Ta ofs No n

yl ro io
or p t u t
& F c i s fo
r t r ib
ran dis
Ta o ofs – N n
yl r o io
p t t
o r9 & ‘Anyone scan play this game’ fo bu
Franci r distri
Ta Ultimate frisbee, o f s – N difference
yl r o identity and o i on
o p t t
r & s fo bu
Andrew i
F r a n Thornton
c r distri
Ta ofs – N n
yl ro o io
o p t t
r & s fo bu
Franci r distri
Ta ofs – N n
yl ro o io
o p t t
r & s fo bu
Franci
Introduction r distri
Ta ofs – N
yl Anyone can play this game.
p
ro o i on
o t t
r & s f o (Will/Interview) bu
Fran c i r distri
s – players that ‘anyone’ could play
Ta
r o o f frisbee’
It is a common claim made by ‘Ultimate No n
yl
o their game. In this chapter Ipexplore ‘Ultimate players’ struggles
t over their (ath- t io
rletic) u
& embodiment
F c
and
i sidentity. My research shows thatf o although Ultimate
r t r ib
r aandn limit identifications with dominant sporting ideals
players reject s
i also
d they
Ta ofs – N
yl continue to embrace some of their
p
o
r qualities. This processo of identification sug- i on
o t part of the Ultimate t
rgests& that maybe not ‘everyone’
i s will be able to become
f o r i bu
community.Franc r dis t
Ta o f s – process,
Before examining the identityoconstruction I give some background
yl about Ultimate frisbee, the basis r N
p structure of play. I will o then show that Ultimate i on
o t u t
rplayers
& are s presenting a new and ‘different’ fsporting
concerned iwith and cultural ib
F ra c o r
n is gender sensitive even egalitarian, rejects extreme s t
d icompeti- r
identity: one that fs – N
Ta o o n
tiveness and physical aggression, r and is all-inclusive. Yet,
o despite their claims, and
yl
o p t t io
rideals, Ultimate largely fails to produce practices and meanings that are beyond
s f ib
u
the& dominant n c i ideals and practices of existing sports.o r d i s t r
F r astructures,
Ta ofs – N
yl p
ro o i on
o t t
rHistorical
& F
development of Ultimate frisbee
s fo i bu
i
r a n1 isc a sport that was invented late in the 1960s r byda igroup t
s of r
‘Ultimate frisbee’
Ta o fs – N
yl p
o
white, middle-class American rHigh School males in the suburb of Maplewood,
o i on
o 2 t t
rNew&Jersey. They nameds themselves the ‘Columbia High School f formal
Varsity Frisbee
ib
u
Squad’ even
F r though
an c i
they, ‘had not played any games, had no o r team
di or
s r
rules
t
Ta and someone’s mother had made their s –jerseys’ (Zagoria 1998). Ultimate2
o f team n
o N
r frisbee culture (Johnson
yl
o
was originally one part of a plarger o
t 1975), but it is now t io
rthe&leading form of ‘disc 3
The sport ofi b u
F r a n c i s sport’, except for perhaps discf golf. o r d i sintthe r
Ultimate and culture originates in 1967–68 at a time of social turmoil
Ta f s –
o Vietnam War,
yl United States. It was the time rofothe
p
N the
o
Civil Rights Movement
i on
in world politics, such ast the heightening of the t
o rand&broader transformationss Union. It was a time of ‘high anxiety’
f o for American bu
Cold War with
Fran the c i
Soviet r distri
Ta ofs – N n
yl ro o io
o p t t
r & s fo bu
Franci r distri
Ta ofs – N n
yl ro o io
o p t t
r &
is fo bu
tri
Ta ofs No n
yl ro io
or p t u t
& F c i s fo
r t r ib
ran dis
Ta 176 Andew Thornton
o ofs – N n
yl r o is reflected in the guiding io
or and sporting ideals (Edwards p 1973; 1970). This anxiety t t
s are expected to embody: fo bu
& F
principle(s)
nci
r athat players r distri
Ta ofs – N
yl Spirit of the Game: Ultimate
p
r o relies upon a spirit oof sportsmanship [sic] which i on
or places the responsibility for fair play on the player.t Highly is u
t
& encouraged, i s f competitivetplay rib
F r a n but c never at the expense of mutual respect oamong r d i s adher-
players,
Ta ence to the agreed upon rules o f s – the basic joy of play. Protection of n
yl r o of the game, or N o conduct from the Ultimate io
or these vital elements servesp to eliminate adverse t u t
& field.
F rSuch actions
c i s as taunting of opposing players, dangerous
fo
r aggression,
t r ib
bel-
n
ligerentaintimidation, intentional di s
Ta o o f fouling,
s – or other “win-at-all-costs” behaviour
N n
yl are contrary to the spirit rof the game and must be o avoided by all players. io
or p t
(Ultimate Players Association 2002b)b u t
s fo
& F
ranci r distri
Ta The ‘Spirit of the Game’, and o its o f s – inNthe formation of Ultimate iden-
significance
yl tities, is the focus of extended
r
p discussion later in the o chapter.4 i on
or t u t
&Ultimate
F c i s played in Euro-Western countries,
is primarily f obut is also quite
r ib
t rpop-
r a n
ular in Japan. In total there may be as many d i s
Ta ofs – as 150,000–200,000 participants
N onumber of players, teams and n
yl worldwide. The United States r ocontains the largest io
or p t 5
leagues, though the Canadian cities of Toronto, Vancouver and Ottawa all con- u t
& very s f
c i organised leagues. There is a range ofo local, ib
tain F rlarge
a nwell i s t rand
r dnational
s – (‘open’), women’s, ‘mixed’, youth,
Ta
yl
international competitions comprised
r o o f of men’s No on
or and masters divisions. Ultimate p is largely self-funding
t through the payment of t i
league
& Fmembership s tournament fees.
and
i fo r i bu
r a n ccommunity’s process of identification is in rpartdaccomplished
The Ultimate is t
Ta o fs – N
yl by projecting what are broadly
p
o
r considered to be the o ‘negative’ aspects of sport i on
or onto other players and identities such as American football t and or ice hockey. u t
& example, i s ib
fis orejected, in principle,
For F r a direct
n c physical aggression and intimidation r distr
Ta and Ultimate players are expected o ftosnot –tauntNother players as is common in n
yl ro
these ‘other’ sports. Thesep‘unsporting’ o other qualities are suppos-
behaviours and io
or t u t
edly
& outside
F
of Ultimate
c i s identities and culture. The chapter fo
r
will show that
t r ib
r a
Ultimate players’ n identities sublimate or suppress those characteristics d i sthat are
Ta o f ofsworking-class
– N and or black sporting bod-
yl normally associated with stereotypes
p
r o o i on
or ies and identities. Ultimate players appear both tot reject and celebrate the u t
& F aggression
physical i swhat are nominally working-class and f o ‘black’ sports.t r i b
r a n c of r dis
Ta One way of analysing Ultimateocould
o f s be –to compare
N it to historical precedents n
yl in mainstream sports and pideals. r For example, the o‘Spirit of the Game’ seems to io
or t u t
reflect the idea of a ‘gentleman’s
s [sic] agreement’ that is similar
f o to the earlyt rules ib
& F c i r s r
of Englishr football:
an di
Ta ofs – N
yl r o
p that a player wouldointentionally on
or It was never even thought t do anything to u t i
& hurt s f o and that twas ib
n c i Such conduct would be ‘ungentlemanly’,
F ranaopponent. r d i s r an
Ta unpardonable offence; […]othe f slowering
– N of self-control to depths of
yl ungentlemanly conductrwas
p
o something which ocould not be tolerated. i on
or t in Collwell 2000: 202) u
(Elleray cited
t
s fo b
& F
ran c i r distri
Ta ofs – N n
yl ro o io
or p t u t
& F c i s fo
r t r ib
ran di s
Ta o ofs – N n
yl r o io
or p t t
is fo bu
& tri
Ta ofs No n
yl ro io
or p t u t
& F c i s fo
r t r ib
ran dis
Ta o o f s – ‘Anyone N
can play this game’ 177
n
yl r o io
o p
Another way of analysing Ultimate would be to situate itt in previous research on t
rthe&nature and meaningsof ‘alternative’ sport. In an age when f o sport culturest are bu
Franci r dis ri
Ta o f s – ‘McDonaldised’
supposed to be increasingly commercialised, and globalised
yl (McDonald and Andrews 2001;
p
r oMiles 1998; MaguireN o 1999) it is important to
i on
t
o rnote&that Ultimate was sfounded on and continues to bet defined f o by rejecting or b u
i
Fra
going against c iof these broader cultural processes. Beal’s
thenflow r(1995) str
d iresearch
Ta on skateboarding shows how another s – culture was formed through the
o f (sport) n
ro N
yl
o rejection of standardisation andp corporatisation. Beal osuggests
t that skateboarding t io
rhas&been transformed from s what was essentially an aesthetic f oplay form, defined bu
Franci r distri
Ta by its anti-establishment ethos, intooa competitive
f s – and corporate sport and com-
modity. However, the activity rofoskateboarding asNBeal
n
yl
o p o points out has not been
t t io
rentirely co-opted by standardisation
s and corporatisation (see also Beal and b u
& ,Fthis volume). fo i
Wilson r a n c i However, its commercial form does interestingly r d i cash s t rin
Ta on the ‘style’ and ‘attitude’ whichomade s –
o f skateboarding
yl r N oan ‘alternative’ activity in on
o the first place. Ultimate thoughp was established as a sport t and as such represents t i
ra different
& F social form, i but f o alternative’.t r i b u
s does contain a similar ethos of ‘being
r a n c
However the central purpose of thisf chapter
r d i s with
Ta o o s – is N not to draw comparisons
n
other sports, but rather to drawr attention to the waysoin which players are strug-
yl
o p t t io
rgling to position themselves within and against not only sporting ideals but
& cultural s f ib
u
broader Fran c i and issues. Where Gruneau (1983) haso argued
ideals r d that i s t r
sport
Ta mobilises middle-class biases in the f s –of social
oformation relations I would extend
yl his argument to suggest thatpsport
o N
r simultaneously mobilises
o racial, sexual, bodily i on
o t t
rand&gender biases.
i s fo r i bu
Franc r dis t
Ta ofs – N
yl Constructing identity and r o
p difference o i on
o t t
r &
i s attention to three dominant aspects f o of Ultimate tcul- bu
In this chapter,
F r a Inwillc draw r dis ri
Ta o fhas
ture. The first is gender politics, which s been
– anNopen and ongoing concern in n
yl Ultimate. The second is the p r o of the Game’, which
‘Spirit o is a code of conduct that io
o t t
ris intended
& F to separate i Ultimate
s players’ from extreme competitiveness.
fo The lasti b u
r n c r
a the meaning and importance of Ultimate players’dcelebration
section will address i str
Ta o f s –
yl p
r ois a phrase used N
of ‘laying out’ or ‘going ho’ which to describe the physical act of
o i on
o t Gender equality has t
rdiving to the ground to either catch or intercept the disc.
& been s issue in Ultimate and is one signf ofo its anti-establish- i bu
always Francan i
important r dis t r
Ta ment ‘alternative’ character. However,
o o f sit will
– become
N apparent through an n
yl r io
o
analysis of Spirit of the Game p and ‘going ho’ thato tUltimate identifications u t
rexpress
& aFconcern with more
s than gender. fo ib
c i r s t r
The focusr of n chapter is on the processes of identity construction dandi thus if I
a the
Ta s and
o fsports – identities n
ro
were to produce a typology of ‘different’ No it would suggest a sta-
yl
o bility of identity that does notp exist. As this chapter contends,
t Ultimate identities t io
rdon't s f o They are t‘mix bu
& fit neatly
F r ainto r dis ri
n canyi existing categories, histories and discourses.
s –contingent. In order to understand
and match,’ and are culturally and historically
Ta
yl o o f identities
the ambivalence that structuresrUltimate
NI begin
o from the position that on
o p t sport forms are always t i
rwe &engage with sportingsforms in constrained ways because fo bu
c i
F r a nthrough practices and notions of social difference.
already structured r distri
Ta ofs – N n
yl ro o io
o p t t
r & s fo bu
Franci r distri
Ta ofs – N n
yl ro o io
o p t t
r &
is fo bu
tri
Ta ofs No n
yl ro io
or p t u t
& F c i s fo
r t r ib
ran
178 Andrew Thornton
dis
Ta ofs – N
yl r o o on
or Difference is understood p here as an organising feature t of how we know about u t i
is f o Identity ist based b
& world
the F rand a n
how
c relations of power and identity are organised. r dis ri
Ta on the construction of difference. o s process
In fthe – N of marking the limits, boundaries
yl and ‘inside’ of an identity weralso
p
o construct o What is outside is not con-
its outside. i on
or sidered as part of the t theb u
t
& i s identity. However, it makes sense f o to argue that i
F r a ofn the
construction c ‘outside’ is a constitutive or defining aspect i s t rThe
r ofdidentity.
