Quest, 1982,34(2), 165-175
Sport, Ethnicity, and
Assimilation
Maria T. Allison
The "melting pot" theory suggests that prolonged interethnic contact leads to
the disappearance of ethnic and/or cultural differences in society. Eventually,
the argument holds, such contact between minorities and other subcultural
groups with the mainstream society leads, first, to the assimilation of, and, then,
to the disappearance of, ethnic distinctions. Sport has been perceived as an important mechanism in this process by which ethnic group members could be assimilated into mainstream society. However, recent anthropological work indicates that the melting-pot theory does not hold. Drawing from the works of several social scientists who have analyzed and are currently studying play forms
among several ethnic cultures within the United States, this article presents data
which challenge the tenability of the melting-pot theory. The data indicate that
adopting cultures within the United States transform the nature of typically
"American" sport forms t o fit their own cultural schema and that the value orientations of the ethnic minority student-athletes reflect the values of their mother culture.
Formerly seen as survivals from an earlier
age, to be treated variously with annoyance, toleration, or mild celebration, we
now have a growing sense that they (ethnic groups) may be forms of social life
that are capabIe of renewing and transforming themselves. As such, perhaps,
the hope of doing without ethnicity in a
society as its subgroups assimilate to the
majority may be as utopian and as questionable an enterprise as the hope of doing without social classes in a society.
(Glazer & Moynihan, 1975, p. 4)
The "melting-pot" theory popularized by social scientists during the 1950s
and still prevalent in society today suggests that prolonged interethnic contact
leads to the disappearance of ethnic
and/or cultural differences in society.
About the Author
Maria T.Allison is with the Department of
Physical Education, Health and Recreation
Studies at Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana.
Within the United States, for example, it
was assumed that prolonged contact between minorities and/or subcultural
groups (e.g., Asian-Americans, Blacks,
Hispanics, Native-Americans) with the
mainstream society led to the assimilation and, hence, eventual disappearance
of such ethnic distinctions (Gordon,
1964). Such assimilation meant that ethnic groups must adopt not only the general lifestyle of the mainstream society
but the behaviors, values, norms, customs, and language as well. When a
group failed to assimilate in toto and
maintained vestiges of ethnic identification, annoyance and criticism followed
(Glazer & Moynihan, 1975); such ethnic
groups were obviously resisting the inevitable melting-down of their cultural
heritage. Even schools took an active
role in attempting to assimilate ethnic
students into the mainstream (Bernier &
Davis, 1973; L e ~ b a 1973).
,
For example,
many schools in the Southwest did not
166
ALLISON
allow their Hispanic students to speak
Spanish while at school. Such steps were
based on the assumption that speaking
anything other than English would inhibit the education and/or assimilation
of such students into American society
(Leyba, 1973).
Sport, too, was believed to be an important mechanism by which ethnic
group members could be assimilated into mainstream society. Through participation in sport, ethnic group members
could be socialized into the value system
and structure of American society (Schafer, Note 1). Through sport, values such
as achievement and competitiveness
could be transferred to ethnic studentathletes so as to prepare them for participation in the core society. In general,
then, many institutions in society
worked to assimilate ethnic group members into the mainstream, and in so doing, implicitly assumed that such assimilation was natural and necessary for a
smoothly functioning society (Allison,
1979; Gordon, 1964).
Recent anthropological work, however, indicates that the melting-pot theory does not work; the processes of culture change, assimilation, cultural identification, and ethnicity are much more
complex than previously realized. The
anthropological research indicates that
ethnic distinctions have not disappeared.
Rather, data are accruing which suggest
that when ethnic groups come together,
ethnic boundaries are maintained and
fortified rather than destroyed (Barth,
1969). Thus, ethnic groups and their
concomitant cultural differences can be
said to be stable and persisting social
forms, rather than vestiges of the past.
