1.1.1 – The vertical and normative conception of citizenship

4The current meaning of citizenship comes from a singular history that is particular to each country. For France, the notion involves strong legal and political connotations. The individual is simultaneously an active member of sovereignty (through the right to vote, for example) and a subject of the state – that is, an individual who must submit to state laws that embody the general interest. This situation is the current legacy of the political vision of Rousseau, who wanted the individual to prioritize the general interest over his or her singularity. Merle and Vatin (1995) underline this contradiction: elective and representative democracy pledges sovereignty to the citizen, yet “bureaucratic rationality” entails his or her “submission.”

5This conception of citizenship reveals certain limits. The first of these lies in the illegitimacy attributed to “social inventiveness and self-regulation” (Roman 1997, 97), with the state interpreting these phenomena as signs of disordered social ties. The second limit to state dominance is that it can reduce “the feeling of the capacity to control our future” among the population, which is the basis of the idea of democracy (Thibaud, 1991, 25). Consequently, intersecting with this first conception is a second one that is horizontal and interactive.

1.1.2 – The horizontal and interactive conception of citizenship

6As Roman (1997, 99) states, “the paradox of the contemporary situation lies in the weakening of the classical model of republican citizenship at the very time when people (in particular politicians) call for it.” Do crises perhaps announce changes to the definition of the concept and a new form of political involvement?

7Beyond this objective retreat of traditional citizenship, Bonny (1995) highlights new forms of citizenship: a concrete and active citizenship of proximity. For this author (1995, 16), this retreat illustrates “the eclipse of traditional political representation in favor of a deeper representation that is linked to a given society reflecting its diversity.” According to Donzelot (quoted in Bonny, 1995, 16), “the public and republican spirit, associated with submission to the nation and to reason, has been substituted for ‘political urbanity,’ which characterizes a second age of democracy.” This phenomenon finds expression in the rejection of the traditional political machinery (parties, unions, and so on) in favor of associations (humanitarian, ecological, and so forth). As a result, modern citizenship apparently has as many domains of action as the different situations experienced by an individual during his or her life (as an employee, a boss, a resident, a member of an association, and so on). It is in fact within these different spheres that the individual builds his or her identity through the socialization process.

1.2.1 – Normative socialization and institutionalized sport

11Normative socialization refers to the conditioning of people in order for them to learn how to behave in a given society. This perspective assumes that individuals are somewhat passive. They unconsciously receive and assimilate information and experiences from the environment. Socialization therefore consists in modelling a personality related to the characteristics of the culture of the group. The hypothesis of such a normative and unilateral process relies on an incomplete, weak, and gap-filled conception of young people as needing to be drilled according to the dominant social model. This model is based upon the working system of our Western societies – that is, on the functional interdependence of individuals. Everyone plays a role in the production of the whole. This organic solidarity (Durkheim, 1998) is disturbed each time a society experiences an economic crisis that questions the promise of a collective emancipation (Bier, 1997). Nowadays, this reproductive model still prevails in this adult-centered system (Bouamama, 1997).

12Our study hypothesizes that this first mode of socialization characterizes the socializing process of institutionalized and competitive sports.

13Young people are considered to be individuals who need to be shaped according to the needs of the sport that they practice. Their learning leads them to be efficient on the field thanks to a vertical type of teaching (training), which is imparted by competent authorities (educators, coaches, leaders, and so forth).

