"You're slipping into dream land, you're not in your head." ~ T. Waits
Seems like an appropriate line tonight as I try and get through my presentation the DDR and the 1989 transition. All I can think about is my thesis. It's all I want to work on, but it is the last think I should be working on... I have a lot more pressing assignments due this week!
mmm, Uncle J got me hooked on Yerba (the espresso of tea, as C defined it again).
Well, since I am on this track, let's at least try and be constructive about it. Let's talk a bit about civil society in the DDR, and contextualize it for my thesis. Kuper talks about the DDR fans of Herta BSC, the West Berlin side, and their secret fan club (registered as a bingo team). I found this interesting because it is not an overt political act of defiance, yet it clearly is intended to subvert the regime.
In isolation these acts of defiance might amount to little, an these individuals certainly had little to do with the 'Wende', but I still see this as a contribution to social movement against the state. If civil society, in a conservative interpretation, is about assisting the government with the distribution of goods & services, and providing a connection between the people and their republic, then such an outlaw organization clearly flies in the face of the regimes intended use of this institution.
In the radical interpretation, where civil society acts as a check on the system, and a forum for developing social norms, then this "bingo" team is surely part of the transition movement. If nothing else, it keeps a distinction between the private and the public alive in peoples mind. Further more, it promotes an attitude of defiance among its members as they succeed in evading the eye of the Stasi network.
Friday, November 30, 2007
Think and Write ~ 11/28/07
~Introduction
• Soccer, a game where two teams work collaboratively to try and put the ball into the other teams goal, with only the use of their feet. What this introduction should do is inform the reader, and myself, of the intentions of this thesis while also giving a pre-view of coming attractions. It should include some of the theories I will use, mention some of the place I will visit through analysis, and clarify my method of work, both for the field research and for the theoretical work. But I need to put something about civil society in here, as this is where the activity is taking place (the space).
~Chapter 1
• What is my theoretical framework? How can this be established in a manor helpful to the rest of the paper? Does it make sense to do this before a historical overview? Perhaps this theory would be more useful if it is introduced during the ‘actual’ meat and bones work? This seems to make sense now, particularly considering that I will mention the key thinkers in my introduction.
• Ok, so then this chapter is going to be about providing context for the paper. This will look at how the Romans used spectacle to appease and control the masses, yet also how the masses used it to the same ends. These Roman games were thus an important part of cultural life in the empire, and subsequently occupied, physically at least, the center of the city landscape. From there, and looking at how later empires spread sports and entertainment, we can briefly detail how the game of soccer evolved, where it came from, and how it spread. This game certainly went through a number of evolutions (particularly if we look as far back as the early Chinese, African, and Native American ball games), and was only codified in the last two hundred years. Since then it has become a global phenomenon both as an activity and as a business (which has continued the evolutionary trend).
Home at last (and a head full of ideas) 11/14/07
The ideas seem to be coming back to me now, and I feel fresh again. This molehill is less mountain now, and more molehill. There is more wind in the sails and other such metaphors. Lets try a shot at basic outline in advance of what needs to be done over the break. Wow – three more classes ‘till the end of the semester, it seems to have gone by in a blink, yet so much has been done. Change in my context has always been a slow process, a scary one, but between this thesis, the class and HON 299, I have really undergone (r)evolution. It feels great, it truly does.
Now, back to that outline…
~Intro: The intro should be a statement of purpose, and needs to contain all the major topics of the thesis. What this intro will contain is the who, what, where, why, and how of the thesis:
• Who: this thesis is about individuals and their relationship to power, authority and government in the context of soccer and what impact this has on identity. Using, among others, McClaren, Foucault, Machiavelli, Putnam, Freud, and Almond & Verba to create a theoretical framework for this dynamic, the parameters will be established.
• What: What relationship does soccer have to politics, and what relationship does politics have with soccer? Here the important aspects will be how an individual’s identity is shaped by their relationship to power and to the state is shaped by soccer, and specifically, which type of soccer (structured or unstructured).
• Where: This is really a global phenomenon, so I am addressing the question in fairly broad terms. The case studies of Germany and Iran (and the broader discussion on colonialism that will evolve) will be part of the “where”. The second “where” will be here in Maine, more specifically in Portland. This will be the field research, and will entail the observation of soccer in three different formats: 1) in an organized league game with pre-determined teams, one or more referees, distinct uniforms, and a result which affects the teams standing; 2) a game with no referee, no pre-determined teams, and no uniforms, but has a pre-determined time, and takes place in the regulated environment of a college building and has a limitation on participants; 3) and finally a totally unstructured game in every sense, with only the field at Back Bay acting as a fixed structure.
