Our website publishes news, press releases, opinion and advertorials on various financial organizations, products and services which are commissioned from various Companies, Organizations, PR agencies, Bloggers etc. These commissioned articles are commercial in nature. This is not to be considered as financial advice and should be considered only for information purposes. It does not reflect the views or opinion of our website and is not to be considered an endorsement or a recommendation. We cannot guarantee the accuracy or applicability of any information provided with respect to your individual or personal circumstances. Please seek Professional advice from a qualified professional before making any financial decisions. We link to various third-party websites, affiliate sales networks, and to our advertising partners websites. When you view or click on certain links available on our articles, our partners may compensate us for displaying the content to you or make a purchase or fill a form. This will not incur any additional charges to you. To make things simpler for you to identity or distinguish advertised or sponsored articles or links, you may consider all articles or links hosted on our site as a commercial article placement. We will not be responsible for any loss you may suffer as a result of any omission or inaccuracy on the website.

Celebrating and mocking violence both make it more socially acceptable

by jcp
0 comment

Professional players, spectators, and media outlets acknowledge the violence in rugby games but distinguish it from other illegal “bad” forms of violence, research from ESSEC Business School reveals, in order to better understand the ethics of violence.

In France, professional rugby matches caused 2,208 injuries in three years, averaging four injuries per game. Yet matches in the final rounds of French Rugby Union League competitions regularly attract up to 80,000 spectators.

Delphine Dion, Professor of Marketing at ESSEC, co-authored a study based on in-depth interviews with consumers and professional players, photo-elicitation, and social media posts, to find out how violence on rugby pitches is justified.

Dion and her colleagues found that consumers, players, and reporters dramatize rugby matches as war scenarios rather than civilian ones. Teams are represented as bands of warriors. Translated into this alternative reality, the game takes place in a situation where exerting and receiving violence is accepted and celebrated. Simultaneously, grotesque live performances and amusing songs undercut the drama of violence on the pitch, making it easier to process.

“There is a tension between celebrating and mocking the war at the same time, meaning violence can be perceived as fake or funny. Far from questioning violence, these practices are a way of avoiding criticism and strengthening the worthiness of violence,” says Dion.

Consumers and professionals justify violence by referring to its conformity to the rules of the game. As long as violence occurs within the rules of the game, it’s fine.

Cameras and sportcasters aestheticize remarkable actions, that is, the actions and interactions that they want to make more spectacular and dramatic. They camouflage players’ pain and injuries by making pain taboo and hiding the injuries themselves. Through the way they stage games, they produce the illusion of a non-violent game.

“Our findings enable us to offer some recommendations to all firms that participate in competitive sports organizations, such as governing bodies, producers, broadcasters and sportscasters, to avoid or limit the justification of violence,” says Dion.

Dion recommends that media and competition organisers avoid making war references in relation to rugby, and provide content on injuries, consequences, rule changes, and protective equipment, to create a more truthful and less glamorous portrayal of violence on rugby pitches.

This research was published in the Journal of Business Ethics.

Related Posts