WHILE EDUCATIONAL INEQUALITIES DECREASED, DID DOWNWARD MOBILITY DIMINISH BECAUSE GOVERNMENTS ENHANCE

1
BOWLING APART SPORT CLUBS AS BRIDGES OR AS
WALLS BETWEEN SOCIAL GROUPS IN THE NETHERLANDS
Wout Ultee Tel Aviv University Mortimer and
Raymond Sackler Institute of Advanced
Studies March 24, 2005
2
This lecture consists of three parts How I got
to the question of BOWLING APART as a supplement
to the question of BOWLING ALONE Findings for
the Netherlands from administrative and existing
survey data Findings for the Netherlands from a
recently conducted survey
3
The findings I present are to become part of the
ph.d. by Ruud van der Meulen, currently employed
in the sociology department in Nijmegen.
4
(No Transcript)
5
Three Sackler lectures sociology of education
sociology of sport sociology of religion What
kind of sociologist deals with all these
specializations?
6
There is something like general sociology and
theoretical sociology, And I am one of those
persons doing two things.
7
For the first part of this lecture theories are
not that important. What is pertinent is that
sociology, given its history and traditions, has
three general or main questions.
8
Each of these main questions cannot simply be
traced back to one of sociologys founders,
9
Each of these main questions cannot simply be
traced back to one of sociologys founders, If
they are to be traced back and sociologys
founders are involved,
10
Each of these main questions cannot simply be
traced back to one of sociologys founders. If
they are to be traced back and sociologys
founders are involved, Sociologys founders did
something to the questions raised by social
philosophers,
11
Each of these main questions cannot simply be
traced back to one of sociologys founders, If
they are to be traced back and sociologys
founders are involved, Sociologys founders did
something to the questions raised by social
philosophers, And later sociologists not only
reframed, but restated and recast the questions
of sociologys founders.
12
Sociologys three main questions Rationalization
Inequality Cohesion
Mortimer and Raymond Sackler lectures Religion E
ducation Sport
13
Take the question of societal rationalization. Max
Weber raised it and it looks like an
umbrella. It was an overarching question
comprising as one of its sub-questions the
question of a more efficient economy as posed by
the social philosopher Adam Smith.
14
Thinking about questions in terms of an umbrella
is useful for finding interesting questions, for
finding theories answering them and for finding
research techniques. What does Webers umbrella
of rationalization questions look like?
15
rationalization
16
rationalization
wealth of nations
17
rationalization
efficient economy
rise of science
18
rationalization
efficient economy
rise of science
invention in art
19
rationalization
efficient economy
rise of science
invention in art
formal state
20
rationalization
efficient economy
rise of science
invention in art
formal state
bureau- cratization
21
rationalization
efficient economy
rise of science
invention in art
formal state
codification of laws
bureau- cratization
22
Weber implicitly assumed that if more inhabitants
of a society have a practical-rational mentality,
rationalization processes at the societal level
will have gone further.
Since the theory of collective goods and external
effects, it is known that this assumption is
false.
23
A micro-macro level paradox Individual
rationality does not always make for societal
rationality.
In the Netherlands there now is sociologist Abram
de Swaan with the following umbrella of questions
about the formal state.
24
rationalization
25
rationalization
optimal production private goods by markets
26
rationalization
optimal production private goods by markets
optimal production collective goods by states
27
rationalization
optimal production private goods by markets
optimal production collective goods by states
municipal piped water and sewerage
28
rationalization
optimal production private goods by markets
optimal production collective goods by states
compulsory schooling
municipal piped water and sewerage
29
rationalization
optimal production private goods by markets
optimal production collective goods by states
state money for the poor
compulsory schooling
municipal piped water and sewerage
30
How about that other main question of sociology,
societal inequality?
Marx did not begin it, if he did, he did it with
Engels, Engels and Marx improved upon social
philosophers Ferguson and Millar, and Sombart and
Weber improved upon Engels and Marx.
31
The umbrella of inequality questions from
Ferguson and Millar to Engels and Marx.