• Why: This thesis is important to me personally because it addresses the basic challenges I face in establishing my place as an individual in the larger systems of power and ideology in this world. As a voyage of self-discovery, I can think of nothing more fun than to travel through the world of soccer and politics as I try and see more of myself. But beyond these selfish motives, the opportunity to develop some unique scholarship/data (and learning the whole process this entails) is a contribution to the evolving debate around the nature of power and the individual. By putting this in an interdisciplinary arena, part political science, part history, part sociology, part scientific methodology, the conclusions to the central questions will be unique, and not simply a conclusion achieved through comparison of past scholarship.
• How: Just like this; by thinking, reading, and participating in all the ways I have described above. Much time will be spent at the library in deep discussion with various thinkers and theories, other time will dedicated to securing an IRB approval for the field study and then seeking out manifestations of the game in various contexts, and finally, time will be spent at this computer, simply writing, writing, and writing until I am happy or the deadline commands me to stop.
Chapter 1: This can be dedicated to the theoretical framework
Chapter 2: Discussion on the evolution of the game and its cultural, social, economic, and political impact.
Chapter 3: Field research discussion within the framework of the above theories and arguments.
Chapter 4: With the field research digested, a comparative study of Germany and Iran in the context of soccer, colonialism and identities will give some further context to the central questions.
Conclusion: Where do we go from here? An attempt to make significance out of this work beyond just an exercise in scholarship.
Ok, what else? Talk to Brxxxa about observing her team as an option of structured games. If the liberal view of civil society is to assist the government with the regulation of society and the distribution of resources, an the radical view is to see it as the area where society influences, contains, and balances (the power of) the state, then what can we say about soccer in this context? Will soccer be considered a part of civil society?
Yeah, Still at the Library ~ 11/13/07
This will be a quick note today to say that I am moving ahead nicely with the field research and starting to get excited about it. Clearly the experience of doing this work will be good and not only because I will most likely be doing similar work again at graduate school. It is also going to be a real challenge, and an experience.
What I am thinking about at the moment is looking at how authority is imposed during a game and how players respond to this regulation. What is the source of regulation? Does the difference in source make a difference in how players respect each other? To observe these differences, I will need to locate a few different venues for the game, and find different conditions under which it is being played. For example, observing USM’s Huskies, observing the games in the Sullivan Gym, and observing games at Back Bay are all options. The point of looking at structured games and unstructured games (with Sullivan being somewhat in the middle) should be clear; their sources of authority are very different. In the unstructured game, there is no referee, no imperitive to respect the rules, so everything is based on trust. The structured game is very different in this regard, as it comes with formal referees, uniforms, punishments, and an obligation to the rules of the game. Looked at on paper, one would suspect the violence to be found predominantly in the first example, and the harmony and team spirit to exist in the second.
Less obvious is how this might shed light on the central questions of my thesis. As I watch individuals respond to authority and what their relationship is to the rules governing the game, I will also be thinking about how this relates to authority in a more general sense.
What I am thinking about at the moment is looking at how authority is imposed during a game and how players respond to this regulation. What is the source of regulation? Does the difference in source make a difference in how players respect each other? To observe these differences, I will need to locate a few different venues for the game, and find different conditions under which it is being played. For example, observing USM’s Huskies, observing the games in the Sullivan Gym, and observing games at Back Bay are all options. The point of looking at structured games and unstructured games (with Sullivan being somewhat in the middle) should be clear; their sources of authority are very different. In the unstructured game, there is no referee, no imperitive to respect the rules, so everything is based on trust. The structured game is very different in this regard, as it comes with formal referees, uniforms, punishments, and an obligation to the rules of the game. Looked at on paper, one would suspect the violence to be found predominantly in the first example, and the harmony and team spirit to exist in the second.
Less obvious is how this might shed light on the central questions of my thesis. As I watch individuals respond to authority and what their relationship is to the rules governing the game, I will also be thinking about how this relates to authority in a more general sense.
Library ~ 11/9/07
I realized, reading Putnam, that the crux of this paper is the power of social norms to control relations, to influence institutions, and to socialize individuals. Put in the context of soccer, the community this represents comes to influence so many aspects of people’s lives. Politically this becomes an important tool because it reduces the necessity of legal enforcement (a costly and often polarizing undertaking) from the top, and allows for a much more subversive method of control. By making soccer a community affair, a sense of camaraderie is developed between players, families are more likely to interact with one another, and thus there will be more awareness of behavioral norms and of “others” moving into the community space.
As I witnessed in the few experiments done for HON 299, the power that these norms hold over me is significant on two levels; first is that I am largely unaware of this power because I never consciously challenge the boundaries, second is the level of control they exert over me when I come close to breaking them. What my thesis needs to explore is this relationship on a communal level. By looking at soccer as a construct, looking at its political past, and by looking at what civil society is, then it will be possible to understand the distinction between the institutionalized game and the casual one played in parks, on streets, and common areas.
When I am out in the community looking at soccer in a variety of settings, this is the interaction I am looking for. How do people respect each other (on the same team and on opposing ones)? Is this a result of social norms or strict governance by an authority figure?