14From a macrosociological point of view, the socialization process consists in the institutionalization of the individual as he or she assimilates the functioning (and the underlying values) of institutions, which are the “products of the state that enable it to control different domains of social practices” (Vieille-Marchiset, 2001, 117). Federal sport practices are part of the state’s institutional web. Fodimbi (2000) argues that they reproduce society, as they place people from the dominant class (politicians, businesspeople, and so forth) in positions of leadership (presidents of clubs, leaders in national or international authorities, and so forth). They embody the characteristics of society as a whole in terms of how it functions (hierarchy, elections, commissions, task distribution and specialization, and so forth) and its underlying values (democracy, meritocracy, equality, and so on). As a result, socialization brings a political dimension to the process. In fact, sport is a powerful context for socializing, as sportspeople think that in practicing their sports they are just having fun. Defrance (2001, 12) underlines “the enjoyable side of sport, [which is] far removed from subversive and revolutionary violence.” Fodimbi (1999, 81) also highlights this pernicious element of socialization through participation in sport: “In short, the exploitation of sports in the field of social integration is made possible by enhancing their educational functions while minimizing their sociopolitical ones (control of the masses and legitimization of a traditional order). Most of the time, people who do sports are not aware of the links between sport and ideology.”

15In institutionalized sport, the frame of practice is rigid, and there are numerous rules. Competitions require precise planning as far as training sessions are concerned, and they dictate a logic of progress and rivalry. In other words, they embody the project around which everything is planned “in a strictly regulated social context and in precisely standardized places” (L’Aoustet & Griffet, 2000, 126). The legislative and executive powers are separate. The former are held by the senior institutions of the athletic movement, which can potentially change the rules. The executive power lies in the hands of referees and judges, who also have judicial power on the field, in the form of their ability to call fouls and administer punishments.

1.2.2 – Interactive socialization and self-organized sport practices

16The second theoretical orientation with regard to socialization asserts an active participation of the subject in this learning process. Although socialization used to refer to a process of identification (in particular in relation to parents), it has now become a time of experimentation (Galland, 1990). The individual is the agent of his or her own personal and social construction. This perspective suggests a larger vision of socialization. Although it cannot be denied that childhood remains a time of imitation, it is also the case that the subject plays an active part in the integration of group values. There is in fact a two-way wiring system between what the individual perceives, how he or she interprets it and assimilates it into his or her existing structures, and what he or she sends back to the environment (Piaget, 1932; Mead, 1934). He or she is supposed to be able to influence the environment as much as the environment can influence him or her. The interactive perspective considers social ties as needing to be constructed in every social situation that the individual is involved in. Social ties do not exist a priori (as they do in the organic model), but instead appear a posteriori, as local social interactions are going on.

17Our study will make use of this second mode of socialization to describe and interpret what is going on in the context of self-organized sports.

18Self-organized adolescent sportsmen socialize through social interactions. They must create social ties if they want to start a social activity, as the activity is not already running. There is no official preexisting framework. It is precisely this construction between the participants and their environment that characterizes the interactive socialization process.

19Although some scholars (classical functionalist sociologists) state that these activities find expression in disorder, anomie, failure, and the decaying of social ties, others (Bonny, 1995; Chantelat, Fodimbi, & Camy, 1996) highlight new forms of sociability. Since young people must lead their group if they are to play, there are numerous discussions, exchanges, and conflicts, all of which are highly valuable in the acquisition of a sense of moral responsibility and the internalization of rights and interindividual duties (Piaget, 1932; Haan, 1983; Kourilsky, 1991). According to Lieberg (1995), the urban experience is a socializing one, and self-organized sport activities are part of this experience. They enable “a soft and progressive path towards the adult world” (L’Aoustet & Griffet, 2000, 125).

20Limiting the analysis of such a context to interactions between sporting peers is not sufficient for the purposes of gaining a complete idea of the social and political dimension of self-organized sports. It is also necessary to underline the importance of the experience shared with the other users of the urban space and the political powers.

21In this context, the rules of the game are made by the players themselves, based on material conditions (available space and time) and the characteristics of the players (level, desires, and so forth), and in order for the game to be interesting and fun for everyone. Nothing is standardized (Griffet & Roussel, 1999): everything is subject to adaptation and change in relation to group norms (Vieille-Marchiset, 1998). In general, federal rules are simplified. This simplification enables a simpler refereeing or, more precisely, a self-refereeing that smooths out the feelings of injustice that can often arise because of bad calls (Augustini & Duret, 1999).

