Body-Cultures:

Handball, Gender and Sportification of Body-Cultures: 1900-40 GERD VON DER LIPPE Telemark D.H. 3800, Bo, Norway Abstract The aim of this article i...
Author: Donald Merritt
4 downloads 2 Views 1MB Size
Handball, Gender and Sportification of

Body-Cultures: 1900-40 GERD VON DER LIPPE Telemark D.H. 3800, Bo,

Norway

Abstract

The aim of this article is to focus on the sportification process of handball in Germany and Norway, and to present the first feminist critique of the term sportification. When handball became a national sport in Norway in 1937, the sportification process had already taken place for many years in other European countries. In 1920, handball was organized on a national level in Germany. All bodily contact seemed to be forbidden in Germany before 1920 to get more female players. In 1920, men, in contrast to women, were allowed some degree of bodily contact in order to to change the activity into a "Kampfspiel" - a combat game. According to the only weekly sportspaper in Norway, SportsManden, handball was at first regarded as a sport for males. The first Norwegian rules from 1937 did not contain one word about female players, whereas the German rules did, concerning e.g. shorter playing time. A supplement to the Norwegian rules of 1937 was sent out to the potential handball clubs to point out that the playing arenas could be smaller, if necessary. The following year female players dominated the federation in numbers. The first Norwegian championship and the first national team consisted of females. The term sportification as presented by Bernett and Goksoyr seems to have a patriarchal base, which seems to put the male interpretation of rationalism in an absolutist way: as the only alternative. While males seemed to dominate handball in Germany along with the Bernett-Goksoyr patriarchal interpretation of the term sportification, more females than males were attracted to this sport in Norway.

The Aim

This article is part of the project &dquo;Handball, Gender and Sportification of bodycultures : 1900-90&dquo;. The main question here is why handball developed into a women’s sport in Norway (more than 50% of the total members), while the same sport became a men’s sport in Germany. Female members of organized handball in Norway constituted 66% of the total registered on 31.12.1990. In Germany the corresponding proportion was 30%. The aim of this article is to focus on the sportification process of handball in Germany and Norway, and to present the first feminist critique of the term sportification. The aspects presented in this article are believed to be some of several that have contributed to the development of handball into a men’s sport in Germany and into a women’s sport in Norway in a decisive phase of the sportification process of handball in each country, the first years of the National Handball Federations in both countries: in Germany in the period, 1920-26, and in Norway Int Rev for Soc of Sport 29/2 (1994) @ R. Oldenbourg Verlag GmbH, D-81613 Munchen

212

in the period, 1937-40. At that time sport in both countries seemed principally to be a symbol of masculinity. Corresponding with this was a growing emphasis on team sports, in which aggressive body contact is stressed (for example soccer and ice hockey). Female participation was marginalized. As long as the ideal of the Western &dquo;bourgeois&dquo; from the turn of this century was in the ascendant, aggressive female body contact in team sports was minimized.

A Short Overview of the

Development of Handball

Activities similar to handball, seem to have existed as play forms in several European countries around 1900, before handball developed into a modern sport with national and international rules. Sources in both Germany and Denmark claim that the modern game was created in &dquo;their&dquo; country. The idea of this game today is that two opposing teams - each consisting of 7 the goalkeeper - try to throw the ball into the goal with one hand, and at the same time try to stop the opposing team scoring goals.

players, including

Concerning the question of where modern handball first developed, I will try to or formal rules most like to handball of today. The most important factors are the throwing of the ball to the players, the goal and the goalkeeper. The first rules of a game named &dquo;Haandbold&dquo; were published in Denmark by Holger Nielsen in 1906. According to this author the game was &dquo;invented&dquo; in Denmark by some of his schoolboys in 1898 (Nielsen 1923, 6). The playing area was 45 metres long and 30 metres broad (Nielsen 1906, 3). (Today the corresponding figures are 40 x 20.) 11 or 16 persons were further recommended to play on each team. Only the goalkeeper was allowed to kick the ball with the foot, the others had to throw it with the hand. Pushing an opponent was allowed in order to make this person lose the ball. In contrast to the rules of today a person was allowed to run with the ball in his hands through the goal line, as in rugby. trace old written

Neuberth claims that the Germans &dquo;created&dquo; modern handball in 1897

(Neubert 1928, 33). He refers to the &dquo;Wiesbadener Torballspiele&dquo; with body contact and the &dquo;Koningsberger Ball&dquo; without body contact. In these games, however, the ball was hit by the fist or the underarm and not thrown. According to Fühler, handball was invented in Germany, and from this country it diffused to the rest of the world (Fuhler 1930, 1). According to Riekhoff, however, handball was not played in Germany until 1917 (Riekhoff 1943, 81). Then the rules were changed by Max Heisser in Berlin. Now the ball was thrown, and there was a goal and a goalkeeper. Schelenz, however, claims that handball started in Berlin in 1915 (Schelenz 1930, 429). Maybe Schelenz was right, but the rules were not changed officially until 1917. These are the points of departure of Riekhoff. It seems that handball was played in schools in some countries before it developed into a sport. For example, there are references to 11 a side play in Ordrup school in Denmark as early as 1903 (the version of Nielsen from 1906). In Sweden handball seemed to reach teachers and seamen at about the same time. The seamen played indoor handball with 7 on the team in Karlskrona from 1907

(Carlsson 1990, 5).

213

Teachers in Sweden played handball at the Naas seminaries near Goteborg from 1909-10 (Thorbjornsson 1990, 173). Here colleagues from the whole of Scandinavia and Germany joined in this activity. This game consisted of normally 11 players in each team, but running with the ball was not allowed at all (Walden 1912, 71). It had to be thrown from a standing position. No contact was tolerated, and the distance between the players had to be a minimum of one metre. (Ibid.,

72) These rules were also used in Germany, by female gymnasts in Berlin from 1917, with small changes. In the German rules the ball could for example be thrown with

one or

both hands

At first it

seems

unlikely

(Riekhoff 1943, 73).

that the rules of Naas and

Germany

diffused from

Denmark, because of the differences between the games in these countries. The Danish players were able to run with the ball, although not &dquo;for a longer distance&dquo;. (Nielsen, opcit. 1906, 12) Further, the Danish players could obstruct and grab an opposing player until the person had thrown the ball away (ibid. 6-7). There is one source, which indicates that the Swedes might have got the idea from Germany (Jerneryd 1981, 177). A teacher who taught at Naas, is supposed to have made a trip to Berlin to study pedagogical out-of-door games in 1894. In 1990, however, this author stated that the handball at Naas in Sweden diffused from Denmark (Jerneryd 1990, 28). If this is correct, then the rules might have been changed to a less aggressive game in order to fit the teachers and the methods of physical education in schools.