In addition, such ethnic distinctions can
have important functions in society and
do not have to be perceived as negative,
primitive forms of identification
(Allison, 1979). Barth (1969) describes
the dynamic nature of ethnic group formation and maintenance:
One finds that stable, persisting, and often vitally important social relations are
maintained across such boundaries [ethnic], and are frequently based precisely on
the dichotomized ethnic statuses. In other
words, ethnic distinctions do not depend
on the absence of social interaction and
acceptance, but are quite to the contrary
often the very foundations on which embracing social systems are built. Interaction in such a social system does not lead
to its liquidation through change and acculturation; cultural differences can persist despite interethnic contact and interdependence. (p. 276)
If, as current anthropological data
suggest, ethnic/cultural boundaries are
maintained and fortified despite high
levels of interethnic contact, then our assumptions about the nature and role of
sport in such situations must also be reconsidered. Two main questions about
play, games, and sport emerge as groups
come together in such contact situations.
First, one must identify what happens to
the play forms themselves. For example,
are indigenous game forms changed or
eradicated when prolonged cultural contact occurs? And what happens to new
game forms adopted from the outside
culture(s)? Does a recipient culture
adopt a nonindigenous game in toto, or
are aspects of the game changed and
modified? In other words, in situations
of interethnic contact, what types of cultural exchange and cultural change occur in play, game, and sport forms
themselves?
A second question which must be addressed is to what extent are the members of either one or both cultures
changed by such contact? As indicated
previously, it is assumed that in the
United States, for example, members of
the ethnic minority cultures are assimilated and thus adopt the values, norms,
behaviors, and customs of the mainstream culture. In other words, to what
extent do members of ethnic groups
maintain their own cultural system,
SPORT, ETHNICITY, AND ASSIMILATION
and/or to what degree do they adopt the
system of the larger culture?
Drawing from the works of several social scientists who have analyzed and are
currently studying play forms among
several ethnic cultures within the United
States, data are presented which seriously challenge the tenability of the meltingpot theory. Specifically, these data indicate that adopting cultures within the
United States transform the nature of
typically "American" sport forms to fit
their own cultural schema and that the
value orientations of ethnic minority
student-athletes reflect the values of
their mother culture, rather than those
of the mainstream society. Finally, an alternate interpretation is presented which
might be used to understand the nature
of interethnic contact and which suggests new questions that should emerge
from such a perspective.
Play, Game, and Sport Forms:
Dynamic Transformations of
Culture
When cultural groups come in contact
with one another, many objects of culture are exchanged, including game
forms. Baseball, for example, has become a popular sport in Japan; soccer,
tennis, a n d basketball are played
throughout the world. Within the
United States, games such as basketball
and baseball have been adopted and
played by most ethnic groups as well.
Basketball, for example, was introduced
to the Navajo Indian culture by missionaries in the early 1940s (Blanchard,
1974). Basketball is currently so popular
on the Navajo Reservation that it is frequently labeled by the Anglos who live
and work there as "the Navajo's national pastime" (Allison, 1980). Similarly,
Tindall (Note 2) describes the great popularity of basketball among the Ute Indians of Utah. Blanchard (1980) and
Fox (1961) each describe the great popu-
167
larity of baseball among the Choctaw Indians and Laguna-Acoma Indians, respectively.
Among less isolated ethnic/cuItural
groups in the United States, one finds
the same type of exchange of game
forms. Pooley (1973) describes the popularity of soccer among ethnic groups in
Milwaukee. Most major game forms are
played by Hispanics and MexicanAmericans in the West and Southwest.
And none need be reminded of the dominance of Blacks in the American sport
scene. Undeniably, then, sport has been
a major form of cultural exchange
among ethnic groups within the United
States.
But does the fact that game forms are
adopted imply that assimilation has occurred? Not necessarily. What a great
deal of research has indicated is that although game forms are adopted by
many ethnic groups, the content of those
games are changed to best fit the cultural
schemata of the adopting group. Tindall
(Note 3), Allison and Lueschen (1979),
and Blanchard (1974) each describe the
ways in which the Ute Indians and Navajo Indians respectively change the recreational games of basketball. Cochran
(1976) and Wyatt (Note 3) describe how
Blacks, as compared to Whites, play the
game of pick-up basketball. Rules
change, strategy is different, enforcement patterns are different; in general,
the form of the game is the same, but the
content changes from group to group.