22Self-organized sports activities are open in a spatial, temporal, sociological, and psychological sense. Far from being confined only to ethological notions (territories and reduced mobilities), they encroach on the urban space and social time (Fodimbi, 2000). If considered as an active sociopolitical skill, this openness contributes to the development of citizenship.

23In addition, this context of practice does not involve a priori specializations or hierarchies. There are neither chiefs nor subordinate individuals. The functioning of the group, in constant recomposition, is based on the principle of direct democracy. Some particular situations notwithstanding, power abuses and coercive attitudes are negatively judged by the participants, in particular with regard to legislative power (Vieille-Marchiset, 1998, 2001).

24This context is in line with the perspective developed by Galland (1990), who emphasizes the importance of experience in the socializing process of today’s young people.

2.2.1 – Interview guides

27Citizenship has been operationalized throughout two different and complementary elements: legal consciousness (Long, Pantaléon, Faccenda, & Bruant, 2009) and individual responsibility (Long, Pantaléon, & Bruant, 2008). Interview guides were therefore developed to allow the participants to describe their representations of legal consciousness and responsibility in the sporting context and in everyday life. In addition, this procedure allowed the participants to refer to specific sport situations to illustrate and justify their representations.

28The guide for responsibility was divided into four interrelated sections: (a) introductory comments and instructions; (b) sporting responsibility in general; (c) responsibility regarding regulation during the game; and (d) perceptions of the interview and additional comments.

29The guide for legal consciousness was in keeping with previous research (Tapp & Kohlberg, 1971; Long, 2006). It dealt with the following themes: definition and characteristics of rules and laws; modalities and reasons for obeying the rules and the laws; modalities of enforcing rules and laws; moral judgment of transgressions and sanctions; modes of learning rules and laws; conditions for the creation and evolution of rules and laws.

2.2.2 – Interviewer and interview procedure

30The same interviewer conducted all the interviews in this study. He was a 29-year-old male in the final stage of his doctoral work in sports social psychology. Training for the interviews included reading books on qualitative interviewing techniques (for example, Patton, 1990) and conducting five pilot interviews, with minor refinements being made as a result of participants’ feedback. The interviewer also had experience in working with this age group.

31The interviews with the athletes were scheduled after personal and parental consent forms had been obtained. Each interview lasted approximately half an hour and was conducted individually. It began with a presentation of the study, which was described as an investigation of young athletes’ thoughts about responsibility, rules, and laws in sport and in areas of everyday life. All participants were assured that their identities would remain anonymous and that there were no right or wrong answers; they were told that their personal opinions were important. The researcher then asked permission to record the interview. After the participants agreed, the interviews started.

2.2.3 – Data analysis

32Our analysis was thematic, and it consisted of counting units of meanings in each interview. These units were gathered in adapted broader themes that were discovered during the reading process. From this perspective, our thematic analysis was mostly inductive (Patton, 1990).

33The trustworthiness of this analysis was tested through investigator triangulation, which consisted of coding the data independently and then comparing and discussing the codes until a consensus was reached. In addition, an independent third researcher who was experienced in qualitative methods and who was considered to be a neutral peer was asked to match the lower-order themes with the appropriate higher-order ones. Divergence in categorization was discussed until a consensus was reached.

3.1.1 – The vertical and normative citizenship of institutionalized sportsmen

36Individual responsibility is primarily considered through the achievement of a specific task, as highlighted in the following quotations:

37

My responsibility is to defend: so, I use everything which helps me to accomplish this task, even if I must arm the opponent; [1]

38

Sometimes, if I must foul to prevent an attacker from scoring, I just do it;

39

I must show the opponents who the boss is on the field;

40

In basketball, you must stop the time if you lose at the end of the game.

41Furthermore, this kind of responsibility is consistent with a very structured and respected hierarchy, as shown below:

42

You must obey the coach even if you don’t agree; I have always been told to do so without talking;

43

If you’re called to go off the pitch, even if you don’t agree, you’re off, that’s all”;

44

We respect all that comes from the federation, we obey the rules”;

45

We play according to the whistle of the ref: if he calls for a foul, we stop; if he doesn’t, we keep playing.