As I witnessed in the few experiments done for HON 299, the power that these norms hold over me is significant on two levels; first is that I am largely unaware of this power because I never consciously challenge the boundaries, second is the level of control they exert over me when I come close to breaking them. What my thesis needs to explore is this relationship on a communal level. By looking at soccer as a construct, looking at its political past, and by looking at what civil society is, then it will be possible to understand the distinction between the institutionalized game and the casual one played in parks, on streets, and common areas.
When I am out in the community looking at soccer in a variety of settings, this is the interaction I am looking for. How do people respect each other (on the same team and on opposing ones)? Is this a result of social norms or strict governance by an authority figure?
To the Tune of Bill Evans ~ 11/01/07
Interesting debate on will tonight; will in the sense of having one. Free will. Do we posses it? Is it a good thing? Well DB managed to polarize the debate again and pull it into a discourse on power rather than freedom. But he was well checked by this English fellow. Anyway…
I have been neglecting this thesis project for some time now. I haven’t written in ages, and I feel a bit disconnected from it. Perhaps because I am generally tired, maybe a bit burnt out.
I have been neglecting this thesis project for some time now. I haven’t written in ages, and I feel a bit disconnected from it. Perhaps because I am generally tired, maybe a bit burnt out.
Sporting Dystopias (part III)
On another level, the troubled youth is turned into a consumer. Their new-found identity is a big poster board for multinational corporations like Vodaphone, T-Com, Opel, Fly Emerates. They will now prefer Adidas shoes not for their superior quality, but because of their association with this identity. By making a connection to the troubled youth through soccer, their identity is reformed; they are socialized and become part of the mainstream again.
What is the problem with this? First off, it is exerting of power by a hegemonic ideology over an individual by removing their free will, or their individual expression. Next it is remodeling a citizen without giving them the tools of critical analysis necessary to make independent choices (why would it?). Finally, it is totalitarian in nature because it is not allowing for alternative opinions and in a sense it is a regulation of the public through the private.
But are there only drawbacks? Perhaps if we take an argument of “the lesser evil” then this mechanism is in fact a positive force. Certainly if you take a look at the work of Right to Play and Football 4 Peace, you conclude the children who are “empowered” through sport are rid of war, are better able to deal with the trauma of their experience. If they can live the rest of their life without war as a result of this resocialization, that is proberbly a positive result for them. Look at the BBC statistic for a few days ago: over the last 15 years war has cost the continent about $300 billion. If this were no longer the case, in part because soccer had mainstreamed these cultures would Africa complain?
The problem is clear; it suggests that only a homogenization of global identity is going to do the trick. This sounds fine to the average westerner because they are part of the dominant ideology (so obviously it is superior). Essentially, the solution to this issue can only be achieved through the suppression of a regional identity and the imposition of a foreign identity. But at the same time, who is going to deny that a life without war is better than one with war? If a shift in identity is a possible solution to the many conflicts around the world, should we not take advantage of this opportunity? Through modernization, a vibrant civil society, and a supportive international environment these troubled-states have a shot at democratization and the individuals have a chance to participate in their nations future.
Is there a solution to the paradox? Can we socialize people to be critical multiculturalists (for example) through a mechanism such as sport? The question is: is sport inherent to western culture? If it were, then likely it would never do anything but assimilate people. If it is a universal language (not by virtue of having been spread by a capitalist exploitation but rather being something inherent to human nature) then it can be a forum of inter-cultural dialogue where we come to understand our own identity by seeing how the “other” perceives it. On the field we see our differences, accept that they exist, and understand that we are all “foreigners” to someone. We can remove racist, sexist, ideological divisions through understanding how the “other” perceives us and by analyzing those parts of us that make us think that they are the “other”.
To support this argument that sport is largely now a capitalist venture and a source of social identity, Wilcox and Andrew suggest “for a city to legitimately claim a position of the world stage, it must claim, in addition to a significant role in transnational business, international finance, and global communication, a significant place in the global sport marketplace.” (p 11)
Sporting Dystopias (part II)
As second effect of industry was the division of labour. Instead of having workers produce a product from start to finish, they were now assigned a single task with the production line. This allowed for a much more efficient production on a much larger scale. It also provided workers with increased free time. Initially this resulted in masses of people stuck in urban environments with little to do outside of work, and consequently health declined, boredom and frustration levels rose. According to Wilcox and Andrews (2003) this situation was quickly recognized and exploited by the middle class/bourgeoisie.