Ta construction of an ‘inner’ ando an f s –can N
o ‘outer’ be seen as a binary opposition. n
yl r o opposition is usually the io
or Jacques Derrida (1974) argues p that one side of a binary t u t
& F one, thec one
dominant i s that includes the other in its field fofooperation. For exam-
r t r ib
r a and
ple, ‘rational’ n ‘irrational’ appear as obvious opposites, but we can d see s
i that the
Ta o ofs – N n
yl rational has the power to define r and position the irrational
o as an external, extra- io
or neous, aberrant feature
p t in Westernb u t
& F the irrational s of the dominant identity. Forf example, ri
cultures r a n c i is rarely granted the power to define o rthe drational
i s t (Hall
s –
Ta
yl
1997).
r oof No on
or Identity then must always p be unstable as what is outsidet or beyond it is virtually t i
spre-determined. Thus identity formation f o is always a process bu
endless
& Fand cannot
r a n c
be
i r d i s tri
not only of inclusion, but active ongoing s exclusion and the drawing and policing
Ta
of boundaries. Jacques Derrida o o f Homi–Bhabha
r (1974), N o (1986) and Stuart Hall have n
yl
or p t t io
all noted that the processes of identification are structured in ambivalence. u
& F c i s fo
r t r ib
ran di s
Ta Difference is ambivalent. f s be –
oIt can bothN positive and negative. It is both
yl necessary for the production
p
o
r of meaning, the formation
o of language and cul- i on
or t t
& ture, s
for social identities
i and a subjective sense of thefself o a sexed subjectr[…] i bu
F at
and c time it is threatening, a site of danger, negative
r athensame r d ifeelings,
s t of
Ta o fs – N
yl p
r o
splitting, hostility and aggression towards the Other.
o i on
or t (Hall 1997: 238) u t
& F i s fo ib
ran c r distr
Ta In the formation of any identity f s ideals,
o those – Nbodies, embodiments which are n
yl r o are also embraced
constructed as different, asp Other o and rejected in a process of io
or t t
disavowal: s fo bu
& F
ranci r distri
Ta o f sform–of knowledge
yl p
ro
[Disavowal] … is a non-repressive No that allows for the pos-
i on
or sibility of simultaneously embracing two contradictory t beliefs, one official, u t
s f o the myth of origins, b
& one secret,
Franc one i
archaic, one progressive, one that allows r distri
Ta o f s and– division.
the other that articulates difference
No n
yl ro (Bhabha 1986: 168) io
or p t u t
& F c i s fo
r t r ib
Thus I will r afocus
n on those words, ideals, images and actions that seem s
d i to engen-
Ta f s –as they
o odisavowal
yl der moments of ambivalencer and N oarise in Ultimate culture. on
or This chapter is based on p my continued participation t in Ultimate as well as u t i
& F conversations
interviews,
ranci
s and observations that were partf o of my
r doctoral
d rib
i s tdisser-
Ta tation (Thornton 1998). The research o f s was–conducted based on the theory and
yl methods of ‘critical ethnography’
p
ro N o I have participated in
(Thomas 1993). i on
or Ultimate as a player sfor over ten years in Canada,t America u t
& F However, f o and the United ib
Kingdom. r a n c ithe majority of the empirical data presented r here
d iissfromt r the
Ta ofs – N n
yl ro o io
or p t u t
& F c i s fo
r t r ib
ran di s
Ta o ofs – N n
yl r o io
or p t t
is fo bu
& tri
Ta ofs No n
yl ro io
or p t u t
& F c i s fo
r t r ib
ran dis
can play this game’ 179
Ta o o f s –‘Anyone N n
yl r o io
o Canadian Ultimate scene. pA number of researchers thave conducted critical u t
rethnographies
& F s fo ib
c i sport cultures, bringing similar theoretical
r aonnother r andd i
method-
str
ological commitments to the analysis of ssport–cultures. (Klein 1993; Beal 1995;
Ta
yl Fine 1987; Hilbert 1997; Polskyr 1967;o o fWheaton andN Tomlinson
o 1998). on
o p t t i
r & s fo bu
Franc i r distri
Ta How the game is played ofs – N
ro n
yl
o Ultimate is a non-contact disc p sport normally played by o two teams of seven play-
t t io
rers.&Ultimate players uses the term ‘disc’ to describe the ‘frisbees’ f o that they tplay bu
Franci r dis ri
Ta with. Although widely used in common o f svernacular
– N frisbee is a registered trade-
r o (sports) discs. The n
yl
o
mark that refers to a range of flying
p odiscs that are normally used
t t io
rby Ultimate players are not actually ‘frisbees’. The standard disc Ultimate players b u
use &– theF‘175 is
n cUltra-Star
r aGram Professional Sportdisc’ – is similar
fo
rin design ri
d i stot the
s
Ta
yl
original trademarked frisbee (Ultimate
r o o f Players– Association
No 2002a). This is one
on
o reason why players regularlypdrop the frisbee half of the tname and call the game t i
r‘Ultimate’. s themselves from people whof merely ‘play withrai b
u
& F Players distinguish
c i or d s t
r a n
frisbee’ in their back yard or on the beach i
Ta o f sby the – use of the term ‘disc’. Ultimate is n
yl generally played outdoors on grass r o fields similar in Nsizeo to American football, but io
o p t t
rcan&be played on any flatsopen space and is played indoors asfwell. The first gamesi b u
of UltimateF rwere c i on a paved parking lot (Johnson 1975).
a nplayed or distr
Ta The object of the game is to oscore f s
o goals or – points.
yl r zone that the player N o A goal is scored when a on
o player catches the disc in thepend istattacking. End zones are t i
rrectangle
& Flike areas cat ieach s end of the playing field that aref marked o either with
r i bu
boundary linesr aandn or small orange plastic cones. The disc must ber passed s t
d i through
Ta o fs – N
yl the air from player to player. Players
p
r o cannot hand theodisc to their team mates as
i on
o t their feet to pass the t
ris done in rugby and American football. Nor can they use
s f othe disc to a team ib
u
disc&and F they
rancannotc i
intentionally re-direct (or ‘mack’ or ‘tip’) r dis t r
Ta o f sare not
mate. Like basketball and netball,oplayers – allowed
N to run while holding the n
yl disc. Throwing or passing it to r o disc around the field. io
o p another player moves the t u t
r The& disc may be passeds in any direction. Any time a passfisoincomplete, inter- ib
F r n c i
a down, or contacts an out-of-bounds area, a turnover r i s t
d occurs, r
cepted, knocked
Ta fs – N
o the
yl resulting in an immediate change
p
r o of team in possession
o of the disc. This is
i on
o t the game has a con- t
rsimilar to how play proceeds in basketball and soccer. Thus
& Fflow to it.c Players s f ointerpretationst rofi b u
tinuous ran i make their own ‘calls’ and r dis
Ta infractions of the rules. They also make s – on whether or not a player has
o f decisions n
r o N
yl
o
gone out of bounds in order to p catch the disc. Players odotnot wait until the ‘whis- t io
rtle &
blows’ as is the case sin sports with referees and line judges. f o They make calls u
F c i r t r ib
from withinrthe n of the play.
a flow di s
Ta There are no referees in ther gameo o off sUltimate.
– NThe major reason why there n
yl
o p
are no referees is that the originators
o
t
of the sport were consciously rejecting their t io
ruse & u
and meaning
F r a nbecause
s
c i referees are a central feature of mainstream
fo
r dsports. rib
i s tThe
Ta sentiment that is popularised in Ultimateo f scircles– isNthat referees open up the way
yl to not playing fair because one can
p
r oget away with breaking o the rules if it is not seen i on
o t of responsibil- b u
t
rby a&referee. Thus, in ideals terms, Ultimate players put the burden f i
F play
ity for fair c
r asquarely
n i in the lap of each and every player. o r d i s t r
Ta ofs – N n
yl ro o io
o p t t
r & s fo bu
Franci r distri
Ta ofs – N n
yl ro o io
o p t t
r &
is fo bu
tri
Ta ofs No n
yl ro io
or p t u t
& F c i s fo
r t r ib
ran
180 Andrew Thornton
dis
Ta o ofs – N n
yl r o io
or Ambivalence in genderpdifference t u t
& F c is fo
r t r ib
r a n
I want to begin the discussion of gender difference by examining the ways in d i s
Ta o f s – N and structuring of the seem-
yl which gender comes into play
p
r oin the interpretation o i on
or ingly mundane aspects of playing a game of Ultimate. t Ultimate players’ u t
s to conflate gendered (social) flimitations b
& F of gender
awareness
ranc i tends o r d and tri
i s biology
Ta as the bases of difference(s) in male f s female
o and – athletic
No
performance. Although I
n
yl focus on the ‘lay out’ in relation r o to gender identification here, it carries signifi- io
or p t t
cance beyond just gender s identity. I will return later in thef o chapter to an analysisb u
& F c i
r a n attached to the lay out to illustrate that class
of the meanings r and d irace ri
s tdiffer-
Ta ences, in particular, are also central of s – N n
yl r o features of Ultimate players’ identities.
o player is their ability to io
or p
One of the most important signifiers of an Ultimate t t
s f o it is talked about bu
& F‘the flick’ (also
throw
r a n c i called a ‘forehand’). The ways in which r d i s t r iin
Ta Ultimate culture suggests it is anoactf where s –dominance and gender difference is
yl embodied. It is, I would argue,
p
r o an act of locatingN othe unacceptable, the inade-
i on
or the Other of Ultimate: t t
quate, and the undesirable:s fo bu
& F
ran c i r distri
Ta […] more difficult to master oo f sthe standard
than – N backhand beach-bimbo toss, n
yl r o repeated practice to perfect. io
or p
this tiny little wrist movement can take years of t u t
& But F c
s in the game and otherwise. Once
is essentiali both f o it is learned,
r t r ib
the
r can
player a ngo to a park and signal to other disc owners that hed ori she is not s
Ta ofs – N
yl p
r o but also an Ultimate
just a casual Frisbee catcher, o player i on
or t female Ultimate player) u t
(Lind 1992: 12;
s fo b
& F
ranc i r distri
s
Ta
yl
Although written with considerable
r o o fsarcasm–by aNfemale player, this is an insight-
o sporting embodiment and on
or ful point about Ultimate pplayers’ identifications and t t i
u
the
& ways F
in which gender
c i s norms are operating in Ultimate f oculture. The label
r t r iofb
r a npositions non-players and ‘non-flickers’ as weak, silly
‘beach-bimbo’ s
d i feminised
Ta o o fs – N n
(i.e. ‘bimbo’) subjects. And withinr Ultimate circleso(in games and tournaments)
yl
or p t t io
one of the first things that players watch for is how well someone throws their u
& ‘He’s i s is a comment I often heard on the ffield o rat least ib
flick. F r got
a nnocflick’ s t r less
d iamong
Ta skilled teams. More generally, at o all f s of–competition,
o levels one assesses the entire
yl make-up of opponents’ throwing p
r No
skills. This practice is used both as a strategic i on
or t t
ploy,
& and as a way ofi slocating others in their lack of experience
fo of playing the
r i bu
game. F r quite
It is c
a n clearly r d community.