32
inequalities
33
inequalities
actual differences in standard of living
34
inequalities
actual differences in standard of living
formal subordination
35
inequalities
actual differences in standard of living
formal subordination
ruler and ruled
36
inequalities
actual differences in standard of living
formal subordination
ruler and ruled
men and women
37
inequalities
actual differences in standard of living
formal subordination
ruler and ruled
men and women
fathers and children
38
inequalities
actual differences in standard of living
formal subordination
ruler and ruled
men and women
fathers and children
masters and servants
39
inequalities
actual differences in standard of living
formal subordination
less servant subordination, smaller differences?
ruler and ruled
men and women
fathers and children
masters and servants
40
Once more the umbrella of inequality
questions from Engels Marx to Sombart, then
on to Goldthorpe, and to Mayer.
41
inequalities
less servant subordination, smaller differences?
one moment disparities
42
inequalities
less servant subordination, smaller differences?
one moment disparities
two moment mobility
43
inequalities
less servant subordination, smaller differences?
one moment disparities
two moment mobility
structural mobility
circulation mobility
44
inequalities
less servant subordination, smaller differences?
one moment disparities
two moment mobility
structural mobility
circulation mobility
45
inequalities
less servant subordination, smaller differences?
one moment disparities
two moment mobility
total mobility
relative mobility chances
46
inequalities
less servant subordination, smaller differences?
one moment disparities
two moment mobility
occupational histories
total mobility
relative mobility chances
47
Yet again the umbrella of inequality questions
from Sombart to Weber
48
inequalities
less servant subordination, smaller differences?
two moment mobility
49
inequalities
less servant subordination, smaller differences?
openness
two moment mobility
50
inequalities
less servant subordination, smaller differences?
openness
two moment mobility
who marries whom?
51
inequalities
less servant subordination, smaller differences?
openness
two moment mobility
who marries whom?
who befriends whom?
52
Does the inequality question have a levels
paradox too?
Firebaugh Incomes disparities right now increase
in most countries, but world income disparities
decrease.
53
That third main question of sociology societal
cohesion. Hobbes started it with the question of
violence/order, Durkheim completed it with the
question of order but no ties/order and
ties. Putnams BOWLING ALONE is a recent question
about specific ties ties through sport clubs.
54
The umbrella of inequality questions from Hobbes
to Durkheim
55
cohesion
56
cohesion
living together PEACEFULLY
57
cohesion
living together PEACEFULLY
living peacefully TOGETHER
58
cohesion
living together PEACEFULLY
living peacefully TOGETHER
suicide
59
cohesion
living together PEACEFULLY
living peacefully TOGETHER
suicide
gods and rites
60
cohesion
living together PEACEFULLY
living peacefully TOGETHER
division of labour
suicide
gods and rites
61
cohesion
living together PEACEFULLY
living peacefully TOGETHER
marriage and birth
division of labour
suicide
gods and rites
62
cohesion
living together PEACEFULLY
living peacefully TOGETHER
marriage and birth (family ties)
division of labour (economic ties)
suicide (no ties at all)
gods and rites (religious ties)
63
Now I am going to change the metaphor from an
umbrella of questions to question trees with
various branches.
64
Can the branches of two different question trees
come together? Yes, and these questions allow for
progress on two fronts. In recent years I have
been hunting for double questions, and perhaps
moving away from inequality to cohesion.
65
income inequality
poor-rich cohesion
openness
who marries whom with respect to income?
66
It is obvious that to the extent that rich and
poor intermarry, income inequality at the
household level decreases. If people marry within
their own income category, the rich and poor form
strongly integrated groups, weakening cohesion of
society as a whole since there are no marriage
ties between categories.
67
There also are interesting variations
cohesion
inequality
economic ties
who has a job?
who works with whom?
68
There also are nice complementarities
cohesion
family ties
who marries when?
who marries whom?
69
The scheme allows for finding incomplete series
of questions
cohesion
gift relationship
who receives?
who gives to whom?
who gives?
70
Is there a levels paradox for cohesion, just like
there is one for rationalization and
inequality? Yes, people may be highly integrated,
but if they have ties with their own group only,
the society they belong to is segmented and prone
to intergroup violence.
71
The Netherlands from the 1920s to the 1960s was a
segmented society, given the fact that
protestants, catholics and non-churched persons
not only had their own political parties, and own
labor unions, but also their own sport clubs,
and own radio- and television broadcasting
companies.
72
(No Transcript)
73
The Netherlands may turn into a segmented society
again and perhaps already did so in two
senses Did the larger inequalities in the wake
of the retrenchment of the welfare state lead to
fewer ties between rich and poor? Do immigrants
and particularly moslims form parallel societies?
