Chuck Lott
March 9, 2012
Does the choice of animal mascot affect the behavior of fans in general and at sporting events in particular?
In January 2011, the National Championship contest for college football was played in Tempe, Arizona in front of a crowd of 100,000 crazed spectators who came from all over the globe to witness the culmination of the NCAA season. Pitted against each other were the Auburn Tigers and their opponent, the Oregon Ducks. Both teams had similar records, outstanding players, and loyal fan bases. Other than the typical petty crimes and incidents that are associated with such major sporting events, there were no major incidents of unusual violence or incidents reported after the game’s conclusion. Fans dressed in typical costumes showing their support of their teams, in this case, of course, Tigers and Ducks. Many more wore body paint and held signs up to attract the attention of the television cameras. Unusual in this case was the huge difference in the animals that serve as the mascots of the respective teams. It begs a signification question: Would Auburn fans whose mascot is a tiger, an animal some may associate with aggressive and threating behavior, have more of an inclination to ‘act out’ the animal’s behavior than their opposition, the ducks, an animal who is seen as non-threatening and poses no danger? I argue that the choice of animal is inconsequential to the behavior of fans, and other factors such as artificial kinship, the need for a common enemy, and amplified group behaviors are more predominant in effecting behavior in the realm of sports fanatics.
Authors Andy Rudd and Brian S. Gordon, in their article in the December 2001 edition of The Journal of Sports Behavior, in discussing sports fans wrote, “ There is also a dark side to sports fandom/sport spectatorship that warrants attention. Sport spectators engage in a variety of aggressive behaviors including verbal assaults, throwing objects at opposing players, holding up distraction signs, chanting derogatory statements, vandalizing, fighting, and sometimes even rushing the field to hurt an opposing player or coach” (Rudd & Gordon 2001).
Sports fans in many ways form artificial kinships. Sports paraphernalia such as bumper stickers, tags, T-Shirts, and hats bearing team insignias and rally cries are a huge financial asset to universities. Many fans shout their teams rally cry to complete strangers whom they observe them wearing their team insignias. “War Eagle! Roll Tide! or, Go Dawgs! are commonly heard across the country, but perhaps more so in the South. Conversely, I state from my own experience that some fans see the insignia of their rivals and quickly make a determination of that person as ‘not one of us’, i.e., not in our ‘kinship’ group and attribute to that person less desirable personality characteristics, such as being un-friendly or rude, without basis, only on the perception taken from the symbol representing a rival.
Rivalries, or perceived enemies, are the fuel for sports fanaticism. This is easily observed in Spring practice football games across the country. I usually try to attend the spring game at the University of Alabama, the institution from which my wife was granted her degree in 1978. UA has one of the largest followings of any program in the country, and the team’s recent success (NCAA Division 1A champions 2009 and 2011) brings much enthusiasm to the already wildly devoted fan base. The “A-Day” or spring game, an inter-squad affair lacks the ‘enemy’ component of a regular season game. The stadium will be at capacity for the exhibition, but the ‘electricity’ in the air is noticeably missing in the contest. For one of ‘our’ players to excel, one of “our” players has to have failed. There is no ‘us against them’ element. The game is entertaining and a reunion of our ‘kin’ group, but it lacks the essential element of competition. It is interesting to examine the factors that contribute to that difference from a regular season game.
