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)
No comments:
Post a Comment