“Challenged by the relative monotony and boredom associated with life in the industrial city, seeking a panacea for declining health among the workforce, and building upon the emerging traditions of mass production and improved communication, social reformers, capitalist entrepreneurs, and municipal and industrial leaders south to exploit the increasing levels of discretionary capital and more widely available free time to develop, refine, promote, and deliver services and products, which, in totality, came to represent the foundation of the sports industry as we know it today.” (Wilcox, Andrews, p 5)
Seen in this context, sport is in fact a product of capitalist exploitation rather than an organic, natural expression of community interaction. However, this does not suggest that sport in some form or another was not being produced, only that it was happening outside of the system and thus not quantifiable nor part of the capitalist machine. Clearly there must have been some demand for sport at the offset otherwise no-one would have tried to exploit it. How does one exploit something that does not exist?
If this is the case, then sport should be seen as a way for our bodies to compensate for the inactivity resulting from the urban lifestyle. This activity keeps us healthy and strong, enabling us to be better producers and members of society. By bringing sport into the system through capitalist exploitation it becomes more than just ‘sport’, more than just physical exercise, more than just a way to stay healthy. It is now a source of identity for individuals, and fits into the larger hegemonic ideology of capitalism.
How is this the case? Take a look at Hargreaves and his book on Sport, Power and Culture. When the British Government uses soccer to reach out to troubled youth, it does so with the help of Nike, Adidas, Manchester United, etc. What does this mean in the context of my previous argument? On one level the aim is to create a model citizen who no longer has a hard time understanding their place in society, no longer needs to react with violence, and can function in all the ways that society demands (Hargreaves, 1986). Because England is capitalist, this means becoming a good producer and no longer taking up more resources than you put in.
Theodore Adorno also makes a similar point in his essay “Free Time”. Free time itself has become an industry in the capitalist machine. When applying this argument to sport (which we can because most of us are not professional athletes, thus it is a free time pursuit) Adorno concludes that it operates on two levels. First you have the perceived meaning of sport: the physical challenge, the health aspect, etc. The second level is similar to what Hargreaves was arguing. It is just another way to instill social norms into individuals. The team sport suppresses individualism and creativity in favor of conformity (Adorno, 2001).
Sporting Dystopias (part I)
Sport is intimately connected, in social and geographic terms, to how a community is arranged as a result of modernization. With the development of urban spaces during antiquity, sport was a central component to providing entertainment for the citizens. At this point it was largely an activity controlled by the political and social elite, but increasingly it was consumed by the masses. We see a good example of this in the centrality of the gladiatorial games in Roman society. The sporting arena was generally close to the city center, if not the city center (is this true? Find a source). These games came to be seen as a mechanism of social control as it provided a venue for plebs to vent frustration, and watching the slaughter of men and animals must have acted as kind of catharsis. If the political elite felt there was unrest amongst the people, providing this type of entertainment was a way to deflect and channel this sentiment.
A contemporary example of this is provided by Foer’s analysis of the function of Barcelona Football Club during the Franco years. Franco allowed for the expression of Catalan nationalism inside the Nou Camp Arena (which included strong criticism of his own regime) because it meant these feelings weren’t being expressed on the streets, an environment much harder to control.
Of course we know the valve theory didn’t always work. There are plenty of examples from the Roman Empire and from the modern era of mass spectacle, of violence erupting as a result of these games. Emperors and high-ranking officials were chased out of coliseums, fans have brutalized each other during and after games, and some would argue wars have been started after soccer matches (Honduras and El Salvador and even the Balkans War).
From Antiquity on, sport was associated with the urban space. After the fall of Rome and the decentralization of power in Europe, urban spaces no longer held the same attraction. For a largely agricultural society dominated by local lords there was not much time for entertainment and leisure activity. However, as modernization progressed and technology developed, society became less dependent on agriculture and more focused on industry. Improvements in production methods and technologies allowed fewer farmers to produce more products. In turn, people began to move to the industrial centers in search of work.
A contemporary example of this is provided by Foer’s analysis of the function of Barcelona Football Club during the Franco years. Franco allowed for the expression of Catalan nationalism inside the Nou Camp Arena (which included strong criticism of his own regime) because it meant these feelings weren’t being expressed on the streets, an environment much harder to control.
Of course we know the valve theory didn’t always work. There are plenty of examples from the Roman Empire and from the modern era of mass spectacle, of violence erupting as a result of these games. Emperors and high-ranking officials were chased out of coliseums, fans have brutalized each other during and after games, and some would argue wars have been started after soccer matches (Honduras and El Salvador and even the Balkans War).
From Antiquity on, sport was associated with the urban space. After the fall of Rome and the decentralization of power in Europe, urban spaces no longer held the same attraction. For a largely agricultural society dominated by local lords there was not much time for entertainment and leisure activity. However, as modernization progressed and technology developed, society became less dependent on agriculture and more focused on industry. Improvements in production methods and technologies allowed fewer farmers to produce more products. In turn, people began to move to the industrial centers in search of work.
Class Presentations
“It’s a brick in your foundation.”
Sarah: “Globalization eliminating the need for Sovereignty; the social, economic, and political implications of McWorld.”