As Farrer's (1976) data indicate, even
the rules, strategies, and styles of the
game of tag are changed by Mescalero
Apache children in ways which are consistent with the patterns and structure of
the Apache cultural system. In general,
then, it seems that when a game is passed
across cultural boundaries, the adopting
culture "acts" on the game form and
changes it to best fit its own culture.
Game forms, then, are not static objects; they can be transformed and
168
ALLISON
changed over time and in different contexts. The adopting of a game form does
not necessarily change the culture; the
culture changes the nature of the game.
Recent research conducted by this investigator indicates that this statement,
as such, must also be qualified depending on the degree and the context within
which such interethnic contact takes
place. For example, most of the studies
cited above focus on informal, free-play
situations where the degree of interethnic contact is low. The informal pickup basketball, the recreation league
baseball and basketball, and even the
game of tag are situations where the
games are adopted and played among
relatively homogeneous cultural units
(e.g., group members) and without
formal "intrusion" from external
agents. For example, coaches and teachers from the mainstream culture are not
present to instruct participants how to
"correctly" play these games. The members of each cultural group are relatively
free to play and elaborate on these
games in any way they so desire. Even in
public school settings run by Anglo administrators and teachers/coaches, recent data collected on the game of basketball among Navajo participants indicate that their free-play, informal game
maintains a very distinct cultural style.
Allison and Lueschen (1979) have described, the game of Navajo 21 where
game rules, strategy, and general content are quite different from the game
played by their Anglo counterparts. One
Anglo teacher/coach summarized his
observations of the differences in Navajo and Anglo informal basketball in the
following way:
We can take my fifth hour class and put a
basketball ateach basket, then put Navajo
kids at one end and White kids at the other, and you'll see very different things
happen. The White kids will play like
they're playing in a regular high school
game and the Navajo kids will play what I
call Navajo 21. They'll double dribble,
push, shove, everything. (Field Notes)
The Navajo game, in general, is much
less rule-bound, and again strategy and
style of play are quite different from the
traditionally Anglo informal games of
"21" and "Make it-Take it" which are
commonly played in the larger society.
A second PE teacher/coach indicated
that some problems resulted when some
Anglo teachers/administrators saw the
Navajo students play the game because
it appeared undisciplined. Said the
Anglo PE teacher/coach,
He [the principal] doesn't like me to let
them [the Navajo] play this game. He [the
principal] thinks it's too unorganized . . .
but the kids know what they're doing.
They've got their rules and they follow
them. We don't understand it. It's not our
way, but it's theirs and they love it. (Field
Notes)
Thus, when Navajo participants (including skilled, interscholastic high school
athletes) were given the choice of an informal game to play, the gymnasia
would ring of this seemingly chaotic,
seemingly unstructured and unorganized
game of Navajo 21. The Anglo participants, in the same school district, participated in a very structured, highly organized pick-up basketball game which
was played as though referees were overseeing the contest. These informal
games, then, became expressions of culture, each reflecting distinct dimensions
of their own cultural schema (cf. Allison, 1980; Allison & Lueschen, 1979).
But what occurs in an interscholastic
setting where Anglo coaches and teachers try to teach their own concepts and
definitions of basketball to athletes who
have their own approach to the game?
Do the Navajo athletes, for example,
adopt the game behaviors, styles, and
strategies expected by the Anglo coach,
or do they maintain their own cultural
SPORT, ETHNICITY, AND ASSIMILATION
style? If, in fact, the Navajo athletes
adopt the behaviors expected by the
Anglo coach, one could assume that to
some extent assimilation has occurred.
If, however, the Navajo athletes maintain their own style even after repeated
attempts by the Anglo coaches to change
their behavior, then the persistence of
culture is reinforced.
In general, suffice it to say that the
Navajo athletes, who were quite skilled
at basketball, played the game in much
the same way as would most teams in
mainstream society. The Anglo coaches
developed teams that ran rather sophisticated offensive strategies and strong defensive capabilities and were competitive
throughout their state-wide leagues.
Thus, Navajo athletes, when coached
well, were quite skilled performers.
However, some behavior differences remained.