a way of identifying outsiders to the Ultimate is t
Ta o fs – N
yl p
o
Thus an act of athletic skillr is not merely a matter of technical precision, it is
o i on
or t
always also a sign of one’s position in a hierarchy of power, and the creation of an u t
& F Other. Inc this
(abject) s
r a n i instance, the Other of Ultimate identity
fo
r then rib
d i sis tpromi-
Ta nently signified as an un-athletic o
o form f sof feminised
– N embodiment. n
yl It has been observed that r
there has been o change, even in the last
considerable io
or p t u t
ten
& years, in terms of s
F r a n c i what is, broadly speaking, possible and f o ‘acceptable’ in
r d i s t
fem-
r ib
inine embodiment. Today, ‘athletic’, lean and even muscular female bodies have
s even
Ta
yl oof
come to be seen as sociallyr acceptable, – N desirable, while not necessarily
o on
or p
destabilising hegemonic notions of femininity. Athletic t female bodies are chal- u t i
& F notions cofi sthin, white, heterosexual feminine
lenging f o attractiveness,
r d i s t r but ib
ran
Ta ofs – N n
yl ro o io
or p t u t
& F c i s fo
r t r ib
ran di s
Ta o ofs – N n
yl r o io
or p t t
is fo bu
& tri
Ta ofs No n
yl ro io
or p t u t
& F c i s fo
r t r ib
ran dis
can play this game’ 181
Ta o o f s –‘Anyone N n
yl r io
o continue to be framed by such p stereotypes (Birrell ando Cole
t 1994; Lenskyj 1994; t
rHall&1996; Cole and Hribar s 1995). A closer look at the mundane f o aspect of guard- bu
Franci r distri
Ta ing or ‘marking’ opponents in an oUltimate f s –game will demonstrate that this
yl struggle over gendered embodiment
p
r o is an important N issue
o in this culture. i on
o t u t
r Normally
&
there are seven
s players against seven opponents f oon the field. tThe ib
F r for
general rule a ‘co-ed’i
n c (later changed to the term ‘mixed’) Ultimate r dwas i sthatra
Ta maximum of five players per team o f s – N were allowed to be on the n
yl r o of any ‘one’ gender o io
o field at once or the ‘5-2 rule’ pin vernacular. (This proportion
t has changed to 4-3 in t
rrecent
& years s America.) In the vast majorityf oof ‘co-ed’ gamesr Ii b u
F r across cNorth
i
a ninterpreted as five men and two women. This issue r dist
Ta observed this was o f s – and practice
o
continues to be the subject ofr considerable N o in Ultimate culture in n
yl
o p
controversy
t t io
rCanada and the United s States (Haman 1994; Price 1994) [more up to date ref?] b u
& F one of myc league f i
During ran i games a woman on my team wasoasked r d i s tasra
to ‘play
Ta man’. That is, she was to guard a o f s and
o player
male – substitute in for other males on
yl r
our team. Generally, womenp only substitute for other
No
women and men do the i on
o t t
rsame. sguard or mark other women and men f o mark other men. bu
& WomenF r a
normally
n c i r d i s tri
Ta However, I have never heard anyone one f s say,–‘YouNplay as a woman’, to a male.
Jennifer said she enjoyed doingr this o obecause the malesothat she ends up guarding n
yl
o p t t io
rare &
usually the slower or least skilled male players on the team and she ‘surprises
s f osomewhat embar- ib
u
them with F her
ran c
ability i
to cover them’. She felt that they were r di s t r
Ta rassed at being guarded by a woman, s though
o feven – N she usually had better skills
yl and more experience. Jennifer r o
p also told this tale withosome pride. She was a very i on
o t t
rexperienced
& F athletechaving i s played basketball and baseball throughout
fo her life.r Ii b u
have heardrher a nvariously described as ‘tall, for a woman’ andrhaving t
d i ‘as deep
Ta o fs – N
yl p
o
voice’ which both regulates herr out of dominant ideals o of masculinity and femi- i on
o at the same moment. She is too tall to reallyt be a woman, yet still t
rninity
& Fby the lastc half s of the phrase, ‘for a woman’. fo ib
u
feminised ran i r dis t r
Ta This sequence of events (which o oisf asdominant
– N feature of ‘co-ed’ Ultimate n
yl games) also suggests that men r o directly against females io
o p want to avoid playing t u t
rbecause
& they might bei shown
s to be less capable than a woman.
f o It might be okay ib
F r n c
a by another man, but to be outplayed by a woman would r i s
d throw t r
to be outplayed
Ta fs – N
yl serious doubt onto one’s statusrasoa ocompetent (masculine) player. Thus, it may on
p o t i
o rbe that the issue of men’s competence in comparison to women t is skirted around by
the&general acceptance i sthat same gender guarding is ‘onlyf in o the Spirit of r
the i bu
Franc r dis t
Ta Game’ (i.e. only fair and reasonable). s practice
o f The – N of men guarding men pits n
o
r speak, and avoids potential
yl
o
them against their equals, sop to o
t
‘embarrassment’. It
t io
rmaintains competitioni b u
& F a fairly rigid c i sboundary between direct male andf femaleo r tr
r a the
that reinforces n broader cultural notion that women are categorically d i s inca-
Ta o f s – n
yl pable of equalling men’s physical r operformance. N io
o A regular part of Ultimate p player’s conversations isothat
t men and women can t
rnever s f o are good athletes bu
& beFequal physically.
r a n c i Many will accept that ‘some women’ r distri
Ta o f s However,
but that men are just ‘bigger and stronger’. – we cannot interpret physi-
yl r o of social normsNand
cal and biological capability outside
p o conventions that suggest i on
o t u t
rthat&women are ‘naturally’ s or inherently biologically incapablef o of the same phys- ib
ical featsFasr men. c i
a n (Hall 1996; Birrel and Cole 1994; Whitson r1990). str
d iFeminist
Ta ofs – N n
yl ro o io
o p t t
r & s fo bu
Franci r distri
Ta ofs – N n
yl ro o io
o p t t
r &
is fo bu
tri
Ta ofs No n
yl ro io
or p t u t
& F c i s fo
r t r ib
ran
182 Andrew Thornton
dis
Ta o ofs – N n
yl r o differences between men io
or p
scholarship has provided convincing evidence that thet u t
& women
and s fo
c i physical capabilities are far less significant
F r ainntheir r than ib
thet social
d i s r
Ta o f s men’s
forces that limit women’s and encourage – Nengagement with sport. Many
yl have argued that the overlapr in
p
o physical o of males and females is far
capabilities i on
or (Fausto-Sterling 1985;t Dyer
t
greater than the differences
s f o 1986; Cahnt 1994; bu
&
nc
F r a1994).
Hargreaves i r dis ri
Ta Ultimate as a physical activity o f s – N a ‘sportasized’ identity and n
yl r o seems to assume o io
or body (Harvey and Rail 1995) p in its parlance and practice.
t The sportasized iden-
u t
& and
tity
F rbody is one
c i s that already understands the necessary
fo
r and seemingly
t r ib
a n of physical movement and social interaction required
‘obvious’ features
s
d i in sport.
Ta o ofs – N n
yl This identification includesrassumptions about playing o in a team, ‘field aware- io
or ness’ and accepting s
p t
the idea of competition as the only form of play. Theb u t
& F body itc has fo tri
r a n i been argued references a stereotypically
sportasized rmasculine
d i s embod-
Ta iment (Birrell and Cole 1994). o f sparticipation
o Thus – N in sport, and Ultimate, for
yl r
women, generally means aptransgression of dominant o feminine identities. i on
or t u t
&MostF c i s on my team, were somewhat aware
players, at least f oof the social and
r ib
t rhis-
r a n
torical nature of why women generally d i s
Ta o f s do –not play
N the
as much sport as men. Both
n
yl r o seemed to reject
male and female players, at times, o ideas of biology as destiny, io
or p t
and a woman’s supposed ‘natural’ inferiority. They rejected the notion that it was u t
& F i s of one’s biology, but rather that f oaccess, practice
r d i s t rand ib
r a na cproblem
fundamentally
Ta previous experience were the keys s success
otof one’s – N and enjoyment:
yl p
ro o i on
or t t
& IF think that’s thei snature of our socialization. More menf o are pushed to rplay
i bu
teamr sport, c
a n whereas women aren’t for me Irwasdafraid
t
i s of it. I
Ta o f s and– I mean
yl mean I played tennis and
p
o N
r I danced and I didn’t o even play doubles [tennis]. i on
or That’s not a team sport. t u t
& F c i s f o(Rhonda/Interview)
r t r ib
ran dis
Ta o ofs – N n
yl One important point at which r Ultimate players reveal
o a more ambivalent rela- io
or p t u t
tion
& toFathletic performance
c i s and gender difference is the attention
fo
r t r ib
paid to female
r
players ‘layingn
a out’ (i.e. aggressively diving on the ground) for the d i s
disc. Rhonda’s
Ta s –
oshef expresses
yl comment below is quite typical
p
r oas N
some
o glee at the sight of a female
i on
or ‘laying out’. t t
& F i s fo r i bu
ranc r dis t
Ta I saw a woman at the Worlds
o f sout. –She N
o lay was so awesome. It is hard for a n
yl r
woman to do a lay outpbecause she has breasts. oShe dove for the disc and just io
or t t
she hit thes ground she would do a front flip.fIt was wild. She wasi ab u
& before
F ranci
gymnast.
or distr
Ta of s – N n
yl ro o
(Rhonda/Interview)
io
or p t u t
It&might i s if women are seen to be able to embody
fo ib
F rbeaargued
n c that istr
r masculine/ath-
d
Ta letic power they may potentiallyosubvertf s and – expose the myths of gender being
yl solely determined by biology
p
N o 1985 for an extensive
r o (see Fausto-Sterling i on
or t t
review). s fo bu
& F
ran c i r distri
Ta ofs – N n
yl ro o io
or p t u t
& F c i s fo
r t r ib
ran di s
Ta o ofs – N n
yl r o io
or p t t
is fo bu
& tri
Ta ofs No n
yl ro io
or p t u t
& F c i s fo
r t r ib
ran dis
can play this game’ 183
Ta o o f s –‘Anyone N n
yl r o it’s great and enjoyable io
o Women stay away from p laying out, but when they do t t
r &to watch. Guys throw s f o just won’t do bu
F r a n c i their bodies; girls there’s a block. They r d i s t rit.i
Ta ofs – N (Lucy/Interview)
yl p
ro o i on
o t essential gender differ- t
rLucy’s statement on the sother hand is an argument for an fo bu
&
ence based F r onan c i
physiology, and as such stands in fairly stark r contrast tri
d i s with
Ta Rhonda’s more socially based explanation.o f s Lucy’s– Nlater comments also demon- n
yl ro io
o p
strate the intense focus on women’s capabilities whichosimultaneously
t constructs t
rmen’s
i s as the norm: fo bu
& behaviours
F r a nand c skills r distri
Ta ofs – N n
yl Girls don’t catch hammers; r oseem to be afraid oof them. If a girl lays out io
o p t t
r &everyone is excited,sbut if a guy does it is appreciated. Iff a girl does it, every-i b u
one F ranci
is high. or distr
Ta o f s – (Lucy/Interview)
yl p
ro No
i on
o t t
rIt is&interesting to note that
s Rhonda and Lucy posit, at different f o points, women’s bu
F r a n c i r d i s tri
physiology as the major reason why women
Ta o f s do–notNlay out, then both give exam- n
yl ples of a woman doing a ‘lay out’ r owith the same body. oA lot of men don’t ‘lay out’ io
o p t t
reither, and men’s genitals are every bit as exposed (if not more so) in laying out
s
& F breasts!cSoi self-protection f onot laying out,tbut ib
u
as women’s ran may be one reason for r di s r
Ta it is not essentially a biologically-based s –difference. Arguably a male’s jock
o fgender
yl strap provides less protection r o N
p than a sports bra, though o Ultimate women now i on
o t t
rhave & access to something
i s called ‘tortoise shells’6 (Canadian f o Ultimate Players r i bu
Association a n cWhat seems apparent from the evidence I’ver presented
F r1996). t
d i s here
Ta o fs – N
yl is that the relation between sport
p
o
r performance and theobody is based more in how i on
o and men relate to their bodies than the ‘type’ of tbody one possesses. This t
rwomen& Fas I have been ssuggesting, is a sign and central feature
f oof the ambivalent ib
u
problem, ran c i r dis t r
Ta relation that Ultimate players have s –difference and sport. The ways in
otofgender n
r o N
yl
o
which we perceive the relative p ‘frailty’ – and as Lenskyjo (1986) has shown the
t t io
rsupposedly
& F delicate cnature i s of women’s physiology – is an enduring f o discourse.t r i b u
One key toa‘laying out’ is previous Ultimate play and otherrathletic
r n dis experi-
Ta o f s –
yl ence. It may seem obvious to suggest
p
r o that N
athletic skills
o are developed through
i on
o and over time. Laying out is quite obviously at developed athletic skill t
rrepetition s little exception, both male and female,f o ‘lay out alltthe i bu
and&the elite
Franc players i
with r dis r
Ta time’ (field notes, Buffalo, Octobero 1993).
