Brooks and McKail provide a structural explanation for Black male dominance in
basketball. What is that structural explanation, and how does it differ from
biological, racial explanations. Do you find it sociologically convincing? (Provide
a justification for your answer.)
Read the article answer the question
Brooks and McKail (373) offer a structural explanation of the male dominance in basketball by noting that it is the macro and the micro factors that position them to be players. They further add that since the black males are more vulnerable in the society that places them at higher chance of opting to play for the basketball teams as laborious as it may be. Their opinion differs from both the biological and the racial explanation in that, the biological explanation notes the male black dominance to be as a result of the perceived notion that black males have natural ability in athletics. Their arguments also differs from the racial factors which are noted to be mainly leaning towards the notion that the blacks are brought up by their society believing they are the head of the society. Another racial reason mainly arises from the fact that being in the basket ball plays allows them to have the prized identity which is hard to come by.
I believe that Brooks and McKail are not socially convincing with the aspects they use to support their argument. Being vulnerable is not the reason why an individual opts to play basketball. May be they opt because they have the genetic makeup that allows them to fit well with this environment. The two noted there are other options that are available such as going to school. If the blacks can be as hardworking as they portray them in the basketball, then I believe they can be as hardworking in class too which means it is not their vulnerability that makes them to be players, but rather, it is their individual preferences that guides them.