~Sovereignty: the legal authority based on self-determination over a particular piece of geography. This is top down authority.
~Globalization: comes from interconnectedness of world/national economies. Its power comes from economics.
~Are porous borders anti-democratic?
~Power of the Pentagon v. Disney – markets or politics as the policy-maker of international relations?
John Nesbit: “Mega Trends”
Kevin: “What takes precedence in our society: the well-being of the individual or the well being of society as a whole?”
~Huxley’s Brave New World.
~Social conditioning (in the US Context): classism, religion, pre-schooling.
~Truth as social construct? Means of social control?
~How do I feel now: I still feel excited about this project and topic. How could I not be: the thesis is about me. It begins with my own set of assumptions about life, liberty, etc and then blossoms into other aspects. Getting myself strait is step one. By that I mean I need to be clear about what my assumptions are at the starting point of this project at ground zero so to speak. This does not mean that I won’t change my mind through the experience (in fact I am sure in some ways I will) but I should be clear about articulating my ideological lens. Perhaps this will even include an analysis of my experience with the various teams I have played for from VFB to C.D. El Salvador.
Then I tackle the next levels: What role does soccer occupy in socio-political terms (is it economic, is it nationalist), and how do government and the citizen use it? What is the criticism of this model (the critical multiculturalist view).
Well, these are details to work out as we go along and I am at least glad that other presentations had a similar feeling to mine in the sense that everyone is still working with lots of ideas.
~Experience: By this I mean interaction with the concept at hand. My level of understanding is heightened because I have engaged with soccer and its cultural significance at various stages in my life.
Sarah: “Globalization eliminating the need for Sovereignty; the social, economic, and political implications of McWorld.”
~Sovereignty: the legal authority based on self-determination over a particular piece of geography. This is top down authority.
~Globalization: comes from interconnectedness of world/national economies. Its power comes from economics.
~Are porous borders anti-democratic?
~Power of the Pentagon v. Disney – markets or politics as the policy-maker of international relations?
John Nesbit: “Mega Trends”
Kevin: “What takes precedence in our society: the well-being of the individual or the well being of society as a whole?”
~Huxley’s Brave New World.
~Social conditioning (in the US Context): classism, religion, pre-schooling.
~Truth as social construct? Means of social control?
~How do I feel now: I still feel excited about this project and topic. How could I not be: the thesis is about me. It begins with my own set of assumptions about life, liberty, etc and then blossoms into other aspects. Getting myself strait is step one. By that I mean I need to be clear about what my assumptions are at the starting point of this project at ground zero so to speak. This does not mean that I won’t change my mind through the experience (in fact I am sure in some ways I will) but I should be clear about articulating my ideological lens. Perhaps this will even include an analysis of my experience with the various teams I have played for from VFB to C.D. El Salvador.
Then I tackle the next levels: What role does soccer occupy in socio-political terms (is it economic, is it nationalist), and how do government and the citizen use it? What is the criticism of this model (the critical multiculturalist view).
Well, these are details to work out as we go along and I am at least glad that other presentations had a similar feeling to mine in the sense that everyone is still working with lots of ideas.
~Experience: By this I mean interaction with the concept at hand. My level of understanding is heightened because I have engaged with soccer and its cultural significance at various stages in my life.
Meeting with Big D ~ 10/01/07
I didn’t expect to have the meeting be a love fest over my thesis, I know Dr. D better than that, but I also didn’t expect to have it savaged like this. I write this not with anger but with a real challenge in front of me now. The main criticism was that this was, as it stands, an easy thesis without any really new ideas. Granted, I had my suspicions after discovering more scholarship than expected on this topic of soccer instilling values and developing a democratic civil society.
This EU organization that Dr. V put me in contact with has a number of papers on this already. But I figured, by looking at the question of how this is a mechanism of identity and what that means for the culture, that I would be taking a different approach. Largely, I think I am doing, and I think that I could stick with this, do the thesis, be done in May and move on. Or…
…I could take the challenge laid down of moving my thesis outside the institutional perspective and attempt to look at the spontaneous nature of soccer at the grass roots level. Here I would need to consider how soccer at this level is co-opted by the institution and how it re-enforces status quo mentality. While it might remove differences within, it reifies discrimination.
Um, ok. But what about when the UN goes into a conflict zone and uses soccer to bring together community members normally found on different sides of the conflict? What is the negative aspect of this, and why does it not lead to harmony? Is it because you are basically creating a soccer “community” or system that will become what it is in Europe: part of civil society, and representative of one identity?