According to Danish sources the 7-a-side game seems to have been developed in Denmark from 1911-12 by a teacher, Fredrik Knudsen (Danish Sports Federation 1944,480). Swedish sources, however, claim that 7-a-side handball was played in Karlskrona in 1907. A model for this indoor play could have been basketball. A Swedish pole vaulter, Bruno Soderstrom, is supposed to have got the idea of a 7-a-side team game from the USA (Carlsson 1990, 5). The version of handball of today as a 7-a-side game seems to have developed either in Sweden or in Denmark, while most original sources available today indicate that modern handball started in Denmark according to the criteria of this article. The Danish handball game described by Nielsen is the earliest one so far found and more alike to handball of today than the games which up til now are found in Germany and Sweden. One should, however, not exclude the possibility that the game might have been modernized in different countries at the same time. In any case, handball in Norway was diffused via Sweden. The cultural influence of Sweden seemed to be at its highest in the years, 1814 - 1905, when Norway was under the hegemony of Sweden as part of a political union. The influence from the &dquo;big brother&dquo; to Norway was, however, strong in the 1930s, too. The Oslo club, &dquo;Arild&dquo; visited the Swedish club &dquo;Redbergslid&dquo; in Goteborg to study handball in 1935. The contact between these two clubs started handball as a sport in Norway. Handball was organized on a national level in Germany in 1920 (both by the Track and Field Federation and the Gymnastics Federation - Die Deutsche Turnerschaft), in Sweden in 1930 and in Denmark via the Danish Track and Field Federation in 1931 and from 1935 within the Danish Handball Federation. Germany seems to have commenced national championships for both sexes from

214

1920 onwards (officially for men from 1922 and for women in 1923), while Swedish men had to wait until 1932 and their women until 1942. The Danes, both men and women were late in this respect in 1939. However, Danish and Swedish men had national teams from 1935. The first official international handball game was between the German national male team and the austrian in 1925. The Germans started initial work for an international organization for handball in 1926. Two years later it became a reality (Burmeister 1938, 8). Among its members in the thirties were: Germany, Switzerland, Austria, Belgium, Denmark and Sweden. Male players dominated the sport in all of these countries. The sportification process of women in bourgeoisie team sports in general and in sports supposed to be unfit for women (so- called &dquo;masculine sports&dquo;) in particular seemed to reach Norway at a later date than in Germany. German females could compete in Basketball, similar to &dquo;Korbball&dquo;, and Handball on a national level from 1920, and in Track and Field from 1919, while the corresponding dates in Norway are 1937 and 1947. Even the Norwegian national winter sport, cross-country skiing, was supposed to be unfit for female competitors until the end of the sixties according to mainstream (male) opinion. The Weimar Republic in Germany had a positive influence on women’s sport (Pfister 1984, 85-89). The body at the top of the German Track and Field Federation inspired the clubs to create women’s sections. In Norway the sportification process of women in &dquo;masculine sports&dquo; like track and field, crosscountry skiing, distance skating and so on did not seem to be initiated or encouraged either by the male central leaders of the bourgeoisie sports or at the governmental level in the period 1918-1960.

The Term

&dquo;Sportification&dquo;

Bernett (1984) made use of the term &dquo;Versportlichung&dquo; in order to denote the process of turning a physical activity into a sport. He claimed that play can adopt a sporting character or form in certain historical contexts. By this he was referring to play developing into a thoroughly rationalized activity. &dquo;Es ist aber evident, daB Spiele unter bestimmten historischen und gesellschaftlichen Bedingungen den Character einer Sportform annehmen, indem sie durchgreifend rationalisiert werden&dquo; (Bernett 1984, 142). His term is based on the empirical study of the development of the modern &dquo;Faustballspiel&dquo; (similar to volleyball) from 1885 into a sport. According to Bernett it was invented by a male gymnastics teacher in Munich, Georg Heinrich Weber (ibid., 145). The aim was to keep the ball in the air as long as possible. The ball had to be hit from below to make a high curve. Around 1895 some teams tried to play with manliness and power (ibid., 146). Against the norms of the 1890s the strongest players were allowed to hit the ball further than 20 metres. In 1908 Faustball seemed to be the most popular activity among the German Gymnastic Games, &dquo;Turnspiele&dquo; (Fischer 1908, 809). During this phase Faustball was supposed to be unfit for women, because of for instance 1 the emphasis on power. I Bernett focused on the dynamics of a process of the rationalization of physical activities in the 19th century in which the following elements were involved: Scientification, systematization, regulation, technification and the rationalization of movements (Bernett 1984, 161). In the 20th century, these elements were

I

215

strengthened, together with

the

internationalization,

or

Europeanization

of the

sport.

Goksoyr emphasized that sportification included the process of making a physical activity into a modern sport, e.g. &dquo;a development towards achievement orientation and competitiveness in a rational setting&dquo; (Goksoyr 1990, 1). He also developed the term further by distinguishing it from Elias’ concept of sportization which seems to be tied too closely with his concept of the civilizing process (Elias and Dunning 1986). Goksoyr also distinguished the term sportification from Dunning’s concept of modernization (Goksoyr 1988, 53). In this way Goksoyr was striving to make the concept of sportification more precise and less culture- and time-bound to an English context than Elias’ and Dunning’s somewhat more extensive term &dquo;sportization&dquo;. These male scientists did not include women’s sports in this discussion. The history of international sports has, however, shown that women met special international gender barriers in the sportification process. If the aim of science is to focus on these processes of human beings and not only those of men, then women’s positions in this field ought to be visible and included (Lippe, von der 1985, 1987; Olofsson 1988; Peyton/Pfister 1989; Laine 1989; Hargreaves 1990,

1991). A Feminist Process

Critique of the Term Sportification and the Male sportification

This critique seems to have a double perspective. It is supposed to include both an analysis of the term sportification and the male sportification process itself. The point of departure of this critique are the gender aspects of feminism. Three different positions - equal rights, equal worth and a feminist critique of the Western mainstream bourgeoisie ideology of masculinity - are shortly outlined in this paper on the basis of some examples of the practice of women’s sports in Germany and Norway. In this way this article might be labelled &dquo;historical sociology&dquo;. Terms in the sociology of today are used with historical data to draw distinctions between past and present more clearly. &dquo;Doing justice to the reality of history is... seeing that the past is not just the womb of the present but the only raw material out of which the present can be constructed.&dquo; (Abrams 1982, 8.) Bernett seems to have used the term sportification as equivalent to a play/game that develops into a thoroughly rationalized activity (Bernett 1984, 142), and Gosoyr seems to have interpreted it as referring to the element of &dquo;pure&dquo; rationalism in modern sport (Goksoyr 1988, 53-54). Both scientists seem explicitly and implicitly to have in mind only one kind of rationalism, which may be characterized as purposely rational action, &dquo;Zweckrationale Handlung&dquo; in Weber’s typology of action (Mjoset 1983, 6). Both Weber and Habermas seem to have been critical of the dominance of Zweckrational action in the Western world (Halsaa 1988, 41). In this way a feminist critique also includes male critiques of mainstream rationality. The point of departure for the feminist critique is gender. Bernett and Goksoyr did not explicitly state that men are supposed to be the carriers, mediators and defenders of rationalism. Explicitly omitting the gender perspective in this way as

216

well as indirectly taking for granted that the male sex is in focus is according to feminist theory, one way of making the values of women as a group invisible. In this way the term sportification can be labelled as having a patriarchal base, which seems to put the male interpretation of rationality in an absolutistic way: i.e. as the only rational choice. Thus the male interpretation of the term sportification can be said to be &dquo;tied up&dquo; with the symbols of masculinities. Technical rationalism where profit, control, need and exchange and self-interest seem to dominate, is believed to fit into the sphere of production; the masculine worlds. On the other hand altruism, care for, and orientation towards the needs of others are supposed to dominate in the sphere of reproduction; the feminine worlds. Even today the basic elements of these two worlds seem to exist.

