Bhutto's death highlights the lack of control currently in Pakistan. And soccer might be able to help out...
Were it a fully militarized state, then this might not have happened. But if the country had more trust in government, then it may not have happened either. Really, it is probably easier to shoot a politician here than in Pakistan. The level of trust in the United States is much higher; the political culture is one of conflict within the accepted political infrastructure. Only a few American politicians use body guards, most can walk freely in the street.
Of course I can also make the argument that this is the result of indoctrination, and that trust has nothing to do with it. The American stability is a function of long established normative behavior, brought about through our consumer habits, our educational system, our level of wealth and the belief in the possibility of upward mobility. In this sense, we would be less free (ideologically or otherwise) than someone in Pakistan. Ah, another paradox. Does this mean we have to trade freedom to be free? For our lifestyle to grant us the safety we expect, do we need to be more submissive??
Soccer, as I have argued, and will continue to do so, is part of civil society, and thus it is political in nature. Soccer is for its participants a way to establish bonds, behavioral patterns, living standards, and consumption habits. A dedicated soccer player, particularly one who starts at a young age, will form part (or all) of their identity around soccer, the image of its stars, and the social expectations of a 'soccer player.' As a result, if you establish a certain culture within the game, one of fair play, anti-racism, gender equality, etc, then you open the door to the possibility of socializing the participants. Anti-social behavior is corrected through the camaraderie, and necessary work ethic of a soccer team.
Well, that is the theory anyway. The reality is always less rosy. I remember, among others, the Woodgate affair at Leeds in the late 1990's, when this player and a few others were involved in a fight that apparently had racial motivation. And there is the recent Sol Campbell Interview where he challenged the F.A. to do something about the racial abuse he is getting from fans.
Thursday, December 27, 2007
Benazir Bhutto 6/21/1958 - 12/27/2007
Allow me this digression. I don't claim to know much about Bhutto or her politics, but political assassination always makes me feel sick. Nothing justifies taking the life of a human, particularly not one who was doing what she thought was right for her country. As far as I can tell, she dedicated herself to achieving change that would benefit the people of Pakistan.
But, once again, the fear of change in people was to powerful. Bhutto was shot in the neck and died within hours. CNN is already spinning this as only they know how. Their reporting is sensationalist, exploitative, and in technicolor. Everyone is going to rush out and blame the muslims for this. They might say its a violent religion, that they are uncivilized people. This is the great tragedy of her death, and our method of consumption of the news.
It may well have been an extremist of islamic faith who did this vile act, but it is not because they were Islamic that they pulled the trigger. It was because they feared her. Just like we feared King, Robert Kennedy, Malcome X, Guevara and how Putin fears people like Anna Politkovskaya. Religion, race, non of that has anything to do with it. People who have power are afraid to lose it, thus they hate those who might seek to take it away. Many will also have seen her western education and privileged background as condescending and corrupt.
There were also 15 other people killed tonight in Pakistan and they should not be forgotten either.
This death benefits a lot of people in Pakistan, but won't change anything in the power struggle between Musharraf and the fundamentalists. For the future? Well, it sucks for ordinary Parkistani people who supported her, they are less likely to get a fair vote, or a candidate they want. But its up to them to handle the situation and decide where to take the country. It is both a tragedy and an opportunity at the same time.
If you believe powerful individuals have the ability to force through democracy on their people, this is probably a really bad day. But if you are like me, and you see the paradox in this theory, then today is sad because another public servant, a symbol of hope for millions, was senselessly murdered. We should all feel inspired to stand for what we believe in, know why we believe something, speak out, and respect those how feel otherwise.
But, once again, the fear of change in people was to powerful. Bhutto was shot in the neck and died within hours. CNN is already spinning this as only they know how. Their reporting is sensationalist, exploitative, and in technicolor. Everyone is going to rush out and blame the muslims for this. They might say its a violent religion, that they are uncivilized people. This is the great tragedy of her death, and our method of consumption of the news.
It may well have been an extremist of islamic faith who did this vile act, but it is not because they were Islamic that they pulled the trigger. It was because they feared her. Just like we feared King, Robert Kennedy, Malcome X, Guevara and how Putin fears people like Anna Politkovskaya. Religion, race, non of that has anything to do with it. People who have power are afraid to lose it, thus they hate those who might seek to take it away. Many will also have seen her western education and privileged background as condescending and corrupt.
There were also 15 other people killed tonight in Pakistan and they should not be forgotten either.