o f s However,
– N gender norms about the n
yl r io
o
body are so deeply entrenched p among Ultimate playerso and t
in Euro-Western cul-
t
rture&that we are still faceds with the notion that ‘women don’t f olay out’. bu
Franci r distri
Ta o f s – N they make a difficult play? n
yl ADT: Do men react differently r o to women when o io
o p t t
r &Yes. Because it is expected
s f o women go ho,titrisi b u
Franci of men, which is silly. But when r dis
Ta astonishing to most guys, especially
o f sbecause
– most women don’t do it. Most
yl guys play rougher becauser they
p
o are used to Nit ofrom other contact sports.
i on
o t the air. t
r &Women are not expected s to hurl their bodies through fo bu
Fran c i r distri
(Frank/Interview)
Ta ofs – N n
yl ro o io
o p t t
r & s fo bu
Franci r distri
Ta ofs – N n
yl ro o io
o p t t
r &
is fo bu
tri
Ta ofs No n
yl ro io
or p t u t
& F c i s fo
r t r ib
ran
184 Andrew Thornton
dis
Ta ofs – N
yl r o
p know players and knowothis on
or […] But if you come to t woman is really good at u t i
s fo b
& this,
F rthenanci
it is diminishing returns. You don’t get as excited. r distri
Ta ofs – N (Sharon/Interview)
yl p
ro o i on
or It seems that women who t biol-b u
t
s ‘lay out’ transgress essentialised gender
f o discourses of
&
ogy andF nature,
r a n and i
c men who do it are considered exemplars r athletic
of tri
d i sprowess.
Ta ofs – N
on
These examples show that some
yl r o women, not surprisingly,
o
are every bit as ready to
or throw themselves to the ground p t is the finding that the u t i
as men. More interesting
s f o places: in previous b
& F of this gender
location
r a n c i difference apparently stems from two r distri
Ta similar athletic experience and in o some
f s‘natural’
– physical difference between males
N o in players’ understanding
r o degree of ambivalence n
yl
or
and females. Thus there is a high
p t t io
of gender and athleticism. Players have seen and reported on females laying out,b u
& they
but i s accept it as ‘normal’. It is also interesting
n c quite
F rstilla can’t
fo
r to d note r ias
i s tthat
s
Ta
yl
some women come to be understood
r o o f as able– andNwilling to lay out their actions
o move closer to the subject on
or become less notable. Therefore, p women who ‘lay out’ t t i
u
position
& F of the (supposedly)
r a n c i s non-gendered ‘Ultimate player’.
r d i s rib
f oHowever, it istappar-
ent that the meanings attached to laying
Ta o f sout–are not neutral, but rather suggest that
N o is masculine. n
yl the ‘correct’ and normal gender r oof Ultimate embodiment io
or p t u t
& F c i s fo
r t r ib
Ambivalencer a nin the ‘Spirit of the Game’ di s
Ta ofs – N
yl o
Spirit of the Game isptor ‘be cool.’ Play hard, be o better, but don't be an ass- i on
or t t
& hole. NO deliberatei s fouling... Be considerate about misunderstood
fo rules,r not
i bu
F r No
cocky. c
a nspiking, no trash talking friendsrlike d
t
i s no dan-
Ta o f s(unless
– they’re that),
yl gerous play and make your
p
o N
r own calls fairly. And o it’s ‘contest’ or ‘no contest’ i on
or no yelling and spitting about it. t u t
& F c i s (Ultimate f o Association 2002c)
Players r t r ib
ran dis
Ta ofs – N
yl o
The ‘Spirit of the Game’ ispanrimportant aspect of Ultimate o on
or t players’ claims to being u t i
‘different
& F from other sports’.
s The bases for the claims madef by Ultimate players itob
difference r and c i (apparent) subversion of sporting norms
a ntheir or distr
is defined by the
Ta f s –
o with the waysNin which it and the rules struc-
yl Spirit of the Game in combination
p
r o o i on
or ture the culture. It emerges in my research as central tot the formation of collective u t
& individual ci
s players’ identities. Similar to Canadian
fo ib
and F r a nUltimate r and str
d i American
Ta ‘amateur’ sport clubs of the earlyotwentieth f s –century N o (Kidd 1996; Crossett 1990) n
yl Ultimate players use the pSpirit r o of the Game clause to construct a distinction io
or t u t
between themselves and s their Others. The notions of intentional
f o cheating and fla-
ib
& F c i r s t r
r a n are generally considered to be features of sports thatdhave
grant violations i referees
s – like boxing, American football and
Ta
yl o o f contact
and lots of direct and constantr physical No on
or ice hockey. In comparison pto Ultimate these sports aretarguably differently racially u t i
& class i s play and rules (Cole and Andrewsf 1996). o r Therefore, ib
and F rcoded
a ninctheir d i s t rthey
Ta f s – with
stand in opposition – or at least inocompetition – Ultimate ideals. In ‘contact’
yl ro
sports, such as ice hockey or American
p
N o often commit ‘intentional’
football, players i on
or or ‘smart’ fouls as a competitive strategy. However, this tis theoretically, at least, notb u
t
& i s f i
a n because it would, ‘not be in the Spirit ofothe
F inr Ultimate
possible c distr
r Game’.
Ta ofs – N n
yl ro o io
or p t u t
& F c i s fo
r t r ib
ran di s
Ta o ofs – N n
yl r o io
or p t t
is fo bu
& tri
Ta ofs No n
yl ro io
or p t u t
& F c i s fo
r t r ib
ran dis
can play this game’ 185
Ta o o f s –‘Anyone N n
yl r o io
o During the beginnings ofpUltimate in the late 1960stsport in North America t
rwas&undergoing profound s f bu
F r a n c i and wide reaching changes. All ofothe r major
d i tri
sprofes-
Ta sional sport leagues in North America
oo f swere–expanding and beginning to pay
yl athletes huge sums of moneyr to
p play games. The N ocrass money making and
i on
o t u t
rexploitation
&
by the owners
s and managers of sport institutions f o were also being ib
widely exposed. c i
F r a nArguably, these are some of the cultural issues r that istr
d Ultimate
Ta originators were responding to. o o f s – N going to develop a game n
yl r They felt they were o io
o ‘with no rules, no boundaries p and no star system’ (Ultimate t Players Association
u t
r1988).
& The srelationship to corporate sponsorship f o and competition ib
F rambivalent
c i r
a n and continues to be a major unresolved issue, dhasi a fairly s t r
Ta that has developed, ofs – N
ro n
yl
o
clear grounding in the origins of
p
Ultimate. o
t t io
r For example, the accepted history of Ultimate suggests a constant and b u
& based
broad i s the way to conduct oneself within
a n c over
F r struggle
fo
r and
sport str
d i beyond.
i
Ta Ultimate players regularly drawoonothe f sdubious
– 7N alterity of ‘flower power’ and
yl ‘hippies’ to make claims about
r
p its uniqueness and differenceo from more main- i on
o t t
rstream s at the same time many players’f o bu
& sports.
F r a
However,
n c i actions and words
r d i s tri
tend to refute the associations with the
Ta o f s stereotypes
– N of ‘skinny guys’, ‘stoners n
yl and acid freaks’ (Zagoria 1998). r oAll of these stereotypeso seem to suggest con- io
o p t t
rnotations of certain types of whiteness and white bodies personified in the
s fo bu
MTV & characters c i and Butthead’. This struggle has developed,
F r a n‘Beavis r d i in tri
s part,
Ta o f s – who
due to the history of most of theo‘originators’, N came out of the late 1960s
yl and are often associated with r
p ‘hippy culture’ (Ultimate o Players Association i on
o t t
r1998)
& One s
of the fewi vestiges of this identification are the f onumerous tie-died r i bu
F r are
t-shirts that c present at Ultimate tournaments and parties,
a noften r d i and t
s the
Ta o fs – N
yl many debates over how to do or
p
o
r embody the Spirit ofothe Game. It is also com- i on
o t the music and culture t
rmon&to see team namesslike ‘Purple Haze’ that reference fo bu
Franci
of the 1960s. r distri
Ta Strictly speaking Spirit of theo Game o f sis not– a rule.
N o Intended to limit ‘overly n
yl aggressive’ and or ‘dangerouspplay’ r it enshrines an idealised notion of fairness and io
o t t
r‘respect
& for opponentsi and
s team-mates’, which players arefsupposed to demon-i b u
F r n c o r distr
strate in even ain the most intensively competitive situations.
Ta o f s –
yl p
ro No
i on
o t t
r &ADT: How does thesSpirit of the Game operate in relation fo
to the rules?
i bu
Franc i r dis t r
Ta I saw it live and then I saw itoonf TV. s In – theNchampionship game played n
r o
yl
o
this year a player made p a spectacular o to catch the disc in the
play, a lay out
t t io
r &end-zone, but, theres was some discussion whether heflanded in bounds…i b u
i
n c effort
F r aa great o istr
He made to touch down the tips of both feet rin the d end-zone
Ta o f s – n
and then rolled over ontor the o cinder track. A N wonderful play. Looking at
yl
o in slow-motion replay p he may have just been out.
o My memory of it was
t t io
r &the guy himself went, s ‘I’m not entirely sure’. And the f odefender camet rini b u
Franci r dis
Ta and said, ‘It was a tremendousoplay, f s let’s– score it’, and it went as a score.
yl And that’s the type of spirit ro No
p I like to see. Unfortunately, it doesn’t always i on
o t u t
r &happen. s fo ib
Fran c i distr
r(Eric/Interview)
Ta ofs – N n
yl ro o io
o p t t
r & s fo bu
Franci r distri
Ta ofs – N n
yl ro o io
o p t t
r &
is fo bu
tri
Ta ofs No n
yl ro io
or p t u t
& F c i s fo
r t r ib
ran
186 Andrew Thornton
dis
Ta ofs – N
yl r o o on
or p
There is a form of self-regulation, as seen in the above t quote, which seems to u t i
s f o or line judges b
& due
arise F rtoathen c i of external referees. There are no referees
lack
8
r d i s t r iat
Ta any level of play. And significantly fthes Spirit
o o (except – ofNthe Game does not identify spe-
yl cific acts that contravene its rlimits
p o of opponents’). It works
for ‘taunting i on
or more as a broad interpretive device which players use t to assess the moral and u t
s fo b
& i
F r a n c of one or a series of plays and players. Thus,
legal acceptability r Ultimate tri
d i s players
Ta o f s in – their
on
are intended to be entirely self-regulating N oplay and organisation.
yl ro
or What is interesting here p is the struggle that Ultimate t players are contending u t i
& and
with
F rless
s
so the icomparison
c to other sport histories and f ocontexts. Perhaps
r d i s t r the ib
a n
struggle over the ideals of ‘fair play’
Ta o f srepresents
– Na deeper issue concerning the n
yl ro
nature of sport. It is more interesting to suggest that
o perhaps sport cannot be io
or played ‘fairly’. ‘The Spirit
p t as ab u t
s of the Game’ in Ultimate is intended f o to function
& Fand ethicalcguide
moral r a n i to the game and its meaning is interpreted t r iof
r din ia svariety
Ta f s – N but rather the cycle of not being
ways. It is not the sheer varietyoofointerpretations,
yl able to decide on any clear p
r o
definition that is most revealing. i on
or t u t
&Another
F
s identification is the notion that
facet ofi this
c
f oUltimate players
r ib
t r are
r a n
enterprising and stretching the boundaries d i s
Ta o f s –of sport.
