Ziebell 1
Jacob Ziebell
Prof. Stilwell
April 14, 2015
First Draft
Violence in Modern Sport
In modern society, many tend to show a rather keen interest in violence. Although, when
one imagines violence, they might fail to consider how complex it truly is. Moreover, how can
one be expected to understand the intricacies of violence, if they cannot even detect when it
occurs? Fairly recently, research began shedding a light on what is sometimes regarded as an
invisible violence. A theory that claims violence possesses a firm correspondence with modern
sport and American culture. Is it possible that athletes and spectators alike, are developing a
numbness to the violence they create and observe? Sport is a world within a world, capable of
preserving unique conventions, reliant on a spectrum of moral reasoning. (Bredmeier et. all 217)
Due to the abstract characteristics of violence within sport, it is imperative to establish a
sensible definition. Almost any definition of violence hinges on a connection with aggression.
This would include verbal or physical actions grounded with intent to dominate, control, or harm
an individual. Correlatively, violence can be described as excessive physical force, which has
the potential to cause pain and devastation (Young 2). What seems like a simple definition,
remains challenging to translate in terms of sports violence. A stronger definition, outlines
violence within sport as physically assaultive behavior, designed with a backbone of intent to
injure another person physically. Psychological injury can even accompany bodily injury
induced by violence. (Smith 203).
Ziebell 2
Through the study of this violence, a few theories arise as explanations. Naturally, the
first theory is based on instinct, and the belief that humans are naturally aggressive due to a
biological drive. Rationally, it seems fair to assume that humans have an instinct to release
aggression. In addition, research reveals that it is possible for one to deduce probability of whom
is aggressive simply by physical appearance (Young 3).
Another theory, defines aggression as a consequence of frustration. The probability and
degree of aggression, has a relation to the type, as well as the extent of frustration. It is believed
that this source of aggression must be opposed, frustration will subside. If frustration were to
diminish, aggression would follow suit. (Young 3).
The final theory leans on the side of intent and strategy. This theory holds a conviction
that humans use aggression as an instrument to attain particular goals. This means that one’s