This death benefits a lot of people in Pakistan, but won't change anything in the power struggle between Musharraf and the fundamentalists. For the future? Well, it sucks for ordinary Parkistani people who supported her, they are less likely to get a fair vote, or a candidate they want. But its up to them to handle the situation and decide where to take the country. It is both a tragedy and an opportunity at the same time.
If you believe powerful individuals have the ability to force through democracy on their people, this is probably a really bad day. But if you are like me, and you see the paradox in this theory, then today is sad because another public servant, a symbol of hope for millions, was senselessly murdered. We should all feel inspired to stand for what we believe in, know why we believe something, speak out, and respect those how feel otherwise.
Tuesday, December 25, 2007
Some Slavoj for your Xmas? 12/25/2007
"What is a cultural lifestyle, if not the fact that, although we don't believe in Santa Claus, there is a Christmas tree in every house, and even in public places, every December?" (Zizek, 2003: 7)
Culture in this sense is a performance, which originates as learned behavior rather than through a true understanding or belief. The argument here implies a hollow repetition of certain signifiers simply out of habit, respect for the past, or at times maybe even force. This argument is easily transposed into nationalist rituals where so much ritual exists.
The singing of national anthems at soccer matches on the national level is a good example. I wonder how many people actually understand what they are singing when they stand up? Or are they just singing out of respect, out of love for their country? Who knows the history of the tune, or the history of their nation well enough to truly understand what they are singing?
Of course, I am asking these questions as much as a criticism of myself as of anyone else. I am always moved when I hear the German National anthem at a soccer game, but rarely at any other time. Although I often align myself with Germany because it is my birthplace, I only feel like a nationalist when I watch the national team. Suddenly, because of context, I forget long held beliefs that nationalism is not only dangerous but also racist, and the cause of unbelievable suffering and behavior.
Because I believe in the superiority of the DFB, the national anthem takes on meaning only in the stadium. It becomes a performance in that the words are rather meaningless to me, I am not in actual fact even a German citizen, and yet I would stand up, put my hand on my heart and sing "Einigkeit und Recht und Freiheit für das deutsche Vaterland!" just out tradition and a hope that my team will win.
Like Zizeck's Christmas tree, the national anthem is there just because of tradition, even as belief in the nation state system becomes less and less relevant. Thus the national anthem is relegated to sporting events, one of the last venues where people still get away with racist behavior and opinions.
Culture in this sense is a performance, which originates as learned behavior rather than through a true understanding or belief. The argument here implies a hollow repetition of certain signifiers simply out of habit, respect for the past, or at times maybe even force. This argument is easily transposed into nationalist rituals where so much ritual exists.
The singing of national anthems at soccer matches on the national level is a good example. I wonder how many people actually understand what they are singing when they stand up? Or are they just singing out of respect, out of love for their country? Who knows the history of the tune, or the history of their nation well enough to truly understand what they are singing?
Of course, I am asking these questions as much as a criticism of myself as of anyone else. I am always moved when I hear the German National anthem at a soccer game, but rarely at any other time. Although I often align myself with Germany because it is my birthplace, I only feel like a nationalist when I watch the national team. Suddenly, because of context, I forget long held beliefs that nationalism is not only dangerous but also racist, and the cause of unbelievable suffering and behavior.
Because I believe in the superiority of the DFB, the national anthem takes on meaning only in the stadium. It becomes a performance in that the words are rather meaningless to me, I am not in actual fact even a German citizen, and yet I would stand up, put my hand on my heart and sing "Einigkeit und Recht und Freiheit für das deutsche Vaterland!" just out tradition and a hope that my team will win.
Like Zizeck's Christmas tree, the national anthem is there just because of tradition, even as belief in the nation state system becomes less and less relevant. Thus the national anthem is relegated to sporting events, one of the last venues where people still get away with racist behavior and opinions.
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
Burning the Midnight Oil ~ 12/12/2007
A few thoughts came to me last night around 140 a.m. I was thinking about something a classmate had said about South Africa and its transition to democracy. Part of the ANC/Mandela legacy was how it dealt with the reconciliation process. It was heralded a success because the ‘new’ power (the ANC) was willing to wipe the slate clean and move forward. This cought my attention because of its parallels to the W. German transition after the war. Later, as E. Germany was collapsing, one of the criticisms from the Neues Forum was how W. Germany had failed to really deal with the Nazi past, forgoing serious dialogue over the genocide and crimes against humanity in order to move forward as a nation.