According to Anna G. Jonasdottir women’s cultures are based to a larger extent than that of men on actions of devotion (love) instead of controlled choices. The above mentioned characteristics may be labelled essentialistic. It is an essential and static difference between a masculine and a feminine world. Such a position is not in focus here. These characteristics are relative and dependent on the relationship between the two sexes in different historical periods and contexts.

There are of course different feminist perspectives in feminism in general and in sport science in particular, although the two first categories do not seem to be too popular among several postmodern feminists of today. Three of them which seem to agree with empirical data will be dealt with here. An &dquo;equal rights&dquo; position treats all kind of sports as arenas for both sexes, as participants, leaders and spokeswomen/men. the historical point of departure could be labelled &dquo;liberal feminism&dquo; (Jaggar 1983, 173-207; Lippe, von der 1985, 37-39) and its political theory is linked to feminist empiricism (Eisenstein 1981; Harding 1991, 116). The rationality of men’s sports as such is not criticized in this position, but only the &dquo;absolutist&dquo; masculine way of omitting the other sex, or making it invisible. The &dquo;equal worth&dquo; position is that some sports seem better suited to for one sex than to the other, for instance soccer for men and &dquo;gymnastics&dquo; for women. The focus here is on the differences between the sexes, based on different values in women’s and men’s cultures. These differences are of equal worth, although the aspects of power are invisible and the man’s hegemonic position seems to be taken for granted. Because of this it is discussed whether this position can be labelled as feminist or &dquo;only&dquo; a woman’s position (Lippe, von der 1990, 6). The historical point of departure of this position is also called &dquo;romantic feminism&dquo;. Men who have to enter the sphere of power and competition have a tendency to have their &dquo;nature&dquo; obscured in contrast to women who are in many ways shielded from the world of power (Ruether 1983,105). None of these positions takes the question of class or race into consideration is the principle of the dualistic rational of the bourgeois ideology of masculinity criticized. This way of thinking inherited among others from Aristotle and Descartes excluded in principle the integration of the traditional masculine (for instance expression of aggression in controlled circumstances) and the traditional feminine worlds (for instance actions of devotion). (Among others: Oglesby 1978; Jordanova 1980; Pfister 1989; Viestad 1989; Lippe, von der 1992.) nor

217

The values of the women’s cultures might be interpreted in the Western male rationale of the term sportification as a preliminary phase in the sportification process, where for example play, devotion and lack of achievement orientation are supposed to be important factors. A parallel to the feminist culture nature perspective seems relevant. In human history the growth of culture through increasing domination over nature involved &dquo;the increasing assertion of masculine ways over irrational, backward-looking women&dquo; (Jordanova 1987, 61). Applying this perspective to the development of handball in Norway, this activity can be regarded as having been at a preliminary stage of the sportification process before 1937 when for example different rules were used in the various districts and both sexes participated, probably in a less achievement oriented way. In this way feminist theory seems in principle to question the aims, the male rationale and also the equal rights and the equal worth positions described above.

This third perspective is termed a feminist critique of the Western mainstream bourgeois ideology of masculinity. It is not a logical extention of the positions of equal rights and equal worth, but reaches beyond them. It might be categorized within the feminist standpoint theory of Harding (1991) on one aspect if we consider the German female handball players to have been suppressed when it was recommended that the play &dquo;Korbball&dquo;, which was similar to basketball

instead of handball. The term suppression is here developed from Hegel’s relationship between master and servant (Skirbekk 1989, 99). The master is only the boss as long as he and the servant accept this hierarchy. This relationship has been developed by several philosophies among them Marxism. Here the master is turned into a capitalist and the servant into a suppressed worker. In feminist standpoint theory the

masculine power and the worker that of in different contexts.

capitalist symbolizes

women

suppressed

What differences were there in the sportification processes of handball in Germany and Norway as far as gender is concerned?

The

Questions

Four

questions

are

put forward in this article. The first deals with

a case

of rule

changes made in Germany to involve more male players. The second presents a short glimpse into the debate on gender from 1921-26, when German bourgeois sport tried to develop more &dquo;rational&dquo; rules for both sexes in handball. The last two questions focus on a decisive phase in the sportification process in Norway. At first glance the focus seemed to be more on men than on women. 1. Why were handball rules changed to involve more men in the Gymnastic Federation in

Germany in 1920?

2. What arguments were used about female handball competitors in the debate rational rules in Germany in the period 1921-26? 3. Was handball first and foremost created for males in 4. Did handball become

a

women’s

Norway in 1937?

sport in Norway from 1938 on?

on

218

The Methods

Comparative Method

According to Skocpol and Somers (1980) comparative history includes different logics. This project has elements from two of them: the parallel demonstration of theory and the contrast of contexts. The aim of the parallel demonstration is to focus on common, general historical processes, whereas the aim in the contrast of contexts is to emphasize the variations in each case. Organized handball in Norway and Germany are to be compared in the final project. Elements from parallel demonstration are found in the sportification process in both countries, since both moved towards a greater degree of sportification. However, the different gender developments in Norwegian and German handball are elements from the contrast of contexts.

Germany has been chosen because that country took the lead in the sportification of handball in 1920-60. In Norway the years 1937-40 are in focus in this paper, since this period may be characterized as the most decisive phase in the Norwegian sportification process as far as questions of gender are concerned. Sources First and foremost written sources from organized sport in Germany, Norway, Denmark and Sweden, and the Norwegian bi-weekly sports periodical, SportsManden from 1937 are used in this paper. In addition interviews with female former handball players in Norway are included. The Results

Handball in

Germany before 1920

Question no. 1:

According to Schelenz handball for women was played in Berlin from 1915 (1930,

429) while Riekhoff dates the start to 1917 (1943, 81; se p. 3). At the initiative of Max Heisser, in Berlin, the &dquo;AusschuB fiir das Frauen- und Mddchenturnen&dquo; made use of this term (ibid., 90).

According to Fühler handball was first and foremost made for females in the Gymnastic organization before 1919 (1938, 5). Handball, like Torball was out door activity. &dquo;With long white bouses, pompous and long stockings and armed with a big &dquo;Faustball&dquo; (similar to volleyball) the women were ready to compete in handball&dquo; (Schelenz 1932, 7). As stated on page 2-3 one had to stand and not run when throwing the ball. All body contact and aggression were forbidden. If two players from the two opposing teams got hold of the ball and neither of them withdrew, and &dquo;Unparteiische&dquo; (impartial person) decided which of them had grabbed the ball first. According to Riekhoff, the rules of Heisser seemed to have suited the &dquo;weaker&dquo;

sex

very well

(1943, 88). The main reason for this seemed to be the lack

219

of the aspect of combat, &dquo;Kampfmomente&dquo;. In spite of a great deal of propaganda for female players, the number of participants did not seem to increase (Schelenz 1922, 3; Fühler 1938, 5). From 1917 onwards, the female gymnasts competed in championships in &dquo;der Kreis 3b&dquo; in Berlin (Riekhoff 1943, 89).

