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.

   If we are to look at soccer as a means of identity, then it becomes a valuable tool for breaking down entrenched, authoritarian, anti-democratic ideals. If indeed the team ethic prevails and in that individuals come to understand the necessity of the team to further there own goals, it should follow that an attitude of tolerance begins to build up in individuals.