Careful observation of team practices,
game behaviors, and detailed interviews
with athletes, coaches (both Navajo and
Anglo), and Anglo officials make it only
too clear that there are many subtle differences between Navajo and Anglo athletes and their approach to the interscholastic game. Perhaps the greatest difference is in the way Anglo and Navajo athletes express physical aggressiveness in a
game situation. Whereas Anglo coaches
expect their athletes to be physical and
use the body as a tool to push, block,
and manuever for strategical advantage,
the Navajo athletes approach the game
very differently. For example, several
Anglo coaches stated that Navajo athletes lack the "killer instinct" in game
situations:
-
These kids don't have that killer instinct
. . . they don't have what it takes to keep
pourin' it on when you've got 'em down.
Like in football, you have to love to hit
'em . . hit 'em hard even when they're
down. These kids won't do that. (Field
Notes)
.
169
In a similar vein, another Anglo coach
expressed the following observations in
response to queries by the investigator:
Q. How competitive are these kids [Navajo]?
A. They're not . . . they're not competitive or aggressive at all.
Q. But they play hard, don't they?
A. Oh, they'll play until they're ready to
fall, but they're not physically aggressive . . . they don't like that physical
stuff . . . . (Field Notes)
Even at the interscholastic level, then,
several coaches indicated that the play of
the Navajo athletes was different from
that of the Anglos. These coaches indicated that the Navajos did not lack skill,
but that they simply did not like to be
physically aggressive. An aversion to
physical aggressiveness, however, is
quite consistent with tenets of Navajo society, which imposes strong sanctions
against aggressive behavior (Ladd,
1957). Interestingly, such patterns were
transferred to the game situation as well.
Whereas the Anglo coaches' definition
of appropriate behavior included a high
degree of physical aggression and a psychological attitude toward complete
domination (i.e., "killer instinct"), the
Navajo athlete did not see the game in
the same way. In general, then, the
Navajo participant played at two different games depending on the demands
of the context at hand. They would play
their Navajo 21 when the situation
allowed and would adapt to the more
structured style when the situation
demanded it. Some subtle differences
between Anglo and Navajo style persisted, however.
These data illustrate that the nature of
games are quite dynamic. Not only do
variations exist in game behaviors (e.g.,
rules, styles, and strategy) between cultures, but one must also expect variation
based on the level and context of play as
well. Thus, in order to understand the
170
ALLISON
process of cultural change and exchange, games are fluid and changeable
based on the context in which they are
played, and they must be analyzed as
such.
Variations in Value Orientations
When two cultures enter into situations of prolonged contact with one another, it is assumed that one culture
adopts the value orientations of the other. This process is particularly true in situations where one of the cultures in
question maintains a position of power
and control, and clearly outnumbers the
other.
Sport is frequently viewed in such situations as one of the vehicles by which
members of one ethnic minority group
learn or are socialized into the value orientation of the larger culture (Lueschen,
1970; Schafer, Note 1). Within the
United States, for example, sport is believed to function as a vehicle by which
ethnic minority youth learn the values of
rugged individualism and competitiveness which are considered core values essential to success in mainstream society.
Such value socialization comes about
through prolonged contact with members of the dominant culture, such as
teachers and coaches who constantly
emphasize and reward such behavior.
But to what extent does such value socialization occur? The data discussed
earlier clearly indicate that ethnic groups
do not necessarily adopt games in toto,
but change the content (e.g., rules, strategies, styles) to best reflect their own cultural schema. The question then becomes what changes, if any, take place
in the value orientations held by ethnic
minority students? Do such students, especially those taught
teachers
and coaches,
the value 'ystem of
mainstream society, or do they maintain
to varying degrees the values of their
own culture? Again, an analysis of data
collected over the past several years indicate that ethnic minority groups maintain their own cultural value orientations. These orientations guide not only
behavior in life in general, but are manifested in the sport setting as well. Variations in orientations toward competition
and achievement motivation are briefly
discussed next to illustrate the nature of
such ethnic differences.
Competition and Cooperation
A great deal of work indicates that
cross-cultural differences exist in competition and cooperation. For example, research reported by Nelson and Kagen
(1972), Kagan and Madsen (1972), and
others (Kagan & Ender, 1975; Madsen,
1967; Madsen & Shapira, 1970) indicates
that Mexican-American children tend to
be less competitive than their AfroAmerican and Anglo-American counterparts. Children from lower social class
and rural backgrounds also tend to be
less competitive (Madsen, 1967) on
board tasks designed to measure competition and cooperation.