Physical Education seemed to want to get more males involved. He made several attempts to arrange German handball championships and to change the activity into a combat game: a &dquo;Kampfspiel&dquo; (Fühler 1938, 6). This was decided upon in October 1920, and some of the formal rules of hockey were used for the time being among the gymnasts. Scoring a goal was only allowed within certain areas of the playing field. Further hitting and striking the ball out of the hand of an opposing player was allowed. After this rule change males dominated numerically in the game on the national level. In 1920, for example, 10 male teams, 4 female and 4 youth teams took part in the championships (ibid.). Although males seemed to be in the majority from 1920 onwards, some sources indicate that the official championships for males started first in 1922 and for women in 1923 (Deutsche Sportbehbrde fur Leichtathletik 1938, 62). Schelenz,

a

teacher at the German Institute for

(&dquo;Hochschule fur Leibesfbungen&dquo;)

The examples of the formal rules mentioned above could be considered, in principle, to be typical of the male rationalization of the sportification process in this period. Women might even be in focus as long as local rules and no body contact seemed to dominate. The greater the degree of combat, however, the more &dquo;suited for&dquo; the devolpment of the male identity. What happened in the following years?

The Debate

on

Gender in

Germany from 1921-26

Question no. 2: In the following the reader will get some examples of the ambivalent attitude toward women and sports in Germany, as stated by Pfister (1984, 91) via some glimpses into the debate on gender and handball. The aim is to focus on different

values

or

ideologies

of

masculinity

at that

time, via

some

rules and articles in

sports journals. There has been a tendency to make the history of women’s sports in the Western world too one dimensional. My point of departure is more of a pluralistic view. It is too easy to quote the dominating attitude in a period, because dominating views tend to win the competition of becoming visible, the battle for

biirgerliche Offentlichkeit&dquo;. Both positive and negative attitudes toward female competition in sports were quite widespread in Germany in the 1920s (Peyton/Pfister 1989, 60-62; Lippe, von der 1992f, 4). Aggressive body contact in team sports was supposed to suit males only, because of the &dquo;scientific&dquo; biological and social difference between the two sexes. Feminine body contact, with gentle touches, as in gymnastics was regarded as suiting females better. Others welcomed women’s sports - even all the competition - and regarded it as an interesting phenomenon. What about the attitude towards female handball players in Germany from &dquo;die

1921-26?

220

From 1920 until 1934 there were different official handball rules for the German Gymnastic Federation and the German Federation for Track and Field. On the whole, the rules created by Schelenz for males seem, for the most part to agree with those for females. The exceptions were a smaller playing area and goals, shorter playing time and the regulation against hitting the ball out of the hand. New formal rules for female gymnasts in the German championships seem to have emerged after a meeting in Hannover in 1921. According to Braungardt, a member of the Board of Sports in the Gymnastic Federation, both sexes were to play by the same rules, but have different goals and playing time (Braungardt 1921, 151). The same change also seemed to have taken place in the Board of Handball in the German sports organization, where the Track and Field Federation was organized (Der Leichtathlet 1925,11).

This presentation of a few glimpses of the debate on gender article in the &dquo;Mdrkische&dquo; (Turn- und Sportzeitung 1921).

begins

with

an

The aim according to one of the authors, Braungardt, is to rationalize handball. This author could be labeled as a supporter of &dquo;equal rights&dquo; and also categorized within the feminist critique of to the Western mainstream ideology of masculinity of the 20th century with the following quotation: &dquo;I do not support the rule which allows the player to hit the ball out of the hand with one hand. Is this action only unworthy for women? The aim of this game in a socialization perspective is first and foremost self-control. This characteristic will not only be demanded from men, but also from women...&dquo; (ibid., 805). The periodical printed an answer 14 days later: &dquo;The question about hitting (the ball) out of the hand with a hand, Mr. Braungardt, ... is that of stronger and weaker bodies, that of men and women. If women and men were at the same level in sports, then it would be unworthy to the women to have a special rule about this&dquo; (Zinnow 1921, 846). The following quotation under the heading of &dquo;Step Backward instead of Progress&dquo;, in which the writer in 1925 reflects on the good old times: &dquo;... it was (then) forbidden to hit the ball out of the hand of an opposing player to omit the hard body combat like the men did&dquo; (Soost 1925, 6). (In 1925 the handball players in the Track and Field Federation could return to the rules of 1920 which included different rules for women and men on the size of the playing ground (Der Leichtathlet 1925, 11).) The headline in Der Leichtathlet, no. 6, 1925, states the following: &dquo;Handball - a woman’s game&dquo;. Such a small playing ground and a goal is suitable. Both the spokespersons and the readers seems to be male: &dquo;... (for women) to use a big goal is not beautiful (for a man) to look at and science (male dominated) has proved this to be wrong.&dquo; Another man put it this way: &dquo;It is embarrasing (for him) to look at (the women playing on a big arena)...&dquo; (Kabus

1921, 738). The attitudes towards female handball competitors seems to be different among the central male leaders in the Gymnastic Federation. According to this article the Board of Games in the Gymnastic Federation was, in 1925 of the opinion that handball was unfit for women, instead recommending basketball, similar to &dquo;Korbball&dquo; (Eilnachrichten, no. 2, 1925). &dquo;The reasons for this are the lesser competence of the female players, it is supposed to be unhealthy...&dquo; (ibid.).

221

following is, however, stated: &dquo;The handball game of the female gymnasts (Handball 1925, no. 29, 227). The reason was that many people within the organization wanted to keep handball for women, including the Women’s Committee. Besides, according to Kabus (1923) the females were not able to play according to the &dquo;new rules&dquo; A different size of the playing area, the goal, the length of the playing time and nobody contact for females therefore were agreed on therefore. The female gymnastic players, so far invisible in these comments will close this debate: &dquo;Contrary to the Board of Games the female players who have been involved in handball for many years, are of the opinion that this game does not exceed their physical capacities...&dquo; (Demlow 1926, 241). The question whether this was a sport for women or not had even been on the agenda. On the whole the quotations state, indirectly and directly, that handball is The

still exist&dquo;

first and foremost a sport for men. Women could join but the rules of men are the norm and hence the females can be labeled as deviant. However, not all men joined the mainstream &dquo;chorus of opinion&dquo;. This debate most likely affected the attitude of female handball players, including how the women themselves interpreted what they read, heard or discussed during this phase.

Now, the focus is on Norway, and the period is here also that of the first years of a national federation. A similar debate to that of the German one discussed above seems above never appeared in print in Norway, neither in the records of the Handball Federation nor in the national sporting press. Handball in

Norway,

1937-40

Questions no. 3 and 4: sexes took part in handball, competitive sports as a mainstream attitude were still supposed to be unfeminine in Norway in 1937. If we analyze the content of the most popular sports magazine at that time and the first rules of handball from 1937, the reader will get the impression that handball was originally a sport for males in Norway. Before and shortly after the forming of the Handball Federation the SportsManden printed a short article on handball: &dquo;It would be a great idea for the Handball Federation to get in touch with the soccer teams...&dquo; (SportsManden 1937, no. 25). In the spring of 1937 handball was seen as a sport played between the competitive seasons of soccer, bandy and crosscountry skiing (SportsManden 1937, no. 27). There were no official championships for females in these sports as yet.