46This last quotation takes us deeper into the absence of reflexivity among players. They are like animals that obey a whistle; even if they often argue with the referee, they know they are not allowed to and that this attitude can be penalized by the rules. As Brian, a basketball player, says: “Even if you don’t agree with the call, you don’t say anything and you go back to your position.”

47As a consequence, citizenship consciousness is limited to a submission to a mission and to the people in charge of the regulations (strategic orders from the coach or the enforcement of rules from the referee). It is also orientated toward performance. Most scientific works on sport and contexts from everyday life show the negative effects of the sole pursuit of performance on individual and collective indicators (such as self-esteem in the former case, and prosocial behaviors in the latter). Under these circumstances, it can also be useful for individuals to intentionally transgress rules or laws in order to gain personal or collective benefits. The examples of committing fouls in the midfield to enable defenders to run back, or of simulating fouls to obtain a penalty are very salient: “If you are unbalanced a little bit inside the penalty area, you must fall down; we used to call that ‘cheating,’ but it is not cheating anymore: it is intelligent” (Robert, a soccer player). This last interview excerpt illustrates a moral-disengagement mechanism called moral justification, which involves converting a transgression into a socially or morally acceptable and laudable value – intelligence, for example (Corrion, Long, Smith, & d’Arripe-Longueville, 2009). We therefore arrive at a cynical and Machiavellian reasoning, summarized in the following quotation: “The ends justify the means.”

48This particular relationship to rules, laws, and authority places the adolescents in a vertical, normative, and reduced conception of citizenship. This conception only valorizes the duties of everybody and functional interdependence. It refers to the organic model highlighted by Durkheim. It illustrates their belonging to a society whose regulation comes from a centralized organ such as the state (Merle & Vatin, 1995) or the coach. This conception tends to reproduce the existing and industrialized society and promotes immobility and tradition. Historically and originally, sportsmen were in charge of the organization of their practices. Unfortunately, they have been displaced from these functions to concentrate on their narrow sporting tasks, which presents limitations from a developmental point of view. The responses of the participants are very conclusive in this respect: they do not know who makes the rules and they do not believe that they should participate in this regulation:

49

I have never wondered about that… I don’t think sportsmen should participate into the evolution of rules. It is not our business;

50

Sports rules have always existed. They’ve never changed from the very beginning.

51The values underpinning sporting and social regulation are the principles of equality and individualism. Sporting rules are the same for everybody. This principle is synonymous with justice for this group of participants. It enables them to distinguish strong people from weak ones, beyond their other differences. This ideology is also transferred to contexts from everyday life, which can sometimes lead to social Darwinian selection and cynicism, as shown by the following excerpt:

52

If he is poor, it is because he deserves it;

53

The person who is in trouble must have deserved it.

54This principle of equality seems inferior to the principle of equity, which is underlined by self-organized sportsmen, as shown in the next paragraph.

3.1.2 – The horizontal and interactive citizenship of self-organized sportsmen

55Among self-organized adolescent sportsmen, the representation of responsibility and legal consciousness give rise to a more mature political reasoning. These representations are indeed orientated towards others, as highlighted below:

56

We are responsible for people living in France as much as we are responsible for the Indian child I don’t even know and who lives very far away from me;

57

If someone is injured while playing, you call for help, you go and see about the insurance, and you visit him to find out he’s recovering;

58

Solidarity between human beings is needed, like after the tsunami, for example.

59In this context, the teenagers highlight a willingness to engage with social regulations, as they do within their sporting practice:

60

If there is an important matter, we [the players] must face it;

61

We must fight against poverty; it is our duty.

62This sensitive, dynamic, and interactive relationship with the rules and with others suggests an active citizenship (Bonny, 1995). It is a citizenship orientated toward innovations due to individual or collective involvement. Exchanges are transversal without any official and structured institution or frame. This functioning prevents the self-organized sportsmen from connecting with politicians, since they are not organized by association and are therefore not recognized (Vieille-Marchiset, 2001), as underlined by the following quotes:

63

Politicians are not connected to the real world;

64

It is the people who make a difference.