Ok, lets look at a conflict zone: Kosovo for example, a state struggling for independence against Serbia. Why would reconciliation through soccer be a problem? Well, if the teams are divided along ethnic lines I can see the problem, it would be a case of re-enforcing nationalist feeling and the game would default to being about victory over the opponent. But what if an outside force (the UN, or an NGO) came and mixed up the team, removing the ethnic lines of the competition by placing people from opposite sides on the same team? Does this still mean that the system is being re-enforced? I feel stuck on this question. I want to answer no, because the sport will teach them that the differences are fabricated by some other mechanism. But Dr. D would think that this is not the case. His reasoning is hazy to me, that this forced break-down of the opposing identities is still part of the same system that puts them in conflict to start with.
Well, I am reading Hargreaves’s take in Sport, Power and Culture. Here sport is examined in its British context and how the state uses sport as a form of socialization. If I understand correctly, then sport means making model citizens, the type who are not challenging the status quo, not “anti-social” and who are productive laborers. In other words, this develops healthy consumers. In a UN context, the idea would be similar, we are replacing one identity with another. The individual goes from being a tribal member to being one who now wants to own a house, buy a car, eat at a fancy restaurant: basically they become a consumer. This, I think, is the core of Dr. D’s criticism. My paper approaches the topic from an assumption that the bigger system into which the individuals are being socialized is good. Just because the war has ended, or the border dispute is resolved, it does not mean that there is a more just system in place.
Ok, so then, lets figure out how to move this monster out of the system. Soccer that emerges spontaneously is different in its anarchical nature. There is no-one controlling it, there is no-one benefiting from it (in the economic sense), thus it is soccer for soccer sake, not for societies sake. With this analysis, the individual plays a very different role than in a structured, controlled environment. First of all, this spontaneous soccer is about the individual, not the team. Thus it is more empowering on an individual level. The people become cognizant of their individual ability not as a result of the team performance. The two performances are not linked when it is spontaneous and uncodified. In a dirt pitch pick up game no-one really cares about the final score, beyond some minor disappointment that they failed to shoot a winning goal.
This places the debate of intra or extra institutional as the value of a sporting culture.
This EU organization that Dr. V put me in contact with has a number of papers on this already. But I figured, by looking at the question of how this is a mechanism of identity and what that means for the culture, that I would be taking a different approach. Largely, I think I am doing, and I think that I could stick with this, do the thesis, be done in May and move on. Or…
…I could take the challenge laid down of moving my thesis outside the institutional perspective and attempt to look at the spontaneous nature of soccer at the grass roots level. Here I would need to consider how soccer at this level is co-opted by the institution and how it re-enforces status quo mentality. While it might remove differences within, it reifies discrimination.
Um, ok. But what about when the UN goes into a conflict zone and uses soccer to bring together community members normally found on different sides of the conflict? What is the negative aspect of this, and why does it not lead to harmony? Is it because you are basically creating a soccer “community” or system that will become what it is in Europe: part of civil society, and representative of one identity?
Ok, lets look at a conflict zone: Kosovo for example, a state struggling for independence against Serbia. Why would reconciliation through soccer be a problem? Well, if the teams are divided along ethnic lines I can see the problem, it would be a case of re-enforcing nationalist feeling and the game would default to being about victory over the opponent. But what if an outside force (the UN, or an NGO) came and mixed up the team, removing the ethnic lines of the competition by placing people from opposite sides on the same team? Does this still mean that the system is being re-enforced? I feel stuck on this question. I want to answer no, because the sport will teach them that the differences are fabricated by some other mechanism. But Dr. D would think that this is not the case. His reasoning is hazy to me, that this forced break-down of the opposing identities is still part of the same system that puts them in conflict to start with.
Well, I am reading Hargreaves’s take in Sport, Power and Culture. Here sport is examined in its British context and how the state uses sport as a form of socialization. If I understand correctly, then sport means making model citizens, the type who are not challenging the status quo, not “anti-social” and who are productive laborers. In other words, this develops healthy consumers. In a UN context, the idea would be similar, we are replacing one identity with another. The individual goes from being a tribal member to being one who now wants to own a house, buy a car, eat at a fancy restaurant: basically they become a consumer. This, I think, is the core of Dr. D’s criticism. My paper approaches the topic from an assumption that the bigger system into which the individuals are being socialized is good. Just because the war has ended, or the border dispute is resolved, it does not mean that there is a more just system in place.
Ok, so then, lets figure out how to move this monster out of the system. Soccer that emerges spontaneously is different in its anarchical nature. There is no-one controlling it, there is no-one benefiting from it (in the economic sense), thus it is soccer for soccer sake, not for societies sake. With this analysis, the individual plays a very different role than in a structured, controlled environment. First of all, this spontaneous soccer is about the individual, not the team. Thus it is more empowering on an individual level. The people become cognizant of their individual ability not as a result of the team performance. The two performances are not linked when it is spontaneous and uncodified. In a dirt pitch pick up game no-one really cares about the final score, beyond some minor disappointment that they failed to shoot a winning goal.
This places the debate of intra or extra institutional as the value of a sporting culture.