Although both

The first

Norwegian rules for outdoor handball were produced in 1937, and in 1940, did not contain one word about female players. The German rules did, however, concerning for example a shorter playing time and a smaller goal. The first national rules in Denmark also included some special paragraphs for females, as did the German rules of the 11-a-side game of 1935, which were supposed to be the norm for international handball. The Norwegian rules were, however, a translation of the Swedish rules from 1936-37 by two persons, one of them elected president and the other secretary in May 1937 (Interview with Aslaksby 1990). The Swedish rules did not include women. The two men sat working by the kitchen table of the secretary and did not contrast to those of

222

get any professional assistance in this work. There is only one article so far to be found from the president of this new federation from this period, which will be presented here. In all other written sources at that time he was interviewed by others. &dquo;As a women’s sport handball and &dquo;kurvball&dquo; (German: Korbball, similar to basketball) are going to be popular activities and I would like to recommend the womens’ groups (in organized sport) all over the country to include this enjoyable game in their program.&dquo; (Morch-Smith 1937, 56-57.) The Norwegian Handball Federation was formed on May 2nd, 1937, and an agreement with the Board of the Norwegian National Federation of Sports (FS) was reached on May 6th. But the final decision had to be postponed until the first assembly of the highest ranking organ in the NFS the following year. Some federations seemed to be skeptical, because the number of participants were so few at that time. A supplement to the rules of 1937 was printed and sent out to existing and potential handball clubs to get more members, from both sexes. This appendix included modified rules for 7-a-side handball. Here again Sweden was the model. They were, however, intended to be used only temporarily in Norway. The original rules were supposed to be the 11-a-side game (ibid.). The field for outdoor (field) handball could be smaller; 45-52 m x 27-30 m, and the number of players could be reduced to 7, plus two substitutes. Women had no soccer teams of 11 players to turn to, so this addition to the rules made it easier for female players to form a team. SportsManden had only one article on handball for women

in 1937.

following was printed in September, after the meeting of the Handball Assembly, the body at the peak of the handball hierarchy. &dquo;In spite of the fact that these matches were the first for women ever, the females knew something about this game, and the matches were amusing&dquo;. (SportsManden, no. 77, 1937.) According to this article handball as a sport for females seemed to be more than just tolerated. Although the same rules governing body contact were used in Norway for females as for males in contrast to the German rules, there is evidence that the females played by &dquo;their&dquo; own premises. The speed of the females suited their techniques and tactics. In addition it was difficult for a lot of them to grab and hold the large ball used by the men. Furthermore, women tended to avoid aggressive body contact, because many of them did not want to hurt themselves or others. Females and males had a tendency to react differently when they missed the ball or made an error. The women would giggle, while the men would swear or perhaps become a bit more aggressive. (Interviews with former female handball players 1991.) It is believed that the male reporter of SportsManden discovered the female way of playing handball and consciously or unconsciously labeled it decent and feminine. That seemed to be a good start for a women’s The

sport in a male world. One year after the start in 1937, female players dominated the federation, and in 1940 female members constituted 69% of the total. The first national championship in the federation was for females. It was held in 1938, and the first

223

international competitive match against the Swedish female national team was in 1946 (Lippe, von der 1988, 93-98). To make the first national championship for females and also the first official international competition for females are extraordinary phenomena in the history of handball in Europe. Discussion

Rule

Changes in 1920 from a Feminist Perspective

The initiators, the different parties involved and the people in power concerning the rule changes of 1920 were men of course, except for female players, who were at the point of departure, because handball seemed to be regarded as a female preserve in Germany before 1919. Written or formal rules structure and identify games. They are not static as we have seen, but are aubject to change. &dquo;To explain how rules change, the rules need to be understood as both the medium and the outcome of the interaction process amongst interdependent interest groups&dquo; (Kew 1987, 125). The author states further that rule changes are an unintended and outcome of the interaction between groups who have different interests in the games playing process (ibid.). In the decisive changes from 1920 three groups of interests can be detected: The initiator, Schelenz - a teacher of sport at the German &dquo;Hochschule&dquo; for Physical Education, the inofficial leader and the &dquo;power-house&dquo; of the institution, Diem, who in this connection could also be said to represent leaders of organized sports in Germany (&dquo;der Verband Brandenburgischer Athletikvereine&dquo;), and the male student players. The women were invisible in this rule-changing process. If women’s interests were to be supported, men had to talk on behalf of them, but not necessarily from their position. I have, so far, found no sources that include these aspects. The main reason why these rule changes seem to differ from those discussed by Kew today concerning intended outcome and group interests (ibid., 125-135), might first and foremost be connected with the invisiblity of women’s handball and the early phase of the sportification process reached in Germany in 1920. It seems that Schelenz tried to change the rules several times. He did not succeed as long as the local rules remained. It was not until handball became a national sport in Germany in 1920 that the bourgeois ideology of masculinity could dominate more easily. As a teacher at the German &dquo;Hochschule fiir Leibesiibungen&dquo; he is supposed to have had a rather high status, which is a relevant aspect in a discussion of power and influence among different

unanticipated

parties. Besides, handball was in the curriculum of the sports students (Fuhler 1938, 6). addition, Schelenz was backed by his male students and Diem. According to Fühler, Diem had asked leaders (&dquo;der Vorstand&dquo;) of the VBAB to support this sport (ibid.). In

1920 was a decisive year in the sportification process of handball. Now handball could develop into a German, national sport, one which had originated in

224

Germany according to their central sport leaders

- with rational rules, regulations and organizations. Males were of course the actors on this stage. But what about the invisible females, who had been dominating the local arenas of handball in the previous years? Was this new version of handball still &dquo;their&dquo; activity?

The Debate on Gender in

Germany from 1921-26

an equal worth’s perspective the modern handball of 1921 in the Gymnastic Federation was not a sport for women, because the male rules of Schelenz seemed to be the model for the German championships. In this respect the rules for women could be placed in the equal rights position, because they seemed to be the same as the men’s at this stage, except for two. Only a shorter playing time and a smaller goal were typical for females according to Braungardt, a member of the Board of Sports in the German Gymnastic Federation in 1925. This situation must have been a great change for several female players. Most likely there was a lot of confusion. According to Kabus the female gymnasts were not able to play according to the &dquo;new&dquo; rules.

From

How do

women

fit into the

bourgeois ideology

of

masculinity?

The very

concept of bourgeois masculinity seems too abstract and one-dimensional, if it is not referred to

In this connection it is the above mentioned debate different views or ideologies among these males.

contextually.

which shows that there

are

hegemony in sport has never been static and absolute, but is a constantly shifting process which incorporates both reactionary and liberating features of gender relations&dquo; (Hargreaves 1990, 4). The &dquo;reactionary features&dquo; are, for example, the attitude that women are unfit for handball. This and similar statements most likely had a negative effect on the motivation of the females to start or continue with competitions in handball. One can argue that the rule preventing the players of both sexes from hitting the ball out of the hand is a &dquo;liberating feature&dquo; within a feminist rationality, which reaches beyond the positions of equal rights and equal worth of the sportification process. Besides, it is a critique of the mainstream bourgeois ideology of masculinity. The question of possible aggressive body contact for women seemed to evoke resistance in many men. This is not surprising, if we consider aggressive body contact as one of the core elements of the Western mainstream bourgeois ideology of masculinity. The dualistic rationality woven into this ideology implies a stereotypical relationship between the sexes. Men could only be strong, if women were weak (Holt 1991, 130). Within this frame of reference aggressive body contact in handball was for men &dquo;... male

and not for

women.