65However, our results are not in line with those of Loret (1995) about fun and marginalized practices. The adolescents do not exhibit a logic of “breaking the rules,” but more one of “making the rules,” which is one of the main components of democracy (Thibaud, 1991).

66Our results underline an aspect of citizenship linked with public spirit. For example, Tim, a street soccer player, commented, “When you are in the bus and you see elderly people, you stand up in order to give them your seat.” Once again, this form of citizenship is socially situated and concrete. Behaving as everybody should makes sense in everyday life, as these excerpts highlight:

67

If you’ve got little sisters or brothers, take care of them;

68

You must try to understand each being, consider what he or she wants to do and listen.

69At the same time, as shown in some of the previous quotations, this group of participants has also developed an “international” citizenship that questions the existence of borders and poverty (Le Pors, 2000). As a consequence, their conception seems to evolve through a double dialectic that links local and global considerations, peers and transgenerational solidarity, and public spirit and democracy. This is in line with the vision of Bier and Roudet (1997), who valorize a citizenship opened to the future more than a citizenship aimed at reproducing the past order. On a political level, this means that a popular reconstruction is needed. This last idea coincides with the idea expressed by Castoriadis (1975) when he talks about “a permanent self-institution,” akin to a perpetual movement of active citizenships.

3.2.1 – Vertical and normative citizenship and the institutionalized context

70As we have just seen in the preceding paragraphs, vertical and normative citizenship is mainly used by the institutionalized group. Several contextual elements contribute to the development of such a conception.

71The institutionalized context is first of all characterized by the presence of adults who regulate all activities. Exchanges are unilateral (refereeing, creation and transmission of rules, and so forth) and already indicate the transcendence of the relationships, all the more so because strategic and powerful positions in the athletic movement are not occupied by the sportsmen (women) themselves (Arnaud, 1987; Defrance, 1995, 2001). From a political point of view, as Merle and Vatin (1995) state, it is the dissociation between the system and its participants through bureaucratic rationality that leads to the submission of the participants. This submission is illustrated by Fodimbi (1999, 2000) in the sporting context that reproduces and legitimates the traditional order. It is based on the absence of freedom and can even lead to “a voluntary servitude,” as La Boétie said in relation to totalitarian systems. This author is in line with Popper’s thought on closed societies. The only way to prevent transcendence is to evade the rules without being caught. This is another key principle found in practicing competitive sports.

72We are now going to move on to a more developed political consciousness.

3.2.2 – Horizontal and interactive citizenship and the self-organized context

73We will now interpret the horizontal and interactive conception in relation to the context of practice.

74First, the self-regulated context is considered as an open space where a lot of different kinds of interactions can take place (Fodimbi, 2000). Sportsmen can evolve in the presence of others, which is always interesting in terms of establishing their identity (Bordet, 1999). In addition, free regulation, from a local point of view, is what leads the participants to access a citizenship orientated towards others, who are considered as more important than rules (unlike in the competitive setting). This openness enables participants to be creative in different domains: techniques, regulation, and morality. Everyone’s imagination is therefore stimulated. Openness also makes it possible for everyone to participate in the regulation of the game, which would not exist without discussion and the creation of instantaneous norms (Vieille-Marchiset, 1998). Fodimbi (2000, 158) qualifies this situation as a “sort of democratic fiction.” The absence of a preexisting hierarchy cancels out the existence of a dominant and privileged class (Vieille-Marchiset, 1998, 2001).

75Finally, the simplification of rules (compared to federal ones) promotes the return of ethics and individual responsibility – a world based more on a small but consistent set of moral principles rather than an infinite number of laws. Popper analyzed this phenomenon through what he called “open societies.” These societies are at the beginning of the development of critical thinking and of the quest of happiness for everybody – the ultimate principle of political development.