Abstract
American sport sociology is in a crisis state. Non-normative sport sociolo gists perceive themselves as the vanguard out of the present wilderness. It has been argued here that the normative center (nee non-normative) investigators have actually contributed to the crisis. They have distorted the proper under standing of methodology, both because they were mimicking ideas once extant in mainstream sociology but also because by so doing they were attempting to en sure their own academic legitimacy and survival. These survival efforts, however, are being quickly undermined by the Center's inability to produce significant theo ry. Loy's definition of the nature of sport symbolizes the problem. As an early effort to conceptually organize the field, it appears impressive. But the respect it has gained and the stature it has achieved since it was first written depend on one crucial factor. Heretofore, the work has never been critically examined. Upon examination, the definition can be seen to be rife with inconsistencies, inad equacies, and ambiguities. Consequently, these same problems are abundant in the body of knowledge of the normative center. Stated succinctly, the situation is this: the normative center has not offered a single concept or theory which pushes understanding of sport beyond that gleaned by the insightful fan from the mass media.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.