Braungardt ties his critique of body contact in handball to the bourgeois ideal of self-control. In this way the debater does not seem to look at sport as the arena of channelling aggression. Another example of &dquo;a reactionary feature&dquo; was the argument that science had proved handball for women on large playing grounds to be all wrong. Maybe most women at that time were not trained well enough to play handball on a soccer

225

not refer to any specific scientific research. Just the mere high of another male world, this time &dquo;science&dquo; seemed to be used to the status quo of women’s sports.

field, but this did status

name

legitimate

Women also took part in this debate, although to a rather modest extent by todays standards. In the 1920s this was far from common. When female athletes were in the spotlight in this way, as subjects and active and not as objects and passive, this position can be labeled as that of equal rights and of course a liberating one, too. Other liberating features and at the same time within the &dquo;equal rights&dquo; position is the quotation of Braungardt about equal rules on body contact for both sexes. Those who were skeptical of or against women’s handball referred to biological arguments. The history of women’s sport has several examples about this strategy (Hudson 1978; Ferris 1982; Harris 1982; Boutilier and San Giovanni 1983; Lippe, von der 1985, 1987; Laine 1989; Peyton/Pfister 1989; Pfister 1990; Hargreaves 1991). Liberal feminism, the historical point of departure of the equal rights position, rejects biological explanations of women’s subordination in society (Jaggar 1983, 37). The position recognizes the physical differences between women and men, but argues that this difference cannot be used to discriminate against women. Important for liberal feminism is the ability of human beings to reason. The equal rights position, which can be labelled as a more modern version of liberal feminism, has led in political practice in Norway to campaigns against discrimination in sports because of biological differences between the two sexes (Lippe, von der 1975, 131-142, 1983, 25). Limitations of the equal rights position can be exemplified through the quotation of Zinnow presented above: If women and men were on the same level of competition in sport, they should use the same rules: i.e. the men’s. The same rules on body contact for the two sexes is another example. These are examples of men’s rationality within liberal feminism and are not in question. In addition, men and women are regarded as two homogeneous groups. Liberal feminism and the equal rights position focus on who the subjects and the objects are in a debate. In this paper the reader has seen that the males were often arguing on behalf of the females, but not necessarily from the position of the females. The men were embarrassed by the women. According to feminist theory at least two effects of this

towards

women

are

to make women invisible and to turn men’s attitudes

into focus.

To the extent that one might argue that the women who were recommended to change sport from handball to &dquo;Korbball&dquo; were suppressed, the parallel to the relationship between a suppressor and the suppressed might be relevant.

Some male leaders of handball could for a time be labelled suppressors within this rationale, if their decision was against the will of the female handball players. The female handball players seemed, however, to win that battle in the end. Within the framework of feminist theory the women did not seem to accept the male-female relationship concerning the male proposal to change sport. The legitimization of the male power in this case was questioned and overruled. handball women were at first invisible in the most the and first press Norwegian rules of 1937.

Norwegian

popular sports

226

Handball in

Norway

point of departure of the third question is that handball was known to both in Norway before 1937. At first glance it seemed as if the authorities in organized handball did not make propaganda for the inclusion of women from the very beginning. Norway was late - 1937 - in comparison to Germany and Austria, women in other European countries had been engaged in this sport for some years already when it was introduced in Norway. Women were invisible in the first Norwegian rules. Could this have been just the &dquo;normal&dquo; order of things at that time. In other words were they regarded as included, even if they were not directly mentioned? This seems unusual, if we think about the attitude towards competition at that time. Women were, in the mainstream ideology, believed to have weak muscles, no stamina or idea of competitive tactics. The &dquo;Zweckrationalitat&dquo; - to work for The

sexes

aim in a context of controlled choices - was the world of the masculine and not that of the feminine. The dualistic male rationality excluded the combination of the two worlds. Special rules for the weaker sex had therefore to be emphasized, as in Germany and Denmark. This was not done in the first Norwegian version, which seems to be in line with the articles of SportsManden at that time. Women were included in the version of 11-a-side handball in 1940, at a time when they already dominated in terms of numbers of members. an

The president wanted women to join &dquo;his&dquo; new sport. He was a very active and popular leader. The translation of the Swedish rules into Norwegian in 1936 - 37 could be looked upon as a purely technical process. The two handball men sat working by the kitchen table of the secretary in the evenings and wanted to do the job as correctly as possible. Their aim was to copy the Swedish version. My view is that they simply forgot to include women, because they were invisible in the Swedish original. Besides, they were neither professional themselves nor did they

get any assistance. When the president was interviewed in the sports press, he could not, of course, control the outcome. Male journalists worked in their masculine sports world without female journalists, and they were not used to including females in their presentation of team games such as soccer, ice hockey or bandy. Besides, the sportification process of females in Norway seemed to occur later than in most of the West-European countries. Most probably the journalists were advocates of the mainstream bourgeois view of masculinity. Within this frame, handball could not be a sport for both sexes. It had to be either for men or for women. Therefore they seemed to need some time, and in autumn the first article including women was

printed.

Handball in Norway from 1937 - 38 could be categorized as equal rights from the view of the president concerning the competitions. He wanted both women and men to join on equal premises, even if this was not commented on in the sports press or in the first rules. The president of the Handball Federation, unlike most of the central sports leaders of that time, did not seem to fit into the dualistic rationale of the bourgeois view of masculinity, that a sport had to be either for men or for women. From 1938-40 this sport might be to some extent labeled both as an equal worth seemed to suit women better than men) and an equal rights

position (the sport

227

position (both sexes in the same federation, with the same rights to take part in competitions at all levels and on the whole, by the same rules). The formal rules of the Norwegian Handball Federation in 1940 were closer to an equal rights position with their one exception, different playing time, than even those of the German gymnasts from 1921, with their two exceptions, different goals and playing time. There were, however, no negative effects of the Norwegian rules similar to those in Germany. The decisive phases in the sportification process of &dquo;gendered&dquo; handball seemed to be quite different in the two countries.

In Germany females seemed to dominate from 1917 - 20 before the game turned into a national sport. Then the focus turned towards men and the mainstream bourgeois ideal of masculinity seemed to win the &dquo;battle&dquo; of the rational rules in 1925. In Norway, men might seem to be in focus at first glance in 1937, if the point of departure were the sports press and the first rules. This paper argues that this new sport was for both sexes from the very start. It was then turned towards women out of sheer necessity, it seems, because so few men and so many women were interested. (Some answers to the last statement are found in my paper at the congress in Malaga 1992: &dquo;Handball - castrated soccer?&dquo;)

Short Summary The article focuses its attention on the gender perspective in the sportification process of handball in Germany and Norway. A feminist critique of the male term sportification and the male sportification process is put forward, stating that both the term and the process are &dquo;tied up&dquo; with the symbols of masculinity. Three feminist positions in sports are focused on: equal rights, which is a modem version of liberal feminism and equal worth, a modem model of romantic feminism. The last mentioned may be labeled a woman’s position and not a feminist one, because it does not criticize the hegemonic position of men. The third perspective reaches beyond the above mentioned with its feminist critique of the rationale of the Western mainstream bourgeois ideology of masculinity. Within this third frame of reference one aspect of the feminist standpoint theory of Harding (1991) is also discussed. The results of all the questions can, on one level, be regarded as &dquo;tied up&dquo; with the symbol of masculinity, because sport seemed principally to be linked to that symbol. The results concerning questions 1 were far away from an equal rights or an equal worth’ position. It ought to be considered as an example of the mainstream male rationale of the sportification process in Western Europe, especially before the 1940s: the greater the degree of sportification, the more atypical for women. An important phase seems to be when rules change from a local to national level.

The comments on question no. 2 indicate that it is, of course, impossible to fit the whole debate into one category or the other. Therefore quotations with a differing ideology of masculinity in sport were analysed separately. Elements from the equal rights position were, for example, when the female athletes

228

debate, by writing themselves instead of being objects for behalf of them, but not necessarily from their position. An example of the critique of the mainstream rationale of the sportification process was the critique on aggressive body contact, both for men and women. To the extent that one can argue that the German handball women were suppressed when they were told to change from handball to &dquo;Korbball&dquo;, this aspect could be labeled within the feminist standpoint theory of Harding (1991). became visible in the

males, writing

on

The results of question 3 could be categorized as equal rights, from the position of the Handball Federation concerning the possibility for both sexes to compete, although women were invisible in the first rules and the sports press did not focus on the females from the very start. The outcome of question 4 might be labelled both equal worth based on one aspect (best suited sport for women from 1938) and equal rights based on two others (same opportunity for both sexes to take part in competitions and the same rules, except for one). The fact that handball in Norway in this decisive phase of the sportification process seemed to change its focus from both sexes to the female one, could be an example of a sportification process unique to Norway, in contrast to that of Germany, in which the attention seemed to change from women towards men.

References

ABRAMS, P., 1982: "Historical Sociology". Cornell University Press, New York, 8. ASLASKSBY, K., 1992: Interview, the 31st of January. BOUTILIER, M.A., and SANGIOVANNI, L., 1983: "The Sporting Woman". Human Kinetics Publisher, Champaign, Illinois, 20-21. BRAUNGARDT, W., 1921: "Der Kreis 3b und die neuen Handballregeln. In: Märkische, no. 40, 805-807. BRAUNGARDT, W., 1921: "Das Handballspiel". In: Sport und Spiel, Beilage der Deutschen Turn-Zeitung,

Leipzig, 151.

BERNETT, H., 1984: "Die ’Versportlichung’ des Spiels dargestellt am Exempel der Entwicklung des Faustballspiels". In: Sportwissenschaft, vol. 14, no. 2,141-165. CARLSSON et al.: "Handbollens Historiska Utvekling". Svenska Handbollforbundet, 1990, 5. DEHMLOW, T., 1926: "Turnspiele f:ur Deutschlands Jugend". Lagensalza, 9. edition, 241.

EILNACHRICHTEN, 1925: "Amtliche Bekanntmachungen". Der Spielausschuß der Deutschen Turnerschaft, no. 2. EISENSTEIN, Z., 1981: "The Radical Future of Liberal Feminism". Longman, new York. ELIAS, N. and DUNNING, E., 1986: "Quest for Excitement". Basil Blackwell, Oxford. FERRIS, E., 1982: Hvordan kvinners fysiologi virker pa hennes idrettsprestasjoner. In: G. von der Lippe (ed.): "Kvinner og idrett fra myte til realitet". Gyldendal, 104-105. FISCHER, E., 1908: Das elfte deutsche Turnfest zu Frankfurt/M. 1908. In: Deutsche Turnzeitung, no. 53, 809-811.

FÜHLER, B., 1930: "Das Handballspiel". Berlin. FÜHLER, B., 1925: "Handball - das Spiel der Freuen". In: Der Leichtathlet, no. 6, 10. FÜHLER, B., 1938: Aus der Geschichte des Handballspiels. In: "Handball", Deutsche Sportbehörde für Leichtathletik, 5. GOKSÖYR, M., 1988: "Sivilisering, modernisering, sportifisering - fruktbare begreper i norsk idrettshistorisk forskning". NORA, no. 90, NIH, 50-60. GOKSÖYR, M., 1990: "Sportification in Norway". Unpublished abstract, 1. HALSAA, B., 1988: Fragmenter til en feministisk utopi. In: B. Halsaa og N. Gornitza (eds.):

229

"En Feministisk Utopi". Prosjekt Alternativ Framtid, Oslo, 41. HANDBALL, 1925, no. 29, 227. HARDING, S., 1991: "Whose Science? Whose Knowledge?" Open University Press, USA, 116.

HARGREAVES, J., 1990: "Gender on the Sports Agenda". In: International Review for the Sociology of Sport, vol. 25, no. 4, 298. HARGREAVES, J., 1991: "Where is the Virtue? Where is the Grace? A Discussion of the Social Production of Gender Telations in and through Sport". In: Theory, culture and 1. HARRIS, D., 1982: "Hva er smajenter laget av?" In: G. von der Lippe (ed.): Kvinner og idrett fra myte til realitet. Gyldendal, 40. HOLT, R., 1991: "Women, Men and Sport in France, c. 1870-1914: An Introductory Survey". In: Journal of Sport History, vol. 18, no. 1, 130. HUDSON, J., 1978: "Physical Parameters Used for Female Exclusion from Law Enforcement and Athletics". In: C.A. Oglesby (ed.): Women and Sport from Myth to Reality. Lea & Febiger, Philadelphia, 19-58. JAGGAR, M.A., 1983: "Feminist Politics and Human nature". Rowman & Allanhead Publishers, the Harvester Press, USA, 37. JERNERYD, R., 1981: "Hur Idrotten kom till stan". Bergendals Boktrykkeri, Goteborg, 177. JERNERYD, R., 1990: Henry Lagergren. In: "Idrottsarvet. 1990 Arbok for Idrottsmuseet i Goteborg". Goteborg, 28. JONASDOTTIR, A.J., 1985: Kvinnors interessen och andra verden. In:

society, vol., no.

"Kvinnovetenskaplig Tidskrift", no. 2, 26. JORDANOVA, L.J., 1987: Natural facts: a hostorical perspective on science and sexuality. In: C. MacCormack and M. Strathen (eds.): Nature, Culture and Gender. Cambridge University Press, 61. KABUS, W.: "Der Kreis 3b und die neuen Handballregeln". In: Märkische, no. 37,1921. KEW, F., 1987: "Contested Rules: An Explanation of How Games Change". In: International Review for the Sociology of Sport, vol. 22, no. 2, 125-135. LAINE, L., 1989: "The "Nature" of Women - The "Nature" of Man: The Effects of Gender Images on Organizing Sports in Finland in the 1920s and 1930s". In: Proceedings of Jyvaskula Congress on Movement and Sport in Women’s Life August 17-21, 1987, Jyvaskula, Jyvaskula, 1989, vol. 1. 124-129. LIPPE, von der, G., 1975: "Det ae itteno som kjem ta sae sjol". In: Kvinnenes Arbok, Pax, Oslo, 131-142. LIPPE, von der, G., 1983: "Likeverd og likestilling i idrett". In: Kjerringrad, Oslo,

no.

3-4,

22-27.