Sometimes, fans and boosters who associate themselves with particular teams far exceed the boundaries of what is acceptable behavior toward their rivals. January 27, 2011, Harvey Updike, 62, a self professed University of Alabama fan who resides in Dadeville Alabama, allegedly called a Birmingham sports radio station and using a fake name, claimed to have poisoned a pair of live oaks near the University of Alabama’s biggest rival, Auburn University. Updyke, told the radio station that he used the herbicide Spike D80F to contaminate the soil at the base of the trees. The 130-year-old trees are not expected to survive the attack. The “Toomer Oaks” have great symbolic value to fans and supporters of the southern Alabama school. Auburn fans have traditionally ‘rolled’ the pair of trees with toilet paper after Auburn football victories. Updike’s action was in reaction to Alabama’s last second loss to Auburn in the Iron Bowl, the traditional last Saturday in November in 2010. The loss was particularly painful to Alabama fans, in part, because the home team had blown a 24 point lead, and to further infuriate the Alabama fans, an (allegedly) Auburn supporter had spread winter rye grass seed in 30’ large numbers onto the sod at the Alabama field, reflecting the score, 28-27 (Boone 2011). There was a huge outcry and condemnation from not only Auburn supporters, but those of Alabama as well. University of Alabama fans created a facebook page, Tiders for Toomer’s which raised money for the either rehabilitation or replacement of the poisoned trees. Although the website does not currently list the amount of donations, it has far exceeded $50,000.00. If convicted, Updyke could face 10 years in prison if convicted of the felony, the article reports. According to an ESPN magazine article, Updyke said that “pranks” are common among fans, citing incidents in Texas regarding Bevo, the Texas Longhorns mascot. “I get it. I know why they are pissed” Updyke told the ESPN reporter referring to the Auburn fans. Updyke continued “You know, they (Auburn fans) have been shitting on (revered former UA coach) Bear Bryant’s grave for 30 years. That’s a felony, and they aren’t doing anything about that. They (Auburn fans) painted (current Alabama coach) Nick Saban’s lake house orange and blue (Auburn colors) (Thompson, ESPN 2011).
What surprised Updyke, who did not attend either university, is that his act became a felony when it became apparent that he could have poisoned the city’s water supply, increasing his consequence from a small fine to prison time, and that his perceived ‘kinship’ unit, the other Alabama fans, did not support his actions and urged his prosecution and ostracized him from the group. These sorts of activities are not unique to southern cultures. In Minnesota, a UM fan was “barred from the Sports Pavilion and Williams Arena for a year for punching the University mascot, Goldy Gopher” According to an Associated Press Article. It continues, “Douglas Dokken, 60, was given a citation for disorderly conduct and a trespass warning. The mascot was not hurt, but the mask was damaged” (Associated press 2011).
Vamik D. Volkan, President of the Society of Political Psychology, entitled his presidential address in 1985, “The Need to Have Enemies and Allies: A Developmental Approach.” Although Volkan was predominately addressing the relationships between U.S. and Soviet relationships, the underlying ideologies are applicable to sports fans and obsessive behavior. He begins his abstract: “This paper describes as an inescapable developmental phenomenon; man’s need to identify some people as allies and others as enemies. This need evolves from the individual’s efforts to protect his sense of self, which is intertwined with his experiences of ethnicity, nationality, and other circumstances” (Volkan 1985: 219).Once groups are formed and kinship bonds acquired, the behavior of the group takes a different mentality.
“Psychological forces operating within groups seem to take their own special direction once those groups are formed” (Volkan 1985: 219). Author W.R Bion in his book, Experience in Groups, make observations that are useful in considering the sports fan behavior, especially in the perception of enemies. Bion writes, “The group with the ‘fight-flight’ assumption perceives its leader (the team’s coach) as directing a fight against the teams (thusly including the enemy of the fans, which are the fans of the opposition’s team) external enemies, but it soon breaks down into sub-groups that fight each other” (Volkan 1985: 230, Bion, 1961). This statement illuminated many facets of fan behavior, such as body painting, costumes, organized cheers and taunts, and holding large signs oriented toward differentiating “us” from “them”. In these manners, fans symbolically ‘fight’ the enemy of their team and their kin group, not on the field, but in the stands. Volkan concludes with a statement that sums up fans involvement in sports, “After all, the main point of drawing lines between ‘them’ and ‘us’ however specious the justification for those lines may be, is to clarify and affirm the sense of ‘us’ in a way that strengthens positive self-representation. The self-portrait of any group is relative, depending in varying degrees on the kind of dark background that will bring its own light and strong qualities into relief” (Volkan 1985: 245)
In many ways, sports fan’s allegiance and devotion to their teams form a socio-religion. As far back as 1918, anthropologist A.A. Goldenweiser had identified the totemic relationships between humans and animals that are useful in understanding many of the modern sports fan obsessions and behavior regarding the sport. Goldenweiser makes the socio-religious connection thusly, “A religious society is a group of individuals who bear a common name, often derived from an animal, share a set of religious and mythological beliefs, and perform together certain ceremonies” (Goldenweiser 1961: 286) What makes these groups of people bond together is the allegiance to the sports teams of the respective universities, a majority of which did not attend the schools. These kinship bonds allow many of the team followers to assume a group identity that allows them social recognition in many ways; however, the kinship is reliant on the sport. Goldenweiser writes, “While religious societies, like clans are social units, they are constituted social units solely by the exercise of common functions. Take away the functions and nothing remains but an aggregate of wholly unrelated individuals” (Goldenweiser 1961:286).