o international No
There is an almost heroic
n
stance of some of the local rand organisers as they set out to pro-
yl
or p t t io
mote a game that rejected the nastier parts of institutionalised sport: u
& F c i s fo
r t r ib
ran di s
Ta Ultimate is not like life where o f shaunt
losses – you forever, there’s always another
yl game. It is true Ultimate r o N
p is a Field of Dreams,owhere you pursue excellence i on
or t t
& and glory…Ultimate
i s is a flower child, invented by skinny f o guys who strove r tob u
i
create n cnew game with new rules…You were pressed
F r aa truly r again t
s again
d i and
Ta o fs – N
yl p
o
to go all out, and then ifr you failed to catch the o disc, to exercise your moral i on
or sense in calling the point. And the measure was not t some arbitrary boundary, u t
& netF or goal, nor
ran c i s it the judgment of some official, butf o
was rather
r your
d i own rib
s t maxi-
Ta mum effort and potential. o o f s – N n
yl r (Quote from o ‘The Field of Dreams’, n.d.) io
or p t u t
& F c i s fo
r t r ib
r n
This notiona of being ‘enterprising’ is one that is at work in thisdquote and in i s
Ta fs – N
o omainstream
yl Ultimate circles. Dissatisfiedr with
p
sports being corrupted by compe-
o i on
or tition and elite structures and unwilling to submit to t external regulation, the u t
s fo b
& F heroes cof iUltimate
‘ancient’ ran set out to invent ‘the Ultimate
r game’ tri
d i s(Zagoria
Ta 1998). A game beyond all games,oyet, s –up of all the best aspects of all other
f ‘made n
ro No
yl
or
games’ (Lewis 1994; Ultimate p Players Association 1988).
t t io
u
&ThereF
are a number
c i s of connected identifications that f oare suggested tbyr the
r s
ib
quote abover aandn the Spirit of the Game, which include self-regulation, d i rational-
Ta ity, and an entrepreneurial spirit. o f sSpirit– clause
oThe N in the rules suggests that the n
yl r o aggressive but fair, willing io
or subject of Ultimate Frisbee p is intended to be rational, t u t
to&negotiate,
F r a have i sequal respect for all concerned, tof accept or d t rmayib
n c an that s
i they
Ta have made an error and to accedeotofasrule – structure.
yl Spirit of the Game as used
p
r oby Ultimate players N o is arguably founded on the
i on
or underlying assumptions of rational thought and universal t good will. This philoso- u t
& i fo ib
F r easily
phy could c
a n be construed as a re-enactment of the Enlightenment s t r of
r d i project
Ta ofs – N n
yl ro o io
or p t u t
& F c i s fo
r t r ib
ran di s
Ta o ofs – N n
yl r o io
or p t t
is fo bu
& tri
Ta ofs No n
yl ro io
or p t u t
& F c i s fo
r t r ib
ran dis
can play this game’ 187
Ta o o f s –‘Anyone N n
yl r o io
o the modern Western world p (Dyer 1997). The premise tof Euro-Western science t
rand&knowledge is that humans s f ospecific nature bu
Franci are capable of identifying the r d i s t rofi
the world. There is supposed to be aoone sto one correlation between the objects
Ta
yl of human perception and ther categorieso f (or–symbols) N o that we apply to those on
o p t t i
robjects. This would include s the meaning of ‘fair play’ in sport f oas an object con- u
& i ib
structed F a n cbeings. Theoretically, humans are supposed
by rhuman i s t rof
rto bedcapable
Ta identifying and pinning down theoexact s – and causality of human action.
o f meaning n
r No
yl
o Once the meaning of an object p or relation is identified t it is presupposed to be t io
rconsistent u
& F across space c i s time (Seidman 1994). In this case,
and f othere is an (unre-
r t r ib
r a n that the Spirit of the Game is a predefined set of
alistic) assumption i s
d meanings
Ta o ofs – N n
yl that everyone agrees upon in rdifferent places and different o times. One of the io
o p t self even b u t
rclear messages in the rules s is that one is supposed to call a foul
f o on ones
& person
if the F r who
a nwas c ifouled does not (i.e. be fully self-regulating). r 9distri
s – is to see the Spirit of the Game,
Ta Another, perhaps a more revealing
r o o fapproach N n
yl
o in Foucault’s (1995) terms, as p a panoptic mechanismooft power. It works to con- t io
rstruct formi ofs moral control and thereby, a broadf form bu
& a pervasive
F r a n c o r of d i s tri
behavioural
Ta regulation (Harvey and Rail 1995). Players f s awareness
– N of this regulatory device
serves to define and constrain rtheir o obehaviour by internalising ‘the gaze’ of the n
yl
o p o
t t io
runseen ‘Spirit’ in the same way that Foucault’s (1995) prisoners reacted to their
s f o widespread tand bu
& guards
unseen F r ainnthe c icentre of the Panopticon (prison). The r dis ri
s
Ta
yl
ongoing discussions over the definition
r o o f of the– ‘Spirit
N oof the Game’ serve as the on
o ‘regulatory mechanisms’ (Foucaultp 1995) through which t players actively partici- t i
rpate&in their own regulation.
i s There is no agreed upon definition f o of the Spirit rofi b u
the Game, F but n cis a pervasive sense that one should play by it. The
r athere r Spirit t
d i sof the
Ta o fs – N
yl Game is the Police inside Ultimate
p
o
r players’ heads. o i on
o are supposed to discuss infractions of the rules,t which can include ask- t
r Players s ffrom ib
u
ing &otherF players
ran for
c iclarification. This is very different o r other
dis t r
sporting
Ta environments, where a referee orojudge s –all decisions and there is virtually
o f makes n
N
r or affecting a decision.
yl
o
no possibility of players changing
p o
t Thus, in mainstream t io
rsport
& decision-making power
i s is removed from the control of fthe athletes from thei b u
F r n c o r d i splayers tr
outset of play a(Collwell 2000). This is a crucial difference as Ultimate
Ta o f s –
yl empower themselves with the right
p
r o of ‘making their N own
o calls’. i on
o t t
r The& to
Spirit of the Game clearly has power as both a symbol
s among equals. Nevertheless, there
and a structure and
f ois an implicit hier- i bu
appears signify
Franc a i
relation r dis t r
Ta archy in Ultimate, as in most sports,
o o f swhich– isN similar to that of modern n
yl Euro-Western patriarchal capitalist r colonialism (e.g. team o captain, assigned posi- io
o p t u t
rtions,
& rules and committees).
s Part of this structure is the obeying
f o of orders tand ib
F r ‘one’s c i r
a n betters’ that signifies a deferral to ‘survival of thedfittest’ s
i ide- r
obedience to
Ta s – identity formation was intended
o fcolonial n
ology. Walvin (1987) argues that r othis N
yl
o to illustrate masculine, British
o those who lead in sport
p (racial) superiority. Thus, t t io
rwere&the embodiment ofsa classed, gendered and racially superior f o identity. t r i b u
Franci r dis
Ta The Spirit of the Game is a guideoused f sby players
– to organise a similarly supe-
yl r o embodimentN ofo the Spirit of the Game
rior identification. Ultimate players’
p i on
o t social difference. b u
t
rseems
&
to represent a desire s for moral purity and the negationf of i
UltimateFasksr aplayersc i
n to abide by ‘the highest standards of o fairr play’, s t ris
d iwhich
Ta ofs – N n
yl ro o io
o p t t
r & s fo bu
Franci r distri
Ta ofs – N n
yl ro o io
o p t t
r &
is fo bu
tri
Ta ofs No n
yl ro io
or p t u t
& F c i s fo
r t r ib
ran
188 Andrew Thornton
dis
Ta ofs – N
yl r o o on
or p
similar to other sporting ideologies of the past and thet present. However, notions u t i
s difference in attitude, ability, access f o and commitment b
of&‘fairFplay’ tend cto iignore
ran r distri
Ta to an activity. What is different isothat f sUltimate
– Nassumes that everyone can and
yl will abide by the Spirit of the
p
r oGame because there iso no question of difference from i on
or the outset. ‘We’ are among t
equals here and a ‘true sporting gentleman’ wouldb u
t
& i s f ri
never F cheat n c or question their judgment! It is not inotherSpirit
r aanother s tGame.
d ofi the
Ta The ideal subject of Ultimate o o f s – N a referee, a team player, and a n
yl r is a judge and jury, o ideals as they lie in con- io
or leader, all at once. No onepcould possibly embody these t t
u
& F relations
tradictory
c ofspower that imply incompatible positions
i f o in a hierarchy
r t r iofb
authority.r a n di s
Ta o ofs – N n
yl r o io
or p t t
Ambivalence in thes play: ‘laying out’ fo bu
& F
ranci r distri
Ta It is the responsibility of all o f s to avoid
players – Ncontact in every way possible.
yl p
ro (Ultimate o Players Association 2002b) i on
or t t
s fo bu
& F
r a n c i r d i s tri
Guys are not as intimidated ...they
Ta o f s dive – N for the disc. Guys catch better
n
yl because of football. ro o io
or p t (Lucy/Interview) u t
& F i s fo ib
ran c r distr
Ta As noted earlier, ‘Laying out’ and f s ho’
o o‘Going – areN phrases used to describe a par-
yl ticular action and way of playing p
r the sport of Ultimateo frisbee. ‘Going ho’ is short i on
or t t
for
& ‘going horizontal’i sand is synonymous with ‘laying out’: f odiving headfirst rand
i bu
F r one’s
extending c fully to catch a ‘disc’ or knock it down. To
a n body r ‘lay t
i s is con-
d out’,
Ta o fs – N
yl sidered by many Ultimate players
p
r o to be a sign of one’s
o ‘Ultimate commitment’ to i on
or the sport and team. It is also a spectacular and difficult t athletic feat to perform u t
& observe.
and F r a Despite c i sthe fact that the rules state that players
f o are to ‘avoid
r d i s t rcon- ib
n
Ta tact at all costs’, the lay out iso only s –
o f accomplished
yl N oby making contact with the
r meanings that Ultimate on
or
ground.10 Laying out andp the
t players attach to it is u t i
another
& F example cof ithe s ambivalence that structures identities f o in this community, b
ambivalence r a that
n goes beyond sport and the Spirit of the Game. r distri
Ta ofs – N
yl p
ro o i on
or AT: Are there similar problems for men and women t in learning the game? u t
s fo b
& F
ranc i r distri
Ta Yes, but they’re not gender specifico f s problems.
– N One of the reasons I like it so n
yl much is that it is something r o you can do competitively
o in a mixed setting. io
or p t u t
& Unlike
F
football, itswould be more difficult to have a competitive
c i fo
r
game. Ultimate
s t r ib
skills rareanot
n gender specific which makes it easier to have a competitive d i game.
Ta o ofs – N (Frank/Interview) n
yl r o io
or p t t
s in Frank’s comments here and his f ocomments referred bu
& Fis an inconsistency
There
ranci r d i s t r ito
Ta earlier (see page 185). His comments ofs point–to ambivalence about gender. Frank
yl concedes (earlier) that it should
p
r onot be surprising N o women layout, but he then
to see i on
or states that men and women could not play (American) t football together. He says u t
& F r awould
that women c i s
n not be able to handle the physical contact
fo rib
d i s at ‘skill’
rof football,
Ta ofs – N n
yl ro o io
or p t u t
& F c i s fo
r t r ib
ran di s
Ta o ofs – N n
yl r o io
or p t t
is fo bu
& tri
Ta ofs No n
yl ro io
or p t u t
& F c i s fo
r t r ib
ran dis
can play this game’ 189
Ta o o f s –‘Anyone N n
yl r o Frank’s interpretation for io
o p So while it is okay in
not required or desired in Ultimate. t t
rwomen s f o players. When bu
& to F play c i they are rejected as possible football
r a Ultimate,
n r distri
Ta examined together, these two statements o f sare – powerful exemplars of the ambiva-
yl r o Frank’s statement
lent desires within Ultimate identity.
p
N o is significant because it is
i on
o t t
ralso,&I suggest, a racial ands class coding due to the association f o of contact sports, bu
F r afootball,
like American i
n c with black and working-class bodies (Messner r d1991; tri
i s Cole
Ta and Andrews 1996). The association ofs – N n
yl r o of the working-class and blackness with the
o (Holmlund 1994; Dyer io
o body and not the mind haspa broad cultural resonance t t
r1997; u
& Fleming Bys de-emphasising the body as the site f oof physical and ori b
F r a2001). c i r di s t r
Ta social dominancenUltimate players are o emphasising
f s – Nskill and intellect, and in their
r o n
yl
o
own terms ‘Spirit’. Thus the feminisation
p
of Ultimate, o
something Frank’s ‘wife can
t t io
rdo’,&elides non-physicality with femininity and middle-class whiteness. If we apply b u
a binary F i s dimension it would seem that Ultimate
r atonthec racial
logic
fo
istr
r isdsomething i
s – men can do, too!