Reflection (part I)
I just finished reading Bound: The marriage of tragedy and meaning in “Thus Spoke Zarathustra” a thesis by my friend James Shay. If I understand his definition of will to power, it comes to mean the confrontation of personal insecurity in a world of chaos. If we confront it, we become creative, independent, and engaged with the world. In a sense this strikes me as a philosophy of self-empowerment.
If my reading is correct, then it can be a relevant concept in my thesis. If the personal insecurity we experience relative to the chaos that is the everyday world is the primary force in our life, then we are paralyzed and can only follow a pre-determined path in life. There is no creativity in this paradigm, nor is there any true questioning of what passes before us (either as truth or as right/wrong). But an individual with a strong engagement with this chaos and endowed with a “will to power” as it were, will be able to question, to be creative, and to forge their own path.
Power in this sense is the personal, the internal. Thinking about this in terms of the HON299 class I can see that it allows the individual to become aware of the power relationships that exist in the world and for that individual to control their subjugation to those power dynamics. In a sense, will to power allows you to control what your identity is and becomes over time. Will to power assumes, if I understand it fully, that the individual will have a sense of their own identity, or at least an understanding of what they believe, in order to interact with the world on their own terms. This implies self-confidence, a thing that I struggle with as much as I do with my identity.
Putting this in a sporting context, the empowerment that a person feels by being part of team (i.e. with a role to play in life), particularly a successful one, will translate into their non-sporting life and give them a sense of confidence, which, under my interpretation of Nietzsche, prompts them to be more creative and independent from subjugation. This argument becomes something of refutation of Freud’s Group Psycology when you consider that Freud argued the individual loses empowerment through group association. I can see his argument particularly as I have suggested the relegation of the individual to collective occurs, yet the opposite occurs also. Not only does the individual receive a validation of his or her ideas (by virtue of it being the common denominator), but they also gain in confidence and thus are more willing to question and be critical of the group objective, direction, mores, etc.
This result comes from the many benefits of team collaboration, particularly in a sporting context. Without wanting to go into the physiological benefits of sport, it should be clear that an active life is better than a sedentary one, as the former keeps bodily functions more regular and in tune as well as keeping the mind sharp.
Next it gives individuals a sense of responsibility towards their teammates. As I mentioned previously, a team is a group of individuals who must look to the interests of the whole before looking to their own. While their own interests are not necessarily antithetical to the interests of the collective, the order and efficiency of the team relies on the group effort. It’s fine for Lionel Messi to make that darting solo run through the oppositions defense and score because it serve the interest of Barcelona as a whole. A problem occurs if Messi tried this every time he came in possession of the ball. Not only is he refusing to collaborate with the team, but he is also assuming that they are no longer necessary, thus it becomes all about him.
A third point to consider is that this team ethic gives the individuals a sense of identity. The commonality of ideas shared by group members becomes a learning tool and, perhaps less so in a sporting context, an ideology.
I am just now struck by the tribalistic connotation of the “Parma, Parma, Vaffanculo”. If you think about that, the sentence, as it stands suggests that you are telling a whole community (identity) to fuck off. It implies a cultural superiority to those chanting the lines.
If my reading is correct, then it can be a relevant concept in my thesis. If the personal insecurity we experience relative to the chaos that is the everyday world is the primary force in our life, then we are paralyzed and can only follow a pre-determined path in life. There is no creativity in this paradigm, nor is there any true questioning of what passes before us (either as truth or as right/wrong). But an individual with a strong engagement with this chaos and endowed with a “will to power” as it were, will be able to question, to be creative, and to forge their own path.
Power in this sense is the personal, the internal. Thinking about this in terms of the HON299 class I can see that it allows the individual to become aware of the power relationships that exist in the world and for that individual to control their subjugation to those power dynamics. In a sense, will to power allows you to control what your identity is and becomes over time. Will to power assumes, if I understand it fully, that the individual will have a sense of their own identity, or at least an understanding of what they believe, in order to interact with the world on their own terms. This implies self-confidence, a thing that I struggle with as much as I do with my identity.
Putting this in a sporting context, the empowerment that a person feels by being part of team (i.e. with a role to play in life), particularly a successful one, will translate into their non-sporting life and give them a sense of confidence, which, under my interpretation of Nietzsche, prompts them to be more creative and independent from subjugation. This argument becomes something of refutation of Freud’s Group Psycology when you consider that Freud argued the individual loses empowerment through group association. I can see his argument particularly as I have suggested the relegation of the individual to collective occurs, yet the opposite occurs also. Not only does the individual receive a validation of his or her ideas (by virtue of it being the common denominator), but they also gain in confidence and thus are more willing to question and be critical of the group objective, direction, mores, etc.
This result comes from the many benefits of team collaboration, particularly in a sporting context. Without wanting to go into the physiological benefits of sport, it should be clear that an active life is better than a sedentary one, as the former keeps bodily functions more regular and in tune as well as keeping the mind sharp.