Sports fans, and their behavior, is often highly influenced by the success of the team, and when the team is ultra-successful, an in the case of the Tigers and the Ducks, many people who would not have associated themselves with the team then become a part of the fan base. In their article, Social Identity Theory and the Organization, authors Blake E. Ashforth and Fred Mael explore the ways in which people associate themselves. This line of thought is useful in examining how fans, although many have never played the sport themselves, still consider themselves part of the team. “Social identification enables the individual to locate or define him –or herself, in the social environment” and that “To identify, an individual need not expend effort towards the group’s goals: rather, and individual need only perceive himself as psychologically intertwined with the fate of the group” (Ashforth & Mael, 1989: 21).
Louis A. Zurcher, a professor at the University of Texas, Austin, used an opportunity as a ‘guest coach’ to gain a unique perspective of the organization of the sport of football on a collegiate level and participate in a game from the sideline and experience the contest from an emic participant’s viewpoint. He wrote his finding in “The Staging of Emotion: A Dramaturgical Analysis” in 1982. One of the most interesting aspects of the article deals with fans at the game, and how spectator’s behavior is often manipulated in ways they do not comprehend. “Dramaturgically considered, emotion, or more accurately the performance of emotion, is enacted by the individual in terms of his or her understanding of appropriate behavior in a particular situation” (Zurcher 1985:2). Zurcher makes mention of the purposes of the game: “to train athletes for professional sports, to encourage alumni donations, to attract students, and to enhance organizational status” (Zurcher 1985:2). Zurcher touches upon, but does not elaborate on the ways that fans are manipulated during the game. “The manipulations of emotions, resulting in people having a good time, serve the organization” (Zurcher 1985:3). Loud music pumps up the crowd, giant televisions show past victories, the school’s marching band performs patriotic selections, and at some venues, beer flows and further whips the excitable crowd into frenzy, and occasionally into undesirable behaviors.
Humans have long associated themselves with animals as symbols, not only in sporting events but in other ways as well. A definition of totemism that relates well to consideration in sports is found in authors S. Lee Seaton and Karen Watson’s journal article, “A Proto- Ethnosemantic Differential for American Cultural Insignia; Team Totems in Major League Sports”. The authors put forth Raymond Firths’s argument that, “totemism is a system of beliefs and practices embodying concepts of a mystical or ritual relationship between members of a social group and members of a class of objects, usually an animal or plant.” (Seaton & Watson 1970: 305). To apply Firths definition to sports cultures, Seaton and Watson write, “ One example of the traditional expression of attitudes toward sports is the selection of totemic names which are indicative of particular social values (Seaton & Watson 1970: 305).
College and Universities have long standing traditions regarding animals as symbols of their institutions. According to authors Joanne Sloane and Cheryl Watts’ book, “College Nicknames and Other Interesting Sports Traditions,” The most common athletic names are “Tigers, Bears, Panthers, Bulldogs, Wildcats, Eagles, Cougars, and Indians” (Sloane & Watts 1983:2). Most likely, Native Americans would no longer be included in this category. The authors also state the origins of many ‘nicknames’. “The most common source was newspaper sports reporters. Editors and reporters for college and local newspapers have had a habit of giving a school a nickname in an article or column, and many times the school followed suit and formally adopted the name” (Sloane & Watts 1983:4). Also included as the second most predominate method was through student body contests (Sloane & Watts 1983:2).
As for Auburn and Oregon? According to Sloane and Watts, “the Tigers of Auburn owe their name to the Oliver Goldsmith poem, “The Deserted Village” which begins with the line “the loveliest village on the plain” The daughter of John J. Harper, founder of the city of Auburn, named the town from this line in the poem.(although the poem was referring to the city of Auburn in England). The schools nickname is from a line in the poem, which describes Auburn as “where deadly Tigers await their unsuspecting prey” (Sloane & Watts 1983:26, Corrigan & Tighe, 2008:12 ).
Oregon, which according to the same source, “did not have a nickname until the 1920’s” when the local media coined the term ‘Webfoots’ which indicated the common problem of poorly drained turf fields”. The authors continue, “ the name ‘Ducks’ began creeping into the sports headlines. By the 1940’s, Webfoots were equally referred to as the ‘Ducks’, and by the 1950’s had become more popular (Sloane & Watts 1983:230).