Ta
yl r o o f white
that non-physically aggressive middle-class N on
o Going ho is an embodied p knowledge of one’s limitsoand t then testing those lim- t i
rits. & s f o for recognition’ bu
Desire, Butler has isuggested
F r a n c
is ‘in some sense always a desire
r d i s tri
(1992: 89). The recognition of others and
Ta o f sself –formsNa community, and thus desire n
yl ro
forms the boundaries of that community. Desire is always
o related to difference in io
o p t t
rthe&sense that what is desired
s also simultaneously constructs and suppresses what
f o constructed ib
u
F (Hall
is detested ran c
1990). i Thus what is by implication, and by action,r di s t r
as
Ta detestable in Ultimate is overt physical s –and aggression. However, Ultimate
o fcontact
yl o N
players seem to demand that pther act of ‘laying out’ be celebrated,
o yet overtly reject i on
o t t
rthose& other s
sporting embodiments
i that are defined preciselyf by
o physical violencer i bu
such as boxing, nc
F r a American football or ice r black t
d i sbodies
Ta o f shockey.
– Working-class and
yl practically and symbolically populate
p
r o these sports. N o i on
o t t
r Laying out is s a signifier of ‘going all out’, one’s commitment
& F one’scbody’ s which are central to dominant bodily
to the game and
f o ideals of main- ib
u
to ‘sacrificing
ran i r dis t r
Ta stream sport. The desire for physical o f s – of NUltimate’s athletic legitimacy is
o evidence n
yl further established by the way r o io
o p in which bruises and scrapes t are shown and talked t
rabout& onFa regular basis. i sThese marks are ‘badges of honour’f among all Ultimatei b u
r n c o r
a physical contact is openly rejected the markers of physical tr
d i s con-
players. Though
Ta f s –
yl tact or injury are celebratedr (as o odocumented N in other lifestyle sports, see
o on
o p
1). Knee braces and surgery scars are a regularttopic of conversation (I t i
rChapter
& know smy own knee operated on due to fano Ultimate injury). i bu
should Franc I have i
had r dis t r
Ta One of the regular prizes sometimes o
o f sout –at tournaments
given
N is for ‘worst injury’. n
yl It appears as though the abject r o io
o p category of direct physical t
aggression is a neces-
u t
rsary&part of the formation s of the Ultimate identities. Not able f o to knock people ib
F ra n c i r s t
d i aggres-r
down, wrestle or punch, ‘laying out’ recuperates vestiges of extreme physical
Ta s too
o fthey – areN‘real athletes’. Other forms of n
sion and reassures Ultimate players r o that
yl
o athletic prowess are admired,plike running speed and jumping
o
t ability, but the most t io
rpraise
& is Freserved for i s out’. Certainly, no one is given f othe same typet rori b u
r a n c ‘laying r dis
Ta amount of recognition for being ableotof catch, s –which is definitely more important
yl than the occasional spectacularrdive
p
N o 11 It is in this celebration
o in terms of winning.
i on
o t t
rof ‘laying out,’ Ultimatesplayers preferred image of themselves, f owhere we cant see bu
& c i
F r a ofn a series of points of difference.
the intersection r dis ri
Ta ofs – N n
yl ro o io
o p t t
r & s fo bu
Franci r distri
Ta ofs – N n
yl ro o io
o p t t
r &
is fo bu
tri
Ta ofs No n
yl ro io
or p t u t
& F c i s fo
r t r ib
ran
190 Andrew Thornton
dis
Ta o ofs – N n
yl r o football!’ on plays where io
or p
I heard it regularly repeated, ‘This is not [American] t u t
& F made contact s f o than one player ib
someone
r a n c i with another player. I also had more r d i s t r say
Ta to me, ‘Oh sorry, I’m used to playing o f s[ice] –hockey’, after they had run into me.
yl These statements are crucialrtoothe constructionNof oUltimate’s difference to other
p i on
or sporting identities. Ultimate players have a generalt disdain u t
& i s f o for overt physical ib
contactF and nc
r aAmerican football in general. The rules on contact r also i s t rcon-
d highly
Ta strain potential bodily harmo too everyone f s – concerned.
No Some of my female n
yl r io
or team-mates have specifically p identified the ‘non-contact’ t rules of Ultimate as t
& ofFthe most important
one i s reasons that they were attracted f oto the sport: t r i b u
ran c r dis
Ta o f s – n
The physical contact inr ao game might cause N owomen to shy way from the
yl
or p t t io
game, unless they are somewhat used to it. Maybe all-women’s ultimateb u
& would
a n cmore
F r attract i s players. Some women would neverf play o ra sport s ta rman
d iwith
i
Ta ofs – N
on the same field without a referee.
yl p
ro o
(Lucy/Interview) [emphasis added] i on
or t t
s fo bu
& F
r a n c i r d i s tri
I take this philosophy and practice off non-contact
Ta o s – N to be fairly unique and central
n
yl to understanding the game and r oplayers of Ultimate. 12
o defines an identity that is
It
io
or p t
productive of different bodies and relations to one’s body and the bodies of oth- u t
& within
ers F r and
s f
c i sport. The important aspect of thisodifference
a nbeyond r d i sas tI haverib
Ta shown is how it relates to common o o orfs – Nsporting ideals.
dominant
yl Yet, ultimate embodiment r o
p is also clearly about exhibiting physical dominance i on
or t t
over
& anF Other. Within i s the play of the game the forceful occupation
fo of spacerandi bu
a n cothers is prominent. The exemplary act of ‘Going
aggressionr against r d ho’ t
i s is about
Ta o fs – N
yl mastery of the individual body
p
o
r (another side of discipline),
o which reveals the indi-
i on
or vidual body to be enmeshed in relations of power and domination t with other bodies. u t
& Fis a sense that i sas an ‘Ultimate player’ can control my f obody so well that ib
There ran c I r d i s t rI do
Ta not need to knock someone down s to– accomplish my objectives. This con-
oin forder n
r o yet deadly, control No
yl
or
ception evokes the arms length, p processes of modern capitalist
t t io
u
governance
& F and military c i s organisations (e.g. ‘surgical strikes’foro‘collateral damage’
r t r iinb
r n
a of American military language). The central point here
the double-speak i s
d is that one
s
Ta
yl o o f on–theNbodies
can and does assert force andr dominance
o of others without placing on
or p
one’s own body in direct physical jeopardy. There is some t danger in Ultimate of u t i
s in ‘laying out’, but it is of a fairly limited
f o type. b
& F injury to coneself
physical ran i r distri
s –
Ta o f non-contact
There is a progressive value inothe
r players N onature of the game, however, n
yl
or
the emphasis that Ultimate p place on showing
t
off scrapes and bruises,
t io
seems to serve as a reminder that this is a ‘real’ (manly) sport
f o where one does get u
& F c i s
r t r ib
r a nplayers are not ‘hard’, but neither are they ‘soft’! d i
hurt: Ultimate s
Ta ofs – N n
yl ro o io
or p t t
Theoretical reflections s fo bu
& F
ranci r distri
Ta There is a deep ambivalence that f s in
o resides – Ultimate players’ images, talk and
yl behaviour. This ambivalencer isoexpressed in the rejection
p
No of overt physical con- i on
or tact in Ultimate and the t via the ‘Spirit ofb u
t
& i s desire to keep the flow going in fgames i
F r aItnis also the case that physical prowess andodominance
the Game’. c r d i s are t rstill
Ta ofs – N n
yl ro o io
or p t u t
& F c i s fo
r t r ib
ran di s
Ta o ofs – N n
yl r o io
or p t t
is fo bu
& tri
Ta ofs No n
yl ro io
or p t u t
& F c i s fo
r t r ib
ran dis
can play this game’ 191
Ta o o f s –‘Anyone N n
yl r o contact. The readings io
o encouraged, but is obscured pby the emphasis on avoiding t u t
rof ‘going
& Fho’ that come s f
r a n c i from my informants show that theoactr is dalways i rib
s tread
Ta through the normative lens of aggressiveo f ssporting
– masculine physicality of con-
yl tact sports which are also coded
p
r oas working-classNando black (Carrington 1998; i on
o t the social and cultural t
rDyer 1997). This issue deserves
s much more attention in fo bu
& F r athan
study of sport i
n Ichave been able to provide here. r distri
Ta Lucy’s statement, ‘Women tend ofs – n
yl r o to shy away fromNlaying out’, represents a gen-
io
o p
dered reading of athletic bodies. However, women oand t men who ‘go ho’ are t
raccorded u
& Fthe highestc praise
i s for their physical abilities. Thus fthe
o most extremet act
r r ib
r a worthy
possible is also n of the most opraise. di s
Ta o f s Therefore,
– N Ultimate players talk and n
yl rules suppress physical aggression,r but then in the finalo analysis, celebrate it. io
o p t
abject qualitiessof physicality and physical violence associated with b u t
r The& sports f i
‘other’ n c ias the most desired ways of being inoUltimate
F r areturns str
r d i culture.
Ta Richard Dyer (1997), Stuart Hall f s and
o o(1990) – Frantz
N o Fanon (1967) have all
yl shown us that the demonisation
r
p of physicality and aggression are the foundations i on
o t t
rof white s heterosexual identification. Dominant
f o (white) mascu- bu
& Fmale, bourgeois,
r a n c i r d i s tri
Ta line identities rest on the repression off physicality
s – and the assertion of spiritual
o oGame, the
purity/superiority. The Spirit ofr the No
non-contact rules and the cele- n
yl
o p t t io
rbration of ‘going ho’ signify a circle back to the knot of anxiety that founds
& F masculine s fo ib
u
Euro-Western ran c i sporting embodiments. r di s t r
Ta This knot of anxiety is manifested o f ins the– wayNthe game is played and the
yl ambiguous relation to physical r o
p aggression in Ultimate. o It may be a different i on
o t t
rsporting
& Factivity butcthe i sdesire for competitive individualismf oand self-autonomy r i bu
is what seemsr aton drive the players. The desire to continue torresurrect t
d i sfailed
Ta o fs – N
yl p
o
(colonial) modernist figures of rthe ‘good sport’, like those
o that are evoked by the i on
o t t
ridealistic versions of the Spirit of the Game, are perpetuated
& It Fis at the cmoments fo
in Ultimate cul-
ib
u
ture. ran i of indecision between play and r pleasure,
dis t r
and
Ta dominance and competition that o f s –masculinities’
o‘ultimate N (Thornton 1998) n
yl might be seen as a sign of the r o io
o p struggle between the modern
t and the postmodern t
r(Lyotard
& F1986; Seidman i s1994). The fear of ambiguity is a fcornerstone of mod-i b u
r n c o r i str
d players’
ernist science,a knowledge and identity (McRobbie 1994). Ultimate
Ta o f s –
yl identifications express a profound
p
r ouncertainty: HowN much
o or how far can we go i on
o t Ultimate looks like t
rwith&broad inclusion, non-violence and competition before
scould be more incisive to argue thatf o players are more i bu
every other
Francsport? Or iit r dis t r
Ta concerned with how far they can go
o f s Ultimate
o before – N is not considered a ‘real’ n
yl (masculine) sport. Frank’s comment r o
above about football and ‘playing a game io
o p t u t
rwith&his wife’ are informing
s here. Thus, Ultimate is centrally f o concerned with ib
F c i r s
r aitnis to be: a body, to be masculine or feminine, to be dspiritual,
i t r
how and what to
Ta be an athlete. o ofs – N n
yl r o io
o p and meanings of Ultimate
I contend that the play, rules, t represent a broader t
rcultural
is f o dominant groups bu
& formation
F r a n of c identity and difference. In a world where r distri
Ta are claiming that social regulation has s –down and social difference has run
o fbroken
yl amok, difference and heterogeneity
p
r o threaten disorderN o(For a review of conserva-
i on
o t In Ultimate, this fear t
rtive&fears see Fiske 1993;sGrossberg 1992; Marqusee 2001). fo bu
F r ina the
is expressed c i r d i sgender
n practices of insisting on collective decision-making, tri
Ta ofs – N n
yl ro o io
o p t t
r & s fo bu
Franci r distri
Ta ofs – N n
yl ro o io
o p t t
r &
is fo bu
tri
Ta ofs No n
yl ro io
or p t u t
& F c i s fo
r t r ib
ran
192 Andrew Thornton
dis
Ta ofs – N
yl r o o on
or egalitarianism and constrainedp competitiveness. However, t in practice women are u t i
& Fexcluded,cexcept s when they conform to masculinist ib
f o standards. It tisralso
largely
ran i r dis
Ta the case that mainstream competitive ofs ideals–and structures are firmly entrenched
yl ro
in this culture, and decision-making
p tends to beNinothe hands of a small group of i on
or individuals. Many female t drive andb u
t
s players express every bit as muchf competitive
& i
r a n c as many male players. However, it is theosubtle,
fear ofFfeminisation r dbut tri
i snonethe-
Ta less obvious negation and fear of ofs – N n
yl r o feminised characteristics (e.g., ‘slow play’, ‘weak
o boundary maintenance of io
or throws’, ‘fear of laying out’)p that delineates the t u t
& F identities.
