ABSTRACT
NOTHING, IT WOULD SEEM, is more fundamental in the lexicon and practiceof history than context. E. P. Thompson defines history as the ‘discipline of context’,1 while Robert Berkhofer observes that ‘historians do not question the basic desirability of finding [a context] as the appropriate background for understanding past ideas, behaviors and institutions’.2 While sport historians eagerly contextualise their sources and evidence, and even their concepts and theories,3 when it comes to contextualising the practice of sport, enthusiasm wanes. This is especially true among the fan element who, after all, are the great majority in the phenomenon we call sport. Perhaps fans fear that broad inquiry will reveal the dark side of sport,4 or perhaps they sincerely believe that the natural essence of sport transcends context. Steven Jay Gould, for example, subscribes to the latter view. Although not a sport historian, Gould’s intellectual reputation undoubtedly lends credibility to his views. In keeping with his belief that baseball is intrinsically ‘profound’, Gould dismisses those scholars who connect the game to supposedly ‘deeper issues’ of morality and history. To him they are ridiculous and merely pursuing ulterior motives and agendas.5
