, pp.
39-510

-----. "Metalogue: About Games and Being Serious," Steps £g_§g
Ecology g£_Mind. By Gregory Bateson. San Francisco: Chandler
Publishing Company, 1972. Pp. 14-20.

Benedict, Ruth. "Ritual," Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences Volume
13. Edited by Edwin R.A. Seligman and Alvin Johnson. New York:
The Macmillan Company, 1931. Pp. 396-397.

Boyle, Robert H. "Negroes in Baseball," Sport: Readings from g_Soc—
iological PerSpective. Edited by Eric Dunning. Toronto: Univer-
sity of Toronto Press, 1972. Pp. 259-278.

 

Brenton, Myron. The American Male. Greenwich, Connecticutt: Fawcett
Publications, Inc., 1966.

 

Caillois, Roger. "Unity of Play: Diversity of Games," Diogenes, 19
(Fall, 1957). PP- 93-121.

------- . Man, Play, and Games. New York: The Free Press of Glencoe,
Inc., 1961.

 

Cavan, Sherri. Liquor License: An Ethnography pf Bar Behavior. Chicago:
Aldine Publishing Company, 1966.

 

 

91

92

Coser, Rose Laub. "Some Social Functions of Laughter: A Study of
Humor in a Hospital Setting," Human Relations, 12 (1959), pp.
171-182. '

—-— ----- . "Laughter Among Colleagues," Psychiatry. 23 (1960), PP.
81-960

Csikszentmihalyi, Mihaly, and Bennett, Stith. "An Exploratory Model
of Play," American Anthropologist, 73 (1971), pp. 45-58.

Davis, Robert M. Aggressive Basketball. West Nyack, New York: Parker
Publishing Company, Inc., 1969.

Dollard, John. "The Dozens: Dialectic of Insult," The American Imagp,
1 (1939). PP. 3-25.

Elias, Norbert, and Dunning, Eric. "Dynamics of Group Sports with Spe-
cial Reference to Football," The British Journal pf Sociology,
17 (1966), pp. 388-402.

Emerson, Joan P. "Behavior in Private Places: Sustaining Definition
of Reality in Gynecological Examinations, " Recent Sociology_Ng,
2; Patterns g£_Communicative Behavior. Edited by Hans Peter
Dreitzel. London: Collier-Macmillan, Ltd., 1970. Pp. 74-97.

Fiedler, Fred E. "Assumed Similarity Measures as Predictors of Team
Effectiveness," Sport, Culture, and Society. Edited by John W.
Loy, Jr., and Gerald S. Kenyon. London: Collier-Macmillan,
Ltd., 1969. Pp. 352-364.

Foote, Nelson N. "Sex as Play," Social Problems, 1 (1954), pp. 159-163.

Goffman, Erving. "On Face WOrk," Psychiatgy, 18 (1955), pp. 213-231.

----- —-. The Presentation g§_Self 12 Everyday Life. Garden City, New
York: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1959.

 

-— ------ . Encounters: Two Studies ig_the Sociology 2£_Interaction.
New York: The Hobbs-Merrill Company, Inc., 1959.

 

 

Greene, Thayer. Modern Man i3 Search gthanhood. New York: Association
Press, 1967.

 

Haley, Jay. "Paradoxes in Play, Fantasy, and Psychotherapy," Psychiatric
Research Reports 2.g§_the American Psychiatric Association, Decem-
ber, 1955’ pp. 52—580

 

Hannerz, Ulf. "Growing Up Male," Soulside. By Ulf Hannerz. New York:
Columbia University Press, 1969. Pp. 118-138.

Hart, Marie. "Sport: Women Sit in the Back of the Bus," Psychology
Today, 5 (October, 1971), pp. 64-66.

93

Huizinga, Johan. Homo Ludens: A Study of the Play Element in Culture.
London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, Ltd., 1949.

Humphreys, Laud. Tearoom Trade: Impersonal Sex in Public Places.
Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company, 1970.

Klein, Michael, and Christiansen, Gerd. "Group Composition, Group
Structure, and Group Effectiveness of Basketball Teams," Sport,
Culture, and Society. Edited by John W. Loy, Jr., and Gerald S.
Kenyon. London: Collier-Macmillan, Ltd., 1969. Pp. 397-408.