I have to say, that is a legitimate accusation. I would throw the same one at the ANC. There is this dangerous and flawed tendency to see a quick transition to democracy as a panacea for social, political and economic inequalities. In theory this is correct, but not necessarily in reality. South Africa is still a very problematic place with high crime, severe income inequality, and high levels of corruption. Perhaps a national dialogue would not necessarily have made a difference in these matters, but it would in social relations.
The quick transition and cosmetic reconciliation has set a dangerous precedent that oppression, racist ideologies, and Human Rights violations will not get you in serious trouble. A clean slate is never realistic; as humans we carry too much information, experiential baggage, and historical narratives for us to ever “wipe the slate clean.” Trying to do so undermines the whole idea of reconciliation. How can you ever forgive someone, get along with them after such a horrifying experience as Apartheid, if you cannot take into account historical context, economic conditions, etc? I think you cannot.
But we are also impatient as a species, and perhaps there was no other way to do this transition. If ANC had insisted on a long, protracted period of dialogue, developing narratives and really getting to the core of the issues (such as racism, colonial legacy, etc), then maybe the whole country would have collapsed and fallen into civil war and be even worse of than today. In a sense, reconciliation is an deeply personal experience, so much so, that it is questionable whether it is even an option at a national level.
Bob and I had a conversation before class over the Nixon pardon, which I though was only good for Nixon. Bob disagreed and used the National reconciliation argument to justify Ford’s actions. But again, was it good for the nation? Or did it only send a message that you can commit serious crimes in office and expect a pardon for them? Bob thought history was the final judge and thus Nixon was never absolved of his crimes, and thus didn’t get away with it. Maybe so, but that will only deter people with a profound respect for history and its place in our lives. Those types never run for office…
I have to say, that is a legitimate accusation. I would throw the same one at the ANC. There is this dangerous and flawed tendency to see a quick transition to democracy as a panacea for social, political and economic inequalities. In theory this is correct, but not necessarily in reality. South Africa is still a very problematic place with high crime, severe income inequality, and high levels of corruption. Perhaps a national dialogue would not necessarily have made a difference in these matters, but it would in social relations.
The quick transition and cosmetic reconciliation has set a dangerous precedent that oppression, racist ideologies, and Human Rights violations will not get you in serious trouble. A clean slate is never realistic; as humans we carry too much information, experiential baggage, and historical narratives for us to ever “wipe the slate clean.” Trying to do so undermines the whole idea of reconciliation. How can you ever forgive someone, get along with them after such a horrifying experience as Apartheid, if you cannot take into account historical context, economic conditions, etc? I think you cannot.
But we are also impatient as a species, and perhaps there was no other way to do this transition. If ANC had insisted on a long, protracted period of dialogue, developing narratives and really getting to the core of the issues (such as racism, colonial legacy, etc), then maybe the whole country would have collapsed and fallen into civil war and be even worse of than today. In a sense, reconciliation is an deeply personal experience, so much so, that it is questionable whether it is even an option at a national level.
Bob and I had a conversation before class over the Nixon pardon, which I though was only good for Nixon. Bob disagreed and used the National reconciliation argument to justify Ford’s actions. But again, was it good for the nation? Or did it only send a message that you can commit serious crimes in office and expect a pardon for them? Bob thought history was the final judge and thus Nixon was never absolved of his crimes, and thus didn’t get away with it. Maybe so, but that will only deter people with a profound respect for history and its place in our lives. Those types never run for office…
Saturday, December 8, 2007
Upon Reflection ~ 12/8/2007
I'm not sure I adequately addressed the question of motivation in the last entry. As I said, Denzin's quote is about motivation. But how does this impact my role at the community center where I am volunteering? It can't simply be a question of motivation in my case. My intentions are clearly not to repeat a colonial narrative, to take from these kids (in the form of information for my class project), without giving anything back. Yet I risk doing that if I follow the traditional approach of field study and researcher-subject relations. This also is relative to the study I intend to undertake for my thesis.
As part of the question for my thesis is to look at the question of soccer in a colonial context, I'll need to be sure and avoid a duplication in my study. Again, my motivation is not to do this, but it is not so easy to avoid. One solution (if only a partial solution) would be to ensure the kids (or my subjects for that matter) are left with some sense of partnership in the interaction. That they have had an 'experience' with me. It's important that they feel, or see, some tangible results from our time