In the sport setting, Allison (1980,
1981) has identified similar variations in
orientations to competition among Navajo student-athletes. Anglo coaches describe differences in the ways Navajo
and Anglo athletes approach competitive contexts. For example, one Anglo
coach has suggested that Navajo athletes
compete more with themselves and/or a
standard than against an opponent:
They [Navajos] are competitive in sport.
The type of competitiveness though, is
very different. The Navajo kid doesn't get
SO involved in beating his opponent-not
beating him as we think of it. We work at
really beating the other team. The Navajo
kid competes more with himself; the 0thers a,en7t
so important . . . . H~ tries to
improve his own performance. (Field
Notes)
SPORT, ETHNICITY, AND ASSIMILATION
He continued:
I had five Navajo boys in my class who
ran cross-country . . . .They were far and
above the best in class so they didn't have
t o try so hard. Every day though, they
would get out there and work themselves
hard t o knock a few seconds off the clock.
The White kids seem t o work harder t o
beat the other team. The Navajo isn't s o
concerned with that. (Field Notes)
Another Anglo coach described the differences between Black, White, and Navajo athletes as they approach team
play:
It seems t o me that when I had a team
with a mixture of Blacks, Whites, and Navajos, it seemed like the Blacks were the
most individualistic-he looks out more
for himself than for the team. The White
kids I'd put next. If a guy is on the bench
he doesn't mind if his team is doing well.
The Navajo I'd place below that; more
team-oriented than the rest, they really
look out for each other. (Field Notes)
These statements are indicative of many
made by Anglo coaches, which suggest
that the Navajo define and manifest
competitive and cooperative behaviors
in sport in ways not typically expected in
mainstream society.
While the Navajos7 sense of competition appears more inner-directed, cooperation flows from a strong sense of
group solidarity (Allison, 1980). And despite the commonly held belief that the
Navajo are noncompetitive (Kluckhohn,
1946), these findings suggest that they
can be competitive in certain settings,
but they define the process in a culturally specific way.
Combining these data with the findings of Kagan and Madsen and their associates, it becomes quite clear that ethnic groups do manifest distinct orientations to competition and cooperation.
Even in sport settings where one might
assume that competitive behavior can
171
only be expressed in one particular way,
we find multiple forms of competition
existing. And in regard to the degree to
which interethnic contact might initiate
changes in the value structure of the ethnic minority group, one Anglo coach offers the following observation:
I had to change my ways a bit and they
had t o change theirs [the Navajo]. You
can't make changes 'till you've been there
awhile. I was there six years and I finally
got them to accept a few of my values, but
not a lot. (Field Notes)
Achievement Motivation
A second source of data which cogently illustrate the persistence of variations
in value orientations among ethnic minority groups comes from cross-cultural
work on achievement motivati,on. Criticizing past theoretical approaches to
achievement (Atkinson, 1964; McClelland, 1961; Weiner, 1974), Maehr and
Nicholls (1980) have suggested that
achievement motivation is both culturally and situationally determined. Different cultures value different goals and
different means to attain those goals.
Similarly, some individuals may be highly motivated in some settings and not so
motivated in others. Thus, motivation is
a dynamic and multidimensional phenomenon.
Utilizing this framework Allison and
Duda attempted to assess variations in
achievement motivation among Navajo
(Allison & Duda, 1982; Duda, 1980;
Duda & Allison, 1981), Black (Duda &
Allison, Note 4), and Mexican-American (Duda, Note 5) youth in sport and
classroom situations. Work among the
Navajo (Allison & Duda, 1982; Duda &
Allison, 1981) indicates that studentathletes value process-oriented goals in
sport such as "being a team-player" and
"practicing a lot," whereas Anglo youth
focus o n product-oriented criteria
(Duda, 1980). In addition to this process/product distinction, Navajo youth
172
ALLISON
tend to define success and failure in
terms of the group and not so much in
terms of individual achievement and recognition. In the classroom setting, Navajo youth define success with the attainment of good grades. Unlike criteria
for status in mainstream high schools
(Coleman, 1961; Eitzen, 1978), being a
"member of a leading crowd," a "leader," and being popular do not reflect
achievement in the educational situation
for the Navajo student.