74
How to tackle these issues? More questions on
ties.
cohesion
inequality
sport ties
who sports in teams?
who sports with whom?
who sports?
75
Why study sport ties across stratification
categories? Putnams BOWLING ALONE painted a rosy
picture of 1950s USA communists lost academic
jobs, blacks had separate places in buses, golf
clubs refused Jews. Next to BOWLING ALONE, there
is BOWLING APART.
76
Why questions about ties through sports between
stratification categories? People do not only
work, they have more leisure. Welfare states
funded high culture and sport, and welfare state
retrenchment means less support of
sport. Governments will not target marriage or
friendship patterns, they may target sport.
77
Who sports with whom regarding income? Who sports
with whom regarding descent?
78
Two competing hypotheses Bourdieu versus Putnam.
Bourdieu is the man of walls, Putnam the man of
bridges.
79
Bourdieus hypotheses economic inequalities
are reproduced across generations, they are
expressed in high culture, and reflected in
separate sports.
80
Putnam-like hypotheses
In sportclubs people meet, leading to friendships
across borders, and to more trust between groups,
and to less intergroup violence.
81
It is easy to show inequalities in sports, But
Bourdieu takes extremes for averages, and
sophisticated techniques such as odds ratios may
not tell much about ties.
82
A string of four Bourdieu questions
popularity of sports compared representativity
of sports compared sports compared with high
culture interconnectivity of sports compared
83
The popularity question. Two trend
hypotheses democratization but recently
aristocratization. Status devaluation the
growth of a high status sport, makes for later
growth of another high status sport.
84
Administrative data, members of sport clubs as
percent of the population
1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
9 11 16 27 28 30
Democratization has stopped, but no
aristocratization yet
85
Most popular and one but most popular sport
soccer tennis
1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
3.0 3.8 4.8 7.5 6.6 6.5
0.5 0.4 0.8 3.3 4.6 4.5
Popular sports decline, aristocratic sports grow
the most.
86
Highest growers
50-60 volleyball OR 6.7 60-70 tennis OR 2.0
70-80 tennis OR 4.3 80-90 golf OR 4.3
90-00 golf OR 2.9 Status devaluation confirmed
87
Largest decline or slowest growth
50-60 tennis OR 0.8 60-70 walking OR
0.5 70-80 cricket OR 0.7 80-90 soccer OR 0.9 9
0-00 volleyball OR 0.8 Aristocratization for
last decades confirmed
88
The question about inequality in sport is
answered with a representativity
index. Hypothesis inequalities lately became
larger through the retrenchment of the welfare
state.
89
In the sociology of sport it is taken as
evident that as a club sport becomes more
popular, its members became more representative
of the whole population. There is no logical
necessity for that, and empirically it is not
true for the Netherlands.
90
Existing survey data for the Netherlands for
1979-1983 and for 1995-1999 each year an N of
more than 20,000.
91
Taking 2000 administrative-data popularity and
1995-1999 survey-data popularity for 20 sports,
the correlation is 0.93.
92
Representativity of a sport is usually calculated
as the Lueschenindex. However, the Lueschenindex
has two drawbacks It assigns ordinal classes
an arbitrary interval score. The index changes
if the number of persons in a class changes.
93
If the Lueschen index is not right, how then to
determine representativity?
94
We determine the representativity of a sport by
dividing household income into 25 categories,
and then computing the odds for membership in a
club for some sport or not for the highest 25
divided by the odds for membership in a club for
that sport or not for the lowest 25.
95
The three most exclusive sports in
1979-1983 hockey OR 16.2 tennis OR 12.1
rowing OR 7.2 no data for golf
96
The three most plebeian sports in
1979-1983 cycling OR 0.7 motor cross OR 0.9
soccer OR 1.0
97
Of the three sports with the lowest ORs in
1995-1999, two are above 1 walking OR 0.9
gymnastics OR 1.1 swimming OR 1.3 soccer OR 2.0
98
The three most exclusive sports in
1995-1999 golf OR 12.8 tennis OR 7.2
hockey OR 6.7
99
Most sports became more exclusive. More
exclusivity because of a large increase in sport
for the highest 25 and a small decrease for the
lowest 25.
any sport 79-83 95-99 highest 25 41.8 45.6
lowest 25 20.7 20.1
100
Does all this show that Bourdieu is right and
Putnam wrong? NO! How exclusive is high
culture? PLUS Representativity does not measure
ties, it is not the same as interconnectivity!