Ultimate
c i s
Ultimate players are unable openly f oto embrace extreme
r t r ib
ran
physical aggression, as it is inconsistent
s
d itheir rejec-
Ta o o f s with – their
N
rules of play and
n
yl r
tion of dominant sporting embodiments. o io
or ‘Real’ players ‘lay out’
p t The fear of notb u t
s and don’t throw like ‘a beach bimbo’. fo
& Fseen as a ‘real’
being r a n c i sport I argue is most profoundly expressed r din ithe tri
s regula-
Ta tion of the boundaries of physical f s – Players
o oaggression. do not want be physically
yl r N
p a desire for physicalo dominance
violent, but they still express and experience i on
or t t
s f o is expressed bu
pleasure
& F throughc iphysical
r a n
exertion. This identification
r d i s t r iby
Ultimate players’ reservation of thef highest
Ta o s – praise for those who ‘go ho’. So in
N o concept of sporting mas- n
this way they are embracingraobroader, more common
yl
or p t t io
culinities in spite of their desire to maintain a distinction between themselves u
& the s f o working-class ib
and r a n c i images of physicality associated with
F stereotypical r d i s t rand
s –
Ta
yl
black identified sports.
r oof No on
or The corruption and duplicity
p of athletes have disrupted
t and unsettled mod- t i
ernist
& Fnotions ofc‘the i s good sport’ (Andrews 1996). Ultimate fo was formed r inb u
i
n of vicious competition and greedy athletesr(Lewis
response rto amodels
t
s It is
d i1994).
Ta o fs – N
yl arguable that Ultimate players
p
o
r came along to reassert o the possibility of ‘fair play’ i on
or and ‘good sportsmanship’. Ultimate players’ rules and t slogan of ‘Spirit of the u t
s tie to this sense of nostalgia for af (non-existent) b
& Fsuggests a cstrong
Game’ ran i o r d i s mythic tri
s Ultimate
Ta oof
time of untainted free play. Long-term – N players and organisers con- n
yl stantly invoke ‘the Sixties’pasr a reference point for their
o origins and they pine for t io
or t u
the
& supposedly
F
lost idealism
c i s of those days. Many other players
f o reject muchtofrthis
r ib
r
idealism and n
a are openly more interested in winning and dominating d i s (Lewis
s –
Ta
yl 1994). Those days, I wouldr argue, o o f were only Ntheo glory days for middle-class on
or p
straight white men, or more accurately, they were onet of the last points at which u t i
s fo b
& an
such F identity c i be assumed without question.
r a n could r distri
Ta ofs – N n
yl ro o io
or Conclusion: an unfinished p project? t u t
& F c i s fo
r t r ib
Ultimater players
a n claim to be developing and living new formsd of s
i (gender)
Ta oDo f sthese– new
yl embodiment and identification. r o N identities
p race, class, and bodyo dominance?
express or exhibit on
or changes in existing gender, t Butler (1990) u t i
i s situationality and repetition of parodies
fo b
& Fthat it is in
argues
r a n c the r ofdthe t r iof
i sideals
Ta gender (and identity) that possible s –
o ftransformation exists. Ultimate players play
yl around with sporting embodiment.
p
ro N o parody to be transforma-
However, for any i on
or t t
tive it must, ‘produces a set of meanings that the structures
& i f o they appeart tor ibeb u
copyingF would c
r a n preclude’ (Butler 1992: 87). Ultimate largely r failsd itosproduce
Ta o ofs – N n
yl r o io
or p t u t
& F c i s fo
r t r ib
ran di s
Ta o ofs – N n
yl r o io
or p t t
is fo bu
& tri
Ta ofs No n
yl ro io
or p t u t
& F c i s fo
r t r ib
ran dis
can play this game’ 193
Ta o o f s –‘Anyone N n
yl r o structures, ideals and io
o practices and meanings that p are beyond the dominant t u t
rpractices
& Fof existingcsports. s Generally, in Ultimate, when identities fo ib
ran i r darei marked
str
Ta o f s – them from the unnamed general
or signified it is for purposes of differentiating
yl reference group of heterosexual,
p
r owhite able-bodiedNmales. o Ultimate frisbee rep- i on
o an interesting, ifs unrealised, potential for the tsubversion of dominant b u
t
rresents f
& i
r a n cDespite
sporting Fidentities. Ultimate players’ best intentionsotheir r d own tri
i sperfor-
Ta mances may not be so much politically s –
o f transformative n
ro N or progressive so much as
yl
o the production of a new spacepin which to play aroundowithin t established bound- t io
raries&of identity. s fo bu
Franci r distri
s –
Ta
r oof No n
yl
o Notes p t t io
r & s f o ‘Ultimate’ when bu
1 Throughout
F r athenrest c iof the chapter I will use the abbreviated term r distri
Ta referring to Ultimate frisbee. This isocommonf s –practice among Ultimate players who
yl generally only use the full phrase
p
N otalking to cultural outsiders.
r o‘Ultimate frisbee’ when i on
o t t
r 2 For more detail on the history, rules and current state of Ultimate
s <http://www.upa.org/> or World fFlying
visit the Ultimate
bu
& FAssociationc website
Players
r a n i o r d i s tri
Disc Federation
<http://www.wfdf.org>
Ta o f s – N people play on a ‘regular’ basis n
yl 3 Disc golf sources claim that world r owide up to 500,000 o Professional Gold Disc io
o and that there are approximatelyp 6000 members of the t u t
r Association.
& F Aboutc90i per s cent of the disc golf courses as of thefyear 2000 were located ib
o r
r a n States. See http://discology.co.uk/pdf/DiscGolfDemographics.pdf di s t r
in the United
Ta (accessed November 18, 2003) o o f s – N
yl 4 The Spirit of the Game is apvery r important aspect of theo culture and I discuss it else- i on
o t t
r where
& in more detail (Thornton
i s 1998). fo r i bu
5 The Vancouver c
F r a n Ultimate League claims to be the largest in the r world. t
d i sGo to:
Ta www.vul.bc.ca ofs – N
yl 6 These are little plastics cups p that
o
r fit inside of a sportsobra to help protect women’s i on
o t u t
r breasts while playing.
& so-called sof the 1960s went onto become the ‘yuppies’
fo ib
7 The F r a ‘hippies’
n c i r and
dis t r
‘entrepre-
Ta o f s –theirN‘alternative’ experiences in the
neurs’ of the 1980s. Essentially commodifying
o n
form of art, poetry and film, notr to mention taking up positions
yl
o p characterisation of hippies
the alterity or anti-establishment
o
t
in Universities. Thus,
is suspect. t io
r 8 However, u
& F there arec now i s pools of ‘official observers’ for some high
f o level competitions
r t r ib
r
like the World n
a Championships and UPA Nationals. To this point though d i s these
Ta s –
o f judgments
yl ‘observers’ can only be ‘invited’r to
p
omake N boundary
on
o calls or clarifications
i on
o of rules. t t
r 9 This
& raises questions such
i s as: could we ever be so fully consciousf that
o we could do that?r i bu
How do F wera n c for difference and interpretation inside such a world?
account r dIsithe t
s point
Ta that one calls a foul or that one should
o f s making
o avoid – Nan infraction? n
yl 10 If pushed, one might argue that r o io
o p laying out is a foul on oneself!t u t
r11 Even
& aFcursory review of
s the many Ultimate websites and newsletters
f o will revealt the ib
prominence ran of c
imagesi of players ‘laying out’ for the disc. Follow the r di
various s r
hyperlinks
Ta to see the many images of layingoout s –Flying Disc Federation home page at
oonf World n
r N
yl
o
http://www.wfdf.org
p o
t t io
r12 Other sports such as Korfball and Netball have similar rules on contact. However, b u
& Fin these sports s f i
players r a n c i are highly constrained to specific zones ofo play r and s t ris
d iNetball
Ta f
not, as far as I know, a ‘mixed’/’co’ed’osport. sThus–there is a much larger chance of play-
yl ers running into each other on rinoan Ultimate game.N o
p i on
o t t
r & s fo bu
Fran c i r distri
Ta ofs – N n
yl ro o io
o p t t
r & s fo bu
Franci r distri
Ta ofs – N n
yl ro o io
o p t t
r &
is fo bu
tri
Ta ofs No n
yl ro io
or p t u t
& F c i s fo
r t r ib
ran
194 Andrew Thornton
dis
Ta o ofs – N n
yl r o io
or References p t t
i s fact(s) of Michael Jordan’s blackness: fo bu
& F D. (1996)
Andrews, r a n c ‘The tri
r d i sa floating
Excavating
Ta o f s 13(2):– 125–58.
on
racial signifier’, Sociology of Sport
o Journal, No
yl r
Beal, B. (1995) ‘Disqualifyingp the official: Exploring social resistance through the subcul- i
or t t
&tureFof skateboarding’, s Sociology of Sport Journal, 12(3): 252–67.
f bu
Bhabha, H. r a(1986) i
n c ‘The Other Question’ in Literature, Politicso and r Theory, tri
d i s London:
s –
Ta
yl
Metheun.
r oof No on
or Birrell, S. and Cole, C. (eds) p (1994) Women, Sport, and tCulture, Champaign: Human u t i
&Kinetics. s fo
c i Trouble: Feminist Subversions of Identity, New ib
Butler,F r a nGender
J. (1990) istr
rYork:dRoutledge
Ta ofs – N n
yl Butler, J. (1992) ‘The body you r owant: Liz Kotz Interviews
o Judith Butler’, Artforum,
io
or (November): 82–9. p t t
s on Strong: Gender and Sexuality in Twentieth-Century
fo bu
& F
Cahn,
r a n ci
S. K. (1994) Coming
r d i s tri
Women’s
Ta Sport, Cambridge: Harvard University f Press.
s –
o (1995)
yl Canadian Ultimate Players Association
p
r o N oteam wins open division’, Spirit:
‘Women’s
i on
or The Sport of Ultimate in Canada, (Fall): 5. t u t
& F UltimatecPlayers i s Association (1996) ‘No more ductf tape’, o r Spirit: ib
Canadian
r a n d i s t r of
The Sport
Ta Ultimate in Canada, (Spring): 8. o f s –
ro and blackN
n
yl
or
Carrington, B. (1998) ‘Sport, masculinity
p
cultural
o resistance’, Journal of Sport
t t io
and Social Issues, 22 (3): 275–98. u
& Ultimate
City F r aNewsletter
c i s(1995) ‘From the editor: The numbers fgame.’o r 1 (Winter): t r
10. ib
n di s
Ta Cole, C. and Andrews, D. L. (1996)o‘Look…It f s –is NBA showtime: Visions of race in the
yl p
o
popular imaginary’, Cultural rStudies Annual, 1: 141–81.