Duda and Allison (Note 4) found a
similar range of variability in definitions
of success and failure among Black student-athletes and White student-athletes. In general, data indicate that in the
classroom, Black students prioritize a
very different type of achievement pattern than d o the White students. Whereas the Black students focus on external,
extrinsic, other-oriented concerns (e.g.,
having good things happen to him/her;
being a member of the most important
group), the White students reflect an internal orientation to achievement (e.g.,
respecting oneself, control over self). No
sex differences exist in academic definitions of success and failure. Unlike the
classroom setting, Black and White
males tend to prioritize similar achievement criteria (unlike the Navajo). For
example, Black and White male students
each rank trying hard, having a great
deal of athletic ability, and beating others as major criteria for athletic success.
Major sex differences were found in that
males (both Black and White) emphasize
ability-oriented criteria in sport, whereas
females prioritize effort-based criteria.
Finally, recent work by Duda (Note 5)
indicates that Mexican-American youth
hold distinct definitions of success and
failure. Extending the work of Nicholls
(Note 6), Duda suggests that individuals
stress different means by which to attain
their goals: ego-involved orientations,
where success is based on social comparison; and task-involved orientations,
where success is based on the mastery of
the task or in reference to one's own capabilities. In general, Duda found that
male Mexican-American student-athletes prefer sport success which is
mastery-based, whereas male AngloAmerican students prefer academic and
sport success wliich is ego-involved.
Both groups value success in sport over
success in the classroom. Both MexicanAmerican and Anglo-American females
value success in sport, but prefer group
contexts in which to succeed.
The findings on achievement motivation make it only too clear that many of
the subcultural ethnic groups within the
United States maintain very diverse, culturally specific orientations to sport specifically and to life in general. Much of
the past work on assimilation has assumed that sport and education were vehicles by which such groups could become assimilated into the value structure
of the larger society. The information
presented here illustrates the persistence
and strength of culture in our society
and the inadequacy of the melting-pot
theory.
Ethnicity: A Look to the Future
The process of culture change, particularly with regard to assimilation, has
been oversimplified in the past. This is
particularly true when we have attempted to understand the role of sport in the
process. Frequently swept along by implicit ideological biases, researchers have
taken the stance that ethnic minorities
should assimilate, and, therefore, they
define questions in keeping with such a
framework (Allison, 1979). Sport has
been viewed as a vehicle which might facilitate such change.
The discussion presented in this paper
indicates that ethnic groups, even in situations where interethnic contact is high,
maintain culturally specific behaviors
and values. This is not to say that change
is not or has not occurred over time, (on-
SPORT, ETHNICITY, AND ASSIMILATION
ly careful longitudinal work can answer
that question); however, the data indicate that many cultural differences d o
exist and exist in ways and forms not
commonly realized.
How, then, might such cultural variation and minority group differences be
viewed? What types of questions might
guide us to more fruitful answers? First,
assimilation need not be viewed as a normal, necessary, or even an inevitable
state. Rather than viewing homogeneity
brought about through assimilation as
necessary, we can instead begin to focus
on the benefits of ethnic diversity. As
Eidheim (1969) indicates, ethnicity may
be expressed in different degrees in varied contexts, both public and private.
Thus, individuals may express a great
deal of ethnicity in private settings (e.g.,
home, peer groups) and yet express a
minimum of ethnic identity in public,
civic, or social gatherings. Initial questions related to our understanding of the
relationship between sport and ethnicity
might focus on the degrees of contexts
within which sport becomes a setting for
ethnic expression. It could well be that
since sport is an aesthetic realm of human activity, similar to art, dance, and
music, expressions of ethnicity are greater in sport than in other, more utilitarian
realms of human activity (Allison,
1979).