The disparity between these two examples, although a microscopic sample, represents the two broad categories of animals used as mascots, those carnivores who could be feared, such as the Tiger and Bear, and the herbivores whose images are less likely to fear in the opponent, such as the Beaver and the Duck. The evidence put forth herein shows that at least in the sports world, the Duck and Beaver is as mighty as the Crocodile and Ram, and that fans who misbehave in the name of their obsession do so because of deep seated psychological reasons, not because of the animal who symbolically represents their team.
Bibliography
Ashforth, Blake E. and Mael, Fred. (1989) Social Identity Theory and the Organization The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 14, No. 1 (Jan., 1989), pp. 20-39 http://www.jstor.org/stable/258189. accessed March 8, 2012.
Bion, W.R. (1961) Experience in Groups. Basic Books, New York, NY.
Boone, Christian. Accused Auburn Tree-Killing the Talk of Alabama. Georgia Sports, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. AJC.com. http: www.ajc.com/sports/auburn-tree-killing-the-841586.html. Accessed March 9, 2012
Commentary: Sports is Overrun with Mascots (2004). Washington D.C. United States, Washington D.C.: National Public Radio. Retrieved from: http://search.proquest.com/docview/189814218?accountid=15017. Feb 2, 2012
Corrigan, Delia and Tighe, Elizabeth. (2008) Go Team! Mascots of the SEC. Publisher: Go Team Llc. (July 2008)
Dyreson, Mark. The Sporting World of the Modern South. The Georgia Historical Quarterly, Vol. 87, No. 3/4 (FALL/WINTER 2003), pp. 467-470 Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40584698 .
Egan.D. (2002, Mar 04) A Furry Flurry. Canadian Business. 75 (4), 106-111. retrieved from http://searchproquest.com/docview/221377746?accountid=15017
Erik, Brady. “Mascots Put on Short Leash” USA Today. EBSCO host. http://ts.isil.westga.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=JOF135476385211&site=ehost-live accessed February 9, 2012
Gagne, Matt. “The Fur Flies at Michigan” Sports Illustrated 115, (accessed February 9, 2012)
Hopkins, E. Washburn. (1918) The Background of Totemism Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 38 (1918), pp. 145-159 URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/592599. Accessed Feb 2, 2012
King, C. Richard. (2004) Preoccupations and Prejudices: Reflections on the Study of Sports Imagery Anthropologica, Vol. 46, No. 1 (2004), pp. 29-36 Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25606165 . Accessed February 12, 2012
Seaton, S. Lee and Watson, Karen Ann. (1970) A Proto-Ethnosemantic Differential for American Cultural Insignia: Team Totems in Major League Sports. Anthropological Linguistics, Vol. 12. No. 8. pp. 304-318. http://www.jstor.org/stable/30029265. accessed February 5, 2012.
Sloan, Joanne and Watts, Cheryl. (1993) College Nicknames: And Other Interesting Sports Traditions .Vision Press, (January 1993)
The Associated Press. (2011) “Fan Barred for Punching Mascot” New York Times. March 10, 2011. 17. Accessed February 9, 2012. http://ts.isil.westga.edu.login?url=http://searchechohost.com
Thompson, Mark. (2011) The Life and Times of Harvey Updyke. ESPN.com. Accessed March 9, 2012 at http://sports.espn.com/ncf/colums/story?id=657499
Rudd, Andy and Gordon, Brian S. (2010) Sports Spectators Surveys. The Journal of Sports Behavior. http://www.biomedsearch.com/article/explotary-investuigation-sports. Accessed February 29, 2012.
Volkan, Vamik D. (1985) The Need to Have Enemies and Allies: A Developmental Approach Political Psychology, Vol. 6, No. 2, Special Issue: A Notebook on the Psychology of the U.S.-Soviet Relationship (Jun., 1985), pp. 219-247 Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3790902 . Accessed March 9, 2012
Zurcher,Louis A. (1982) The Staging of Emotion: A Dramaturgical Analysis. Symbolic Interaction, Vol. 5, No. 1 (Spring 1982), pp. 1-2http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/si.1982.5.1.accessed March 2, 2012
Chuck Lott Publications 