101
Hypothesis Doing sports is less exclusive and
more representative than attending classical
concerts etc.
102
1995-1999 any sport OR 3.3 cabaret OR 3.2
plays OR 2.9 ballet OR 2.3 opera OR 2.0
classical music OR 1.9
103
Hypothesis that high culture is more exclusive
and sport more representative is rejected.
104
Are ties and interconnectivity, as should be done
since Putnam, measured by odds ratios? Not really.
105
From mobility research we know that relative
chances plus marginal differences result in total
mobility.
106
From mobility research we know that relative
chances plus marginal differences result in total
mobility.
In a similar way popularity plus representativity
result in ties through sport clubs between income
categories.
107
In examples Gymnastics is almost representative,
but since few people do it, all practitioners
taken together yield few ties between the highest
and the lowest 25. Tennis is quite exclusive,
but a lot of people do it, still yielding a lot
of highest-lowest ties.
108
The available survey data do not ascertain the
income composition of a persons sport club. We
therefore performed a thought experiment with two
assumptions and two empirical findings.
109
First empirical finding The total numbers doing
a sport (popularity). Second empirical
finding Although the composition of a particular
sport club is not known, we know the income of
all persons doing a sport (something like
representativity), and therefore the average
composition of a club.
110
First assumption any person doing a sport does
it with ten other persons. Second assumption
sport teams do not differ in composition, that is
they all have the composition of all persons
involved in a sport after income.
111
The first assumption is a bit arbitrary, but the
ranking of sports after interconnectivity does
not depend upon the exact number. Of course, the
number of persons in a training group is
important. It may differ from sport to sport. We
did not find strong evidence for that.
112
The second assumption is obviously false. But we
defend the thought experiment by arguing that
improvements will not strongly affect the ranking
of sports. It would be too skeptical to maintain
that every sport has only high income clubs and
low income clubs, and that differences between
sports in representativity are to be explained as
composition effects.
113
We now may calculate the number of ties in a
team. We know how many persons are highest 25
and lowest 25, So we can compute the number of
highest-lowest ties. We can compute the number of
teams, So we can compute the number of
highest-lowest ties for every sport.
114
If the number of highest-lowest ties for tennis
is put at 100, we obtain the following
interconnectivity indices for 1995-1999
tennis 100 soccer 92 swimming 81
gymnastics 68 judo etc 36 badminton 27
volleyball 23
115
The two most popular sports are on top, one
quite egalitarian, the other quite inegalitarian!
116
The correlation between the scores for 25 sports
between their popularity and their
interconnectivity is 0.93. The correlation
between their representativity and their
interconnectivity is -0.21. The correlation
between popularity and representativity is -0.09.
117
Putnam seems more right than Bourdieu. Sport
clubs build bridges, they do not erect walls
between income categories. We should not confound
popularity with representativity.
118
(No Transcript)
119
The Netherlands may turn into a segmented society
and perhaps already has done so in two
senses Did the larger inequalities in the wake
of the retrenchment of the welfare state lead to
fewer ties between rich and poor? Do immigrants
and particularly moslims form parallel societies?
120
Descent in the Netherlands is measured in
official statistics as foreign born (first
generation) and as at least one parent foreign
born (second generation), with a subdivision
after region of the world. Some now argue that
official statistics should measure at least one
grand parent foreign born (third generation).
121
Of course it is possible to ask in surveys of
people who sport, how their team is composed. We
did so in a 2003 survey and we know the
composition with respect to descent, education
and class. I will only report on descent now.
122
The survey I will be using, only interviews
persons who master the Dutch language, upon
judgment of the interviewer. This means that of
al persons of foreign descent, a bit more than
50 drops out. I only report on Dutch natives
now. N 2086.
123
We address a string of questions inspired by
Putnams BOWLING ALONE hypotheses, expanded into
BOWLING APART hypotheses. These hypotheses
strongly resemble those of Allport from 1954
about the nature of prejudice.
124
What do Dutch people think about foreigners in
their sport club? How many are there in their
own training group? Do they find foreign
acquaintances this way? Does having foreigners
in school, neighborhood, sport club, occupation
make for a more favorable attitude towards
foreigners in general?