A second important thrust of ethnic
research should focus on the nature of
the interaction between members of diverse ethnic groups. This type of research is particularly important for those
who teach or plan to teach in multicultural school settings. For example, it is
crucial to understand that students from
diverse backgrounds have distinct definitions of achievement and that they approach play, games, and sport in culturally distinct ways. This should not lead
to labeling such students as inferior, only different (Gallimore, Boggs, & Jordan, 1974; Maehr & Stallings, 1975).
173
Such differences need to be carefully understood. In addition, however, it is very
important to identify the ways in which
cultural differences (both of students
and instructors) influence the quality of
educational interaction (Gearing, Note
7; Tindall, Note 2). Students from
diverse ethnic backgrounds must not only interact and be socialized by educators
who hold very different world views
from their own (Allison, in press), but
they must interact in a school system
whose structure and function is implicitly molded by mainstream values. This
fact makes the dynamics of interethnic
interaction within the educational settings particularly important to understand.
Ethnicity and the expression of culture may serve a very valuable function
for ethnic groups specifically and for our
culture as a whole. As Glazer and
Moynihan (1975) indicate, ethnic groups
are dynamic forms of social life which
undergo constant change and transformation. Not only are ethnic groups influenced by interactions within the sport
setting, but they, too, influence the very
nature of sport itself. Future researchers
must therefore better understand the nature of culture and ethnicity within the
sport settings.
REFERENCE NOTES
1. Schafer, W. Sport, socialization and
the school. Paper presented at the
Third International Symposium on
the Sociology of Sport, Waterloo,
Canada, 1971.
2. Tindall, B. A. Exploration of a
"Troublesome Agenda" based on
the non-sharing of "property-like"
information. Paper presented at the
meeting of the American Anthropological Association, New Orleans,
Louisiana, 1973.
174
ALLISON
3. Wyatt, D. Pick-up basketball: A case cialization. In P. Becker (Ed.), Sport
study of clique behavior variation. und Sozialisation. West Germany:
Paper presented at the annual meet- Rororo, in press.
ing of the American Anthropological ALLISON, M., & Duda, J. The nature
Association, Washington, DC, No- of sociocultural influences on achievevember 1976.
ment motivation: The case of the Nava4. Duda, J,, & Allison, M. Variations in jo Indian. In J. Loy (Ed.), Paradoxes of
achievement values: Race, sex, and play. West Point, NY: Leisure Press,
situational influences. Paper present- 1982.
ed at the national meetings of The
Anthropological Association for the ALLISON, M., & Lueschen, G. A comStudy of Play, Ft. Worth, Texas, parative analysis of Navajo and Anglo
basketball systems. International Review
April 1981.
of
Sport Sociology, 1979, 3-4(14), 76-86.
5. Duda, J. Goals and achievement orientations of Anglo and Mexican- ATKINSON, J. W. An introduction to
American adolescents in sport and motivation. P r i n c e t o n , NJ: Van
the classroom. Paper presented at the Nostrand, 1964.
Tenth World Congress of Sociology, BARTH, F. (Ed.), Ethnic groups and
Mexico City, August 1982.
boundaries. Boston: Little, Brown, &
6 . Nicholls, J. G. Striving to demonCo., 1969.
strate and develop ability: A theory
of achievement motivation. Paper BERNIER, R., & Davis, R. Synergy: A
presented at a symposium entitled model for implementing multicultural
"Attributional approaches to human education. Journal of Teacher Educamotivation," Center for Interdisci- tion, 1973, 24(4), 266-271.
plinary Research, University of Bide- BLANCHARD, K. Basketball and the
field, West Germany, July 1980.
culture-change process: The Rimrock
7. Gearing, F. A general cultural theory Navajo case. Council on Anthropology
of education. Unpublished manu- and Education Quarterly, November
script, Department of Anthropology, 1974, 5(4), 8-13.
Buffalo, New York, 1973.
BLANCHARD, K. Sport and ritual in
Choctaw society: Structure and perspective. In H. Schwartzman (Ed.), Play and
REFERENCES
culture. New York: Leisure Press, 1980.
ALLISON, M. On the ethnicity of ethnic minorities in sport. Quest, 1979,
31(1), 50-56.
ALLISON, M. T. A structural analysis
of Navajo basketball. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois,
Urbana-Champaign, 1980.