Next it gives individuals a sense of responsibility towards their teammates. As I mentioned previously, a team is a group of individuals who must look to the interests of the whole before looking to their own. While their own interests are not necessarily antithetical to the interests of the collective, the order and efficiency of the team relies on the group effort. It’s fine for Lionel Messi to make that darting solo run through the oppositions defense and score because it serve the interest of Barcelona as a whole. A problem occurs if Messi tried this every time he came in possession of the ball. Not only is he refusing to collaborate with the team, but he is also assuming that they are no longer necessary, thus it becomes all about him.
A third point to consider is that this team ethic gives the individuals a sense of identity. The commonality of ideas shared by group members becomes a learning tool and, perhaps less so in a sporting context, an ideology.
I am just now struck by the tribalistic connotation of the “Parma, Parma, Vaffanculo”. If you think about that, the sentence, as it stands suggests that you are telling a whole community (identity) to fuck off. It implies a cultural superiority to those chanting the lines.
The Paradox
On the one hand a team sport, like soccer, unites people in common cause, on the other hand it divides people along factional lines. As a passive participant in the sport (i.e. a fan) the same phenomenon occurs: you are united behind your team and divided against the opposition. The question in this context is how to unite people through a mechanism that is going to, at some point, also divide them?
The second paradox is less related to soccer per se and more about the space that it occupies. As a part of civil society, soccer becomes a grass roots community activity. A totalitarian regime finds this overtly threatening in its non-politcalness, and will thus try to control it and impose a political identity on it. We also understand that in the face of repression the very cause of the civic culture is borne (i.e. resistance). What happens to civil society during a transition presents the paradox. While moving away from totalitarianism the civil society becomes very large and outspoken. After all there is consensus that change is needed. But when the same culture moves towards democracy it shrinks and becomes muted. The reason being change has happened and there is a satisfaction with the system. That which gave you inspiration to be active and engaged in the community is no longer.
If this is the case for sports participation is questionable. Certainly there was much emphasis on sporting events under the USSR and the DDR, only the values promoted through these activities was different. Second, will people really play less sport because they are happy with their government? I believe Putnam’s thesis in bowling alone was that individual bowling was taking over from league bowling. The loss of community is represented there, but I doubt I can find a similar case in soccer. The problem being it is purely a team sport – either you play in the team, or you are not playing soccer.
Brainstorms
The importance of a civil society in any political system should not be overlooked. Even a closed, authoritarian government can make good use of a living social network. Perhaps a definition is needed: Civil society means the communitarian associations that provide a forum for individual grievances and the instilling of a value system. It is the civic associations that connect individuals on a level outside of political discourse. It’s soccer teams, neighborhood watch groups, book groups, dinner clubs, chess clubs, music groups, health care clinics, homeless shelters, animal shelters, historical societies, etc.
Traditionally governments have been somewhat weary of this kind of active citizenry. Certainly if the object of government is power then it is not hard to see why this is the case; an active citizen is one who is engaged in the community and thus more prone to seeing it heard from and well represented. But the community is also where ideas are instilled and ideology is created, thus it is a space of socialization. Something any dictator should be interested in and cultivating to his or her own means. I think, as much as it is for the wrong reasons, that this is something that Chavez has well understood.
Lets take this idea of ideology: the worldview of a social class. With this definition we understand that this is something of a lens by which you see the world, digest its events, and react to it. Because it is tied to social class, it is also a learned process. If it is a leaned process, then it must be manipulability. If this is the case, it is the perfect ground for the instillation of whatever value system is desired.
For my purpose, being someone who believes in a democratic, liberal polity, the value system would be one of openness, respect, tolerance, competition, and free speech. Wow, those all fit nicely into what a soccer game should exhibit. Soccer teams are part of civic culture in that they are association of individuals that get together in the name of teamwork, competition, and hopefully respect and tolerance.
The soccer team is an organization of likeminded individuals who believe in a common goal, displaying unity along the way. That said, a team is still composed of individuals who want to excel and be the best, however there is an understanding that this can only happen in the context of the team. If an individual wants to excel, then they need the support of the team to get them there. Thus the individual can never separate themselves entirely from the team. They are in some ways always accountable to their teammates and have to be willing to share the burden. If the individual spends too much time looking to his or her own success and fame, then the team structure is compromised and all suffer, including the individual, who is now less likely to get good service from the mid-fielders or support from the defenders.
The ethos of soccer is such that everyone on the team must be connected and know how the teammates are going to react as this is the only way to out maneuver an opponent If this doesn’t happen, if an individual takes to many opportunities to try and dazzle with deft moves or lengthy runs, then they will interrupt the team flow and allow the opposition to exploit the division with their own tactics.
To extend the metaphor the political arena, a Prime Minster might be first, but he or she is only first among equals.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)