125
In our survey we asked people who stated they do
a club sport, after the composition of their
training group in terms of the percentage
foreigners.
126
In our survey we also asked persons how many
foreigners there are among their acquaintances
and in which setting they met them first, plus a
couple of other things to test Putnam-like
hypotheses.
127
Black or white, everybody is welcome in my sport
club 1 totally wrong 2 a bit wrong 3
neutral 4 about right 5 totally right
128
Is there a lot of social desirability in such
data? Apparently not, given the following results
for, among others, highly exclusive
tennis. Results pertain to persons of Dutch
descent only.
129
1 2 3 4 5
all clubs 1 2 23 37 37 solo sports 1 2 26 35 36
team sports 1 2 15 43 40 swimming 0 0 14 21 64
badminton 0 0 12 36 52 soccer 2 0 10 46 43
tennis 0 0 29 48 24 aerobics 2 2 31 40 24
volleyball 0 8 28 40 24
130
How many acquaintances of foreign descent you
have now, have you made in the following
settings? 1 zero 2 1 to 3 3 4 or five 4
five or more
131
1 2 3 4
study/work 81 12 3 4 neighborhood 82 14 2 2
sport 95 3 1 1 church 97 2 0 1
Sport clubs are not important settings for
getting acquainted with people of foreign descent.
132
Does sporting with foreigners make for more
foreign acquaintances? The following linear
regression suggests so.
133
Linear regression of the total number of foreign
acquaintances on foreigners in own sport group
constant 4.79 5.14 no sport ref. ref.
no foreigners -0.30 s -0.26 s 0ltxlt5 -0.00
ns -0.00 ns 5ltxlt10 -0.10 ns -0.15 ns
xgt10 0.25 s 0.17 ?s? education outside 0.03
s age outside -0.01 s urbanization outside -0.
09 s
134
We also asked Dutch descent persons about their
opinion (favorable unfavorable on a five point
scale) on the presence of foreigners in the
Netherlands.
We are now struggling with the shift from linear
regression to ordinal regression and the best
parameterization of ordinal models.
135
We are also struggling with recoding nominal four
digit occupational codes into the percentage of
foreigners with this occupation. We do this so
as to compare the effects of various settings.
136
If I summarize in words the results so far of the
ordinal regression Sporting in a club with more
foreigners goes together with a more favorable
attitude, compared with sporting in a club with
less foreigners.
137
Of course here selection issues crop up. Yet I do
not like to raise the issue of correlation versus
causation. Causation never can be proved, and I
do not want to prove anything. I am after
falsification, and I might already have been
dealt a blow.
138
We find that a more favorable attitude right now
goes together with a higher proportion of
foreigners in school around age 12. A higher
proportion foreigners in the neighborhood also
makes for a more favorable attitude. Church going
does not affect the attitude.
139
All effects are independent of education and
age. The difference in attitude between people
who sport and people who only do so with Dutch
natives, is significant non-sporters have a more
positive attitude.
140
For the near future We asked people to state
retrospectively their attitude towards
foreigners. We have not analyzed these data yet.
141
People who sport right now, could answer for two
sports. They indicated how long they have been
doing this sport. People who do not sport right
now, could mention two previous sports. People
who sport now, were asked so too. Persons then
were asked about the composition of the training
group and from when until when they did this
sport. We have not analyzed these data yet either.
142
(No Transcript)
143
PUTNAM FARES BETTER THAN BOURDIEU SPORT CLUBS
BUILD BRIDGES, THEY DO NOT ERECT WALLS - BETWEEN
NATIVES AND FOREIGNERS
144
Next to the question of bowling apart or who
sports with whom, should stand the question of
who goes to school with whom, who works with
whom, and who lives close to whom.
145
We are back at Borgadus old scale of social
distance, but then in Laumanns version of
actual ties, rather than Bogardus opinion
version, plus additions about specific and
general attitudes and perhaps about intergroup
violence.
146
The findings on sport are work in progress. Some
are coming out in Dutch right now. Others will be
featured in the ph.d. of Ruud van der Meulen,
with separate chapters hopefully coming out in
international journals.
147

• This presentation may be viewed in full on my
  website
• under the heading foreign presentations
• socsci.ru.nl/maw.sociologie/ultee/
• Or just type in google wout ultee
• It is the first hit.