Moving away from the edgework paradigm, we encounter a perspective that is based upon one of the most rallied behind categories in modern social theory and research, namely gender. Here, theoretical perspectives look at the ways in which gendered individuals perform either dominant feminine or dominant masculine stereotypes to bolster their gendered self (Albert 1999; Donnelly 2004; Lupton 1999; Pringle 2005; Wheaton 2004; Young and White 1995). This research shows that risky behavior that champions courage in the face of danger and violence has more often than not been socially conceptualized as masculine domains, whereas as the less risky and safe domains of life have been seen as feminine in nature. For example, in a study analyzing the discourse of children around accidents and risk-taking by Judith Green, it was discovered that there is a striking difference between the ways that girls and boys conceptualize their relation-ships to risky situations (1997). As Green states concerning the findings of her study: “Girls and boys accounted for their activities in these discussions in rather different ways. Whereas the boys stressed the danger and risk involved, the girls stressed their responsibility for not only themselves, but for others as well. The comments boys made about risk taking were usually told in interaction with each other, as part of dramatic stories to illustrate the nature of their peer group activity. Although girls also talked about taking risks, the style of their stories was often somewhat different. Rather than stressing just the inherent excitement of taking the risk, the girls talked about secondary benefits of risk taking” (Green 1997: 468-469). Such a study shows that at an early age, males and females are socialized to understand their relationship to risk-taking in very different ways. The girls were beginning to distance themselves from risk, whereas the boys began to champion it as a sign of being masculine.
Although in the gendered performance perspective either taking risks or not taking risks is an individuals buttressing of their gender roles, it is also the case that through risk-taking men and women are able to transcend these taken for granted gender placements. For men, risk-taking is not only an opportunity to showcase masculine traits revolving around courage and bodily and emotional control, but it also opens up an arena where men can let go and release the very emotions that, as men, they are socialized to keep in check (Collison 1996). Therefore, maintaining the façade of masculinity while releasing the emotions that are held back by dominant conceptualizations of proper male behaviour. As for women, the potential contained in risk-taking in sport to challenge gender roles should be quite apparent (Gotfrit 1991; Hargreaves 1997). As Jennifer Hargreaves states in her piece
Women’s Boxing and Related Activities: Introducing Images and Meanings concerning women in the high-risk sport of boxing: “The body is the most important signifier of meanings and in the case of women and boxing and associated activities, these are constantly contested and are changing according to broader contexts of boxing discourse and gender relations of power” (Hargreaves 1997: 47). Women can transcend their gender roles through risk-taking by taking part in activities that are strongly conceptualized as masculine, such as boxing. A great example of this is the popular sporting world, as greater numbers of women are beginning to participate in traditionally coded male only sports, while at the same time creating more opportunities, both professional and amateur, to be involved in such activities.
Although many of the social conceptualizations concerning risk and gender discussed above are still in place and exerting considerable influence on how men and women choose to behave, it is nevertheless changing. As Lupton states: “While risk-taking has been most closely linked to the performance of dominant masculinities, and risk-avoidance is associated with dominant femininities, there is evidence of some shifts in these meanings” (Lupton 1999: 163). Women are now beginning to define themselves in relation to risk and taking on many of the risks that have traditionally been only the domain of men.
Not only have gender based theoretical outlooks structured research that has analyzed the gendered performative aspects of sport, others have understood the gender relations in sport as tied to larger mechanisms of masculine hegemony (Albert 1999; Lupton 1999; Pringle 2005; Wheaton 2004; Young and White 1995). Here sport reproduces the paternalistic structure of society within its core values, which helps to maintain male dominance not only within sport, but society at large. The values of violence, toughness, and risk-taking, which are highly aggressive and dominating ideologies, have been connected to the male identity structure and therefore help to maintain the male gender as dominant over the female. Through male participation in sports that value these gender-centered ideologies, men not only control the sporting sphere, but also the social gender sphere as well, perpetuating male gender dominance. As Young and White state in their piece
Sport, Physical Danger, and Injury: “[Feminist] work on sport and gender has begun to understand male tolerance of physical risk and injury as a constituting process that may enhance a particular brand of masculinization. For some, the cultural meaning of physical danger and living with injury resonate with larger ideological issues of gender legitimacy and power” (Young and White 1995: 45). This male sport ethos is so strong in sport that Young and White (1995) discovered that women who enter into male dominated sports tend to take on these more masculine traits revolving around violence, toughness, and risk-taking.
Although gender situated analyses of risk-taking are relevant and have shown how risking-taking can be connected to larger gender ideologies, it still remains that as these gender structures weaken, more women than ever are beginning to look for and interact with situations that are defined as risky (Albert 1999; Donnelly 2004; Young and White 1995). As Peter Donnelly states in his piece
Sport and Risk Culture: “Observed differences between male and females in risk-taking behaviour have made it far too easy to propose biology or socialisation as the cause. However, there are reasons to suspect that lack of opportunity might be a more adequate explanation, and one that again returns to social context. While women have been less involved in the safety and social control occupations (e.g. firefighting, military, police), there is no evidence that women have avoided these occupations when the opportunity has been available (e.g. during wartime, or during a time of increasing gender equity). Adolescent females appear to take risks involving substance abuse as often as males, and probably take far more sexual risks than males. And, while there are fewer women than men involved in high risk and high injury sports, the number of women participants is increasing significantly as opportunities are made, or become available” (Donnelly 2004: 38-39). It is recognized that women’s inability to participate in such activities has been created through the socially constructed and maintained ideologies of gender and the roles appropriate to both sexes, but with the shifting of these structures women are now allowed to express their desire to interact with risk. As big mountain skier Ingrid Backstrom states in
Steep: “This is what you dream about skiing. I just remember skiing out the bottom and it was so fast that it was just a blur, but it was one of the most incredible feelings” (Oenhaus 2008). In this quote, we find the falling of gender ideologies in relation to risk-taking as she explains a feeling and experience that is very similar to those experienced by men. Gender undoubtedly plays a role in society and the world of high-risk skiing as well, but when asking why people actively search for risk while bringing down the ideologies hiding our ontological and existential selves we find the same movement towards risk, however one is defined socially.
Bookmarks