N o i on
or Cole, C. and Hribar, A. (1995) ‘Celebrity feminism: Niket style: post-Fordism, physicalb u
t
&transcendence i s f o r i
F r a n and c consumer power’, Sociology of Sport Journal, 12(4): r 247–69.
dis t
Ta Collwell, S. (2000) ‘The ‘letter’ and f s‘spirit’:
o the – Football laws and refereeing in the
yl twenty-first century’, in p r o
J. Garland,
N
D. Malcolm and o M. Rowe (eds) The Future of i on
or t u t
Football: Challenges fors the Twenty-First Century, London: Frank f oCass.
& F c i r t r ib
Crossett, T.r (1990)
a n ‘Masculinity, sexuality and the development of early modern d i s sport’ in
Ta M. Messner and D. Sabo (eds) o o f sMen–and Nthe Gender Order: Critical Feminist
Sport, n
yl Perspectives, Champaign: p r Kinetics,
Human o io
or t u t
Derrida,
& F J. (1974) Positions,
c i s Chicago: University of Chicago Press. fo
r t r ib
r n
a Challenging the Men: The Social Biology of Female Sporting
Dyer, K. (1982) i s
d Achievement,
Ta ofs – N
yl
New York: University of Queensland.
Dyer, R. (1997) White, New York:
r o
p Routledge. o i on
or t t
Edwards,
& F H. (1970)cThe i sRevolt of the Black Athlete, New York: Thef oPress. r i bu
Edwards, H. ra n Sociology of Sport, Illinois: Irwin Dorsey Ltd. r d i s
(1973)
t
Ta ofs – n
yl Fanon, F. (1967) Black Skin, White r oMasks, (TranslatedNbyoCharles Lam Markmann). New io
or York: Grove Press, Inc. p t t
u
& F
Fausto-Sterling,
c i s Myths of Gender: Biological Theoriesf o
A. (1985) about Men and Women,
r t r ib
New York r aBasic
n Books. di s
Ta fs – N
o oLeague n
Fine, G. (1987) With The Boys:r Little Baseball and Preadolescent Culture, Chicago:
yl
or University of Chicago Press. p o
t t io
u
& F S. (2001)c ‘Racial
Fleming, i s science and South Asian and black f o physicality’ tin rBen
r dis ib
r a n
Carrington and Ian McDonald (eds)
Ta o f s ‘Race’,
– N Sport and British Society, London:
yl Routledge.
p
ro o i on
or Foucault, M. (1995) Discipline and Punish: The Birth of thet Prison, (Translation by Alan u t
i sVintage Books (Second Edition) fo b
&Sheridan)
F r aNew n cYork: r distri
Ta ofs – N n
yl ro o io
or p t u t
& F c i s fo
r t r ib
ran di s
Ta o ofs – N n
yl r o io
or p t t
is fo bu
& tri
Ta ofs No n
yl ro io
or p t u t
& F c i s fo
r t r ib
ran dis
can play this game’ 195
Ta o o f s –‘Anyone N n
yl r io
o Grossberg, L. (1992) We Gotta Get p Out of This Place: Popularo Conservatism
t and Postmodern
u t
r Culture,
& F New York:cRoutledge.
r a n is fo
r d i s t rib
Gruneau, R. (1983) Class, Sports and Social Development, Amherst: The University of
Ta ofs – N
yl Massachusetts.
p
r o o i on
o t t
rHall, M. (1996) Feminism and Sporting Bodies: Essays on Theory
& F Kinetics c i s fo
and Practice, Illinois:
bu
Human
r a n r distri
Hall, S. (1990) ‘Culture, identity and diaspora’
Ta o f s in J.–Rutherford (ed.) Identity, Community,
yl p
r o and Wishart. N o
Culture, Difference, London: Lawrence
i on
o t t
rHall,&S. (1997) ‘The spectacle of the “Other”’ in S. Hall (ed.) Representation: Cultural
s Practices, Sage, London fo ib
u
Representation
F r a and n c i
Signifying r di s t r
Ta Haman, A. (1994) ‘Coed Ultimate sweeps
o o fthesWest– Coast’,
N
Spirit: The Sport of Ultimate in
n
yl Canada, (August): 3–4. r o io
o p t t
rHargreaves, J. (1994) Sporting Females: Critical Issues in the History and Sociology of
s fo bu
& F Sports, London:
Women’s r a n c i Routledge. r distri
Ta Harvey, J. and Rail, G. (1995) ‘Body at work: o f sMichel – Foucault
N o inand the sociology of sport’,
yl Sociology of Sport Journal. Special
p
r oIssue: Sociology of Sport ‘la Francophonie’, 12(2): i on
o t t
r 164–79. s fo bu
& C.
Hilbert, Fran
(1997) c
‘Toughi enough and woman enough’, Journal r anddSocial
of Sport tri
i sIssues,
Ta 21(1)(February): 7–36. ofs – n
yl Holmlund, C. (1994) ‘Visible differencer o and flex appeal:NTheo body, sex, sexuality, and race io
o p t u t
r in& theFpumping iron films’,
s in Susan Birrell and Cheryl Cole (eds) f o Women, Sportt and ib
Culture, ran
Champaign: c iHuman Kinetics. r di s r
Ta o f sManual – and
on
Johnson, S. (1975) Frisbee: A Practitioner’s
o N Definitive Treatise, New York:
yl r o i
o Workman Publishing Company. p t t
rKidd,
& B. (1987) s masculinity’, in Michael Kaufman (ed.)
‘Sports iand f o Beyond Patriarchy: r i bu
F by
Chapters a noncPleasure, Power and Change, Toronto: Oxford University
r Men r d iPress.s t
Ta o f sSubculture
– Nand the Construction of Gender,
yl p
o
Klein, A. (1993) Little Big Men: Bodybuilding
r o i on
o New York: SUNY Press. t u t
rLenskyj,
& H. (1986) Out of s
Bounds: f o Women’s Press.
Women, Sport and Sexuality, Toronto: ib
F c i r is
r a n‘Sexuality and femininity in sport contexts: Issues and dalternatives’, t r
Lenskyj, H. (1994) s –
Ta oof
Journal of Sport and Social Issues,r (November): No
356–75. n
yl
o Lewis, S. (1994) ‘The Ultimatepsport’, Paper presented at The t Canadian Sociology and t io
r Anthropology
& F i
Sessions, sCanadians Learned Societies, June (Calgary,f o Alberta). t r i b u
r n c
Lind, L. (1992)a‘Spin out with the Ultimate cult’,
r d12–13.
is
Ta o f s EYE – Magazine, (6 August):
yl Lyotard, J. (1986) The Postmodern
p
r o Condition: A Report N o on Knowledge, Manchester:
i on
o t t
r Manchester
& F
University Press
s Identities, Societies, Civilizations, Cambridge:
fo i bu
Maguire, J. (1999) Global
ranc i sport: r disPolity r
Press.
t
Ta McDonald, M. and Andrews, D. (2001)o
o f s Jordan:
‘Michael – NCorporate sport and postmodern n
yl celebrityhood’ In Andrew, D. and r Jackson, S. (eds) Sporto Stars: The Cultural Politics of io
o p t u t
r Sporting Celebrity, London: Routledge.
& F A. (1994)cPostmodernism s f oLondon. ib
McRobbie, ran i and Popular Culture, Routledge: r di s t r
Ta o o f s –Englishman’,
Marqusee, M. (2001) ‘In search of the unequivocal
N
in B. Carrington and I.
n
yl MacDonald (eds) ‘Race’, Sport rand British Society, London: o Routledge. io
o p t
M. (1991) Power at Play: Sports and the Problem of Masculinity, Beacon Press: b u
t
rMessner, s fo
& F
Boston. ranci r distri
Ta Miles, S. (1998). ‘McDonaldization and o f
the s
global– sports store: Construction consumer
yl meanings in a rationalized p r o In M. Alfino and
society.’
No
J. S. Caputo and R. Wynyard i on
o t t
r (eds), McDonaldizations Revisited: Critical Essays on Consumer f o Culture, London: bu
& Fran
Praeger. c i r distri
Ta ofs – N n
yl ro o io
o p t t
r & s fo bu
Franci r distri
Ta ofs – N n
yl ro o io
o p t t
r &
is fo bu
tri
Ta ofs No n
yl ro io
or p t u t
& F c i s fo
r t r ib
ran
196 Andrew Thornton
dis
Ta o ofs – N n
yl r o io
or p and Others, Chicago: Aldine.
Polsky, N. (1967) Hustlers, Beats t u t
& F
Price, J. (1994) ‘Women
r a n c i s in Ultimate: Looked off or not looking?’ f o Tour: The tOttawa
r d i s rib
Ultimate Review, Summer: 12.
Ta ofs – N
yl p
ro
Seidman, S. (1994) Contested Knowledge: Social Theory in the Postmodern Era, New York:
o i on
or Routledge. t t
& F J. (1993) c
Thomas, i
Doing sCritical Ethnography, Newbury Park: Sage f oPublications. t r i b u
r a n r dis
Thornton, A. (1998) ‘Ultimate masculinities:
Ta o f s An – ethnography of power and social differ-
yl o N
ence in Sport’, unpublished rPhD thesis, University ofoToronto.
p i on
or t
Ultimate Players Association (1988) ‘UPA Newsletter, 20th Anniversary Issue’, u t
s fo b
&(September) c i Springs, Colorado.
F r a nColorado r distri
Ta Ultimate Players Association (1992)o UPAf sNewsletter,
– 12 (5) (November).
n
yl r o Homepage ofNthe
Ultimate Players Association (2002a) o Ultimate Players Association io
or p
available online http://www.upa.org/ (accessed 21 March 2002).t u t
& F Players Association
Ultimate ranci
s fo
(2002b) The Rules of Ultimate Frisbee. rib
d i s tonline
r Available
Ta o f s –(accessed
http://www.upa.org/ultimate/rules/rules.shtml 20 January 2002).
yl r o Comments posted
Ultimate Players Association (2002c)
p
N o by players on the Spirit of the i on
or Game. Available online: t
http:www.upa.org/ultimate/sotg/sotg.shtml (accessed 20b u
t
s fo
&January
Fran 2002). c i r distri
Ta Walvin, J. (1987) ‘Symbols of moral f s – Slavery,
osuperiority: N o sport and the changing world n
yl order, 1800–1940’ in J.A.pManganr o and J. Walvin (eds) Manliness and Morality: Middle- io
or t u t
&Class Masculinity in Britain
ci
s and America, 1880–1940, New York:
F rB.aandn Tomlinson,
f oSt. Martin’s Press.
rin sport? s t r ib
Wheaton, A. (1998) ‘The changing gender order di The case of
Ta ofs Issues,–22 (August):
on
windsurfing’, Journal of Sport and o Social N 252–274
yl r o domination, and empower- i
or p
Whitson, D. (1994) ‘The embodiment of gender: Discipline,t t
&ment’ s C. Cole (eds) Women, Sport and Culture,
in S. Birrell iand f o Champaign (Illinois):
r i bu
anc
F r Kinetics
Human r dis t
Ta World Flying Disc Federation o f s WFDF
o(2002) – N homepage. Available online: n
yl r io
or http://www.wfdf.org (Accessedp March 20, 2002). o t u t
Zagoria,
& F A. (1998)c‘Ultimatei s spreads from maplewood to thefworld’. o r
Available online:
t r ib
ran
http:www.upa.org/upa (accessed 21 Junes1998). dis
Ta o of – N n
yl r o io
or p t t
s fo bu
& F
ranci r distri
Ta ofs – N
yl p
ro o i on
or t t
& F i s fo r i bu
ranc r dis t
Ta o ofs – N n
yl r o io
or p t u t
& F c i s fo
r t r ib
ran di s
Ta o ofs – N n
yl r o io
or p t t
s fo bu
& F
ranci r distri
Ta ofs – N
yl p
ro o i on
or t t
s fo bu
& F
ran c i r distri
Ta ofs – N n
yl ro o io
or p t u t
& F c i s fo
r t r ib
ran di s
Ta o ofs – N n
yl r o io
or p t t
is fo bu
& tri