A Basketball Team from a sociological perspective

Currently Vibin to: Before She Said Hi – Mario

In high school, I was a member of the varsity basketball team.  I was a member of other organizations as well, but I related to being a basketball player first and foremost.

For most concepts of groups, I don't think that all three major theoretical perspectives apply; for my basketball team all three certainly do.  The functionalist perspective, the conflict theorist, and the symbolic interactionist all can see our team from their relative view point and have a valid claim.

A functionalist would question why each member is striving for the same goal.  They would know we are a team, but they would ask why each member performed the way they did.  There would be manifest and latent functions of the team and the members of it.  Examples of some manifest functions (what the team is designed to do) would be establishing camaraderie and providing exercise.  Examples of latent functions would be establishing a social hierarchy, for better or for worse, and creating life long friendships.  A functionalist would conclude that each member had separate roles that worked like a gear in a clock which worked together to make the whole team click.

A conflict theorist, on the other hand, would see the team while assuming that each member had a personal agenda which they cared about more than the team's goals.  Theoretically, the team would center around a struggle for power between the "haves" (players with more skill) and the "have nots".  They would key on the competition between the members on the same team, not the competition between the team and other teams.  The conflict theorist would ask who is the star player, and question the other players to see how the would improve their game so that they could be the star.  They would highlight the fact that a team is composed of individuals, and that although there is no "I" in "Team", there is in "Win".

The symbolic interactionist would have the most realistic and objective perspective in my opinion.  They would ask why each member interacts with each other, and how.  They would point to the coaches and captains and question how they show leadership.  They would look at how each member of the team gets excited when another succeeds.  They would see the brotherood and kinship through the high-fives, handshakes, team haircuts, cleanshaven faces, letterman jackets and team travel gear.  They would understand the intrasquad competitive nature, but would point to the fact that even though the sqabbles and intense practices, they still hug each other.  They still eat together.  They still spend more time with each other than they do with their own families, coaches included.  Through all of these symbols of affinity, they would conclude correctly that they aren't just a team, they are members of a family.

I only received a B on this in-class essay, but it means a lot more to me than some stupid grade in a sociology class.  I will always look back on my time at The Dub with affection, not only for the friendships I made and hope to have for the rest of my life, but for the family bonds I know I will have for the rest of my life.  I miss everyone... especially my family.

Brr.