ALLISON, M. Competition a n d
cooperation. In A. Cheska (Ed.), Play
as context. West Point, NY: Leisure
Press, 1981.
ALLISON, M.T. Sport, culture, and so-
COCHRAN, R. Folk elements in a nonfolk game: The example of basketball.
Journal of Popular Culture, 1976,10(2),
399-403.
COLEMAN, J.S. The adolescent society. New York: The Free Press, 1961.
DUDA, J. Achievement motivation
among Navajo Indians: A conceptual
analysis with preliminary data. Ethos,
1980, 8(4), 316-331.
DUDA, J. A cross-cultural analysis of
achievement motivation in sport and the
classroom. Unpublished doctoral disser-
SPORT, ETHNICITY, AND ASSIMILATION
175
tation, University of Illinois, UrbanaChampaign, 1981.
KLUCKHOHN, C., & Leighton, D. The
Navaho. New York: Doubleday, 1946.
DUDA, J., & Allison, M. An analysis of
Navajo Indian achievement orientations
in sport and the classroom: A psychological perspective. In U. Simri (Ed.),
Social aspects of physical education and
sport. Netanya, Israel: Wingate Institute
for Physical Education and Sport, 1981.
LADD, J. Structure of a moral code.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press, 1957.
EIDHEIM, H. When ethnic identity is a
social stigma. In F. Barth (Ed.), Ethnic
groups and boundaries. Boston: Little,
Brown, & Co., 1969.
LEYBA, C. Cultural identity: Problems
and dilemmas. Journal of Teacher Education, 1973, 24(4), 272-276.
LUESCHEN, G. The interdependence
of sport and culture. In G. Lueschen
(Ed.), The cross-cultural analysis of
sport and games. Champaign, IL:
Stipes, 1970.
EITZEN, D. S. Sport and social status MADSEN, M. Cooperative and competin American public secondary educa- itive motivation of children in three
tion. Review of Sport and Leisure, 1978, Mexican subcultures. Psychological Re1, 139-155.
ports, 1967, 20, 1307-1320.
FARRER, C. Play and inter-ethnic com- MADSEN, M., & Shapira, A. Cooperamunication. In D. Lancy & B. Tindall tive and competitive behavior of urban
(Eds.), The anthropological study of Afro-American, Anglo-American,
play: Problems and prospects. Corn- Mexican-American, and Mexican village
wall, NY: Leisure Press, 1976.
children. Developmental Psychology,
FOX, J. Pueblo baseball: A new use for 1970, 3(1), 16-20.
old witchcraft. Journal of American
Folklore, 1961, 74(291), 9- 16.
Boggs' J'' & Jard m , C. Culture, behavior, and education. Beverly Hills: Sage, 1974.
GLAZER, N-, & MOynihanl D- Ethnicity, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1975.
GORDAN, M. Assimilation in American life. New York: Oxford University
Press, 1964.
KAGAN, S., & Ender, P. Maternal response to success and failure of AngloAmerican, Mexican-American, and
Mexican children. Child Development,
1975, 46, 452-458.
MAEHR, M., & Nicholls, J. Culture
and achievement motivation: A second
look. In N. Warren (Ed.), Studies in
cross-culturalpsychology (Vol. 3). New
York: Academic Press, 1980.
MAEHR, M., & Stallings, W. Culture,
child, and school. California: Brooks/
tole, 1975.
MCCLELLAND, D.C. The achieving
society. New York: The Free Press,
1961.
NELSON, L., & KAGAN, S. Competition: The star-spangled scramble. Psychology Today, September 1972.
POOLEY, J. Ethnic soccer clubs in
Milwaukee. A study of assimilation. in
M. Hart (Ed.), Sport in thesociocultural
C. i
KAGAN, s., & ~
~M. ~ d
~~ process.
~ ~ Dubuque,
~
~, IA: William
~
1973.
tal analyses of cooperation and competition of Anglo-American and Mexican WEINER, B. Achievement motivation
children. Developmental Psychology, and attribution theory. Morristown, NJ:
General Learning Corporation, 1974.
1972, 6 , 49-59.