 

Leach, Edmund R. "Ritual," International Engyclopedia of the Social
Sciences, Volume 5. Edited by David L. Sills. New York: The
Macmillan Company and The Free Press, 1968. Pp. 520-526.

Levine, Jacob. "Humor in Play and Sports," Motivations £3 Play, Games,
and Spgrts. Edited by Ralph Slovenko and James A. Knight. Spring-
field, Illinois: Charles C. Thomas: Publisher, 1967. Pp. 55-64.

 

Luce, Ralph A., Jr. "From Hero to Robot: Masculinity in America--
Stereotype and Reality," The Psychoanalytic Review, 54 (1967),

pp. 609-630.

Manus, Willard. "Basketball," Motivations ip_Play, Games and Sports.
Edited by Ralph Slovenko, and James A. Knight. Springfield,
Illinois. Charles C. Thomas: Publisher, 1967. Pp. 435-442.

McHugh, Peter. Definin ng the Situation: The Organization of Meaningpin
Social Interaction. New York: The Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc.,

1968.

 

Meggyesey, Dave. Out gf_Their League. Berkley, California: Ramparts
Press, 1970.

Ogilvie, Bruce C., and Tutko, Thomas A. "If You Want To Build Character,
Try Something Else," Psychology Today, 5 (October, 1971), pp. 61—63.

Petty, Thomas A. "Baseball," Motivations 13 Play, Games and Sports.
Edited by Ralph Slovenko, and James A. Knight. Springfield,
Illinois: Charles C. Thomas: Publisher, 1967. pp. 400-418.

Reider, Norman. "Preanalytic and Psychoanalytic Theories of Play and
Games," Motivations ip_P1ay, Games and Sports. Edited by Ralph
Slovenko, and James A. Knight. Springfield, Illinois: Charles C.
Thomas: Publisher, 1967. Pp. 13-38.

 

Riezler, Kurt. "Play and Seriousness," The Journal g£_Philosophy, 38
(1941), pp. 505-517.

Schechner, Richard. Public Domain: Essays 23 the Theatre. New York:
Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc., 1969.

 

 

Schutz, Alfred. "On Multiple Realities," Collected Papers I: The

94

Problem pf_Socia1 Reality. Edited by Maurice Natanson. The Hague:
Martinus Nijhoff, 1971. Pp. 207-259.

 

Scott, Jack. The Athletic Revolution. New York: The Free Press, 1971.

Simmel, Georg. "Sociability (An Example of Pure, of Formal Sociology)"
The Sociology_pf_Georg Simmel. Edited by Kurt WOlf. Glencoe,
Illinois: The Free Press, 1950., Pp. 40-57. ' .

 

 

-----. "The Adventure," Essays pp Sociology, PhiloSOphy, §_Aethetics.
Edited by Kurt Wolff. New York: Harper & Row, 1959.
I
Stokes, Adrian, "The Development of BaIIJGames," Motivations ip_Play, Games,
and Sports. Edited by Ralph Slovenko, and James A. Knight. Spring-
field, Illinois: Charles C. Thomas: Publisher, 1967, ,Pp.387-399.

 

Stone, Gregory P. "American Sports: iPlay and Display," Sport: Readings
from a Sociological Perspective. Edited by Eric Dunning. Toronto:
University of Toronto Press, 1972. Pp. 47-65.

Tannenbaum, Percy H., and Noah, James E. "Sportugese: A Study of Sports
Page Communication," Sport, Culture, and Society. Edited by John
W. Loy, Jr., and Gerald S. Kenyon. London: Collier-Macmillan,

Ltd., 1969. Pp. 327-336.

Thomas, William I., and Znaniecki, Florian. "The Definition of the
Situation," Readings in Social Psychology. Edited by Theodore M.
Newcomb, and Eugene L. Hartley. New York: Henry Holt and Company,
1947. Pp. 76-77.

Tiger, Lionel. Men ip_Groups. New York: Random House, 1969.

Tuchman, Gaye. "Objectivity as Strategic Ritual: An Examination of
Newsmen's Notions of Objectivity," American Journal pf_Sociology,
77 (1972). PP. 660-679.

ll!\INHIH1\||H||\fl|\\||||fl\l|‘IIWIIHIl\IIHNIHIHI

 

31293010