While you were writing, I was writing too...

The noisy clicking in the front of the room while you were doing your writing sample was me writing this post.  (Sorry.) 

I wanted to say in class but didn't have time...whenever I see a schema like we see in the Brooks article, I always think how it is only partly true.  I mean can Roman, Greek and British notions of sport really be reduced to just the concepts of spectator entertainment, individual achievement and reward, and teamwork respectively.  One could analyze these sports culture through a good sociological lens and show how all of these societies have allof these elements of sports.  Schema (fitting things into categories) help us think and define the way the world works and are therefore helpful.  A mammal is a....  A CUNY student is...  But schema always have exceptions and conditions.  There are mammals who swim and CUNY students who don't live in the five boroughs.  When we think of schema as permanent and natural (not slippery and human creations) we can make errors in evaluation and judgment (all mammals walk on land all White people can't jump).  Schema can be dangerous if taken too literally and exclusively--and especially if violence is done to enforce the schema.  Take race for example.  Categorizing people into racial groups is a form of schema behavior.  But just what exactly makes someone White, Black, Asian etc.  Certainly we can point to some things, but it is very rarely clear cut.  Yet when enforced rigidly, racial schema can cause some very harsh consequences, even death.  So take these Roman, Greek and British sports culture definitions only so far. 

So be careful when you are reading something where the theory involves categories or schema, and be careful when you make that move in your own writing.