LIPPE, von der, G., 1985: "Det sentrale kvinneutvalget i Norges Idrettsforbund 1946-53". Skrifter 103, seksjon for kultur og idrett, Bo, 13-17. LIPPE, von der, G., 1987: "Women’s Sports in Norway". Seksjon for kultur og idrett, Telemark DH, Bo, 3-11. LIPPE, von der, G., 1988: "Gla’handball. Handballkvinnene - fra idrettsleik til medieidrett". Pax, Oslo, 93-98. LIPPE, von der, G., 1990: "The ambigouity of interpretation in history and the social sciences". Telemark DH, unpublished paper. LIPPE, von der, G., 1992f: "Tysk kvinneidrett pa 1920-tallet fra et norsk perspektiv".

Unpublished, 4.

"MÄRKISCHE, TURN- UND SPORTZEITUNG", no. 50,1924,961. MJOSET, L., 1983: "Jürgen Habermas’ reformulering av de klassiske sosiologiske bekymringer": In: Sosiologi i Dag, no. 2- 3, 6. MÖRCH-SMITH, O., 1937: "Handball - var nye idrett". In: Offisielt meddelelsesblad for Norges Landsforbund for idrett og dets tilsluttende saerforbund, no. 10, 56-57. NEUBART, F., 1928: "Geschichte des Handballspieles". In: Das deutsche Turnspiel in seiner geschichtenlichen Entwicklung.

Tyskland, 33.

230

NIELSEN, H., 1906: "Veiledning i Haandbold", "Idraetten’s Forlag, Kobenhavn. OLOFSSON, E., 1988: "Har kvinnorna en sportslig chans?" Pedagogiska institutionen, Umea Universitet.

PEYTON, Ch. and PFISTER, G., 1989: "Frauensport in Europa". Verlag Ingrid Czwalina,

Hamburg. PFISTER, G., 1984: "Frauensport und Politik 1918 bis

19 in Deutschland". In: ICOSH Seminar 1984: Sport and Politics/Sport und Politik 1918-9/40. Universitetsforlaget, Oslo, 91. PFISTER, G., 1990: "Die andere Perspektive: Frauenforschung und Sportgeschichte. Sportwissenschaft und Feminismus". In: Stadion, Academia Forlag, Sankt Augustin, 163. RIEKHOFF, W., 1943: "Historische Untersuchungen :uber die Vorl:aufer und Anf:ange des Deutschen Handballspiels". the Work on the Doctor degree at the Faculty of Philosophy at the University of Hamburg, 81, 84, 88, 89. RUETHER, R.R., 1983: "Sexism and God-talk. Towards a Feminist Theology". Beacon Press, boston, 105. SCHELENZ, C., 1922: "Das Handballspiel". Die Deutsche Sportbeh:orde für Leichtathletik, M:unchen, 3. SCHELENZ, C., 1930: "Das Handballspiel". In: Krummel, (ed.): "Athletik". Lehmanns Verlag, München, 429. SCHELENZ, C., 1932: "Frauenhandball". In: Der Handball, March, 7. SCHMUGGE, B., 1925: "Wer hat das Spiel erbracht?" In: Deutsche Turnzeitung, Berlin, 146. SKIRBEKK, G.: "Filosofi Historie". Second volume, Universitetsforlaget 1989, 99-100. SOOST, E., 1925: "Die neuen Handballregeln". In: Der Leichtathlet, no. 26, 6. SPARBIER, J., 1923: "Deutsche Turn- und Kampfspiele". Weimansche Buchhandlung,

Berlin, 126. SPORTSMANDEN, 1937. THORBJORNSSON, H., 1990: "Nääs och Otto Salomon sjojden och leken", OrdBildarna,

Helsingborg, 173. WALDEN, O.H., 1912: "Friluftslakar fran Naas". Aktiebolaget Ljus, Stockholm, 71-72. ZINNOW, F., 1921: "Die neuen Handballregeln des Kreises". In: Märkische, no. 42. 846.

Handball, Geschlecht und Versportlichung von K6rperkUturen: 1900-40

Zusammenfassung Das Ziel dieses Artikels ist, den VersportlichungsprozeB des Handballs in Deutschland und in Norwegen zu thematisieren und eine erste feministische Kritik des Begriffs Versportlichung vorzustellen. Als Handball ein nationaler Sport in Norwegen 1937 wurde, hatte sich der Prozef3 der Versportlichung schon seit vielen Jahren in anderen europaischen Landern vollzogen. 1920 wurde Handball auf nationalen Niveau in Deutschland organisiert. Jeder K6rperkontakt schien vor 1920 in Deutschland verboten, um mehr weibliche spieler zu bekommen. 1920 wurde Mdnnern im Gegensatz zu Frauen in gewissem Umfang K6rperkontakt erlaubt, um den Sport in ein &dquo;Kampfspiel&dquo; zu verandern. Nach einem Wochenblatt in Norwegen, Sports-Manden, war Handball zundchst als ein Sport fur Manner eingeordnet. Die ersten norwegischen Regeln von 1937 enthielten kein einziges Wort fber weibliche Spieler, wahrend es die deutschen Regeln taten, und zwar bezogen auf die Lange der Spielzeit. Die entsprechenden norwegischen Regeln von 1937 wurden zu entsprechenden Handballclubs geschickt, um darauf aufmerksam zu machen, daB die Spielplatze, falls notwendig, kleiner sein k6nnten. In den folgenden Jahren dominierten weibliche Spieler zahlenmal3ig in den Verbanden. Die ersten norwegischen Wettbewerbe und die erste nationale Mannschaft entstand fiir Frauen.

231

Begriff Versportlichung wie er von Bernett und Goksoyr vorgestellt wird, scheint eine zu haben, die die mannliche Interpretation der Rationalitat absolut nimmt: als die einzige Alternative. WAhrend Manner in Deutschland Handball dominierten entsprechend der patriarchalistischen Interpretation des Begriffes Versportlichung von Bernett/Goksoyr, wurden in Norwegen mehr Frauen als Manner von diesem Sport angesprochen. Der

patriarchalische Basis

Balonmano; Genero y Deportivizacion de las Culturas Corporales: 1900-40 Resumen El prop6sito de este articulo es tratar el proceso de deportivizaci6n del balonmano en Alemania y Noruega y plantear la primera critica feminista del termino deportivizaci6n. Cuando el balonmano se convirtió en un deporte nacional en Noruega en 1937, el proceso de deportivizaci6n ya habia comenzado en muchos paises europeos. En 1920 el bbalonmano ya estaba organizado a nivel nacional en Alemania. Parece que en Alemania, antes de 1920, todo contacto corporal estaba prohibido para que asi pudiera atraer a mas deportistas femeninas. En 1920, los hombres fueron autorizados a tener mas contacto corporal con el fin de cambiar la actividad en un ’Kampfspiel’ o juego de combate. De acuerdo con el Anico peri6dic deportivo semanal de Noruega de aquellos tiempos, parece que, al principio, el balonmano se consideraba tan s6lo un deporte para hombres. Las primeras reglas dadas a conocer en el pais en 1937 no tenian ni una sola referencia a las deportistas femeninas mientras que las alemanas si las tenian; por ejemplo,

de juego mas cortos. Posteriormente, un suplemento de las normas noruegas de 1937 fue enviado a los clubs para recomendarles que las atletas femeninas jugaran en campos menores si era posible. En 1938 las mujeres dominaban num6ricamente la federaci6n. Los primeros campeonatos noruegos y el primer equipo nacional fueron de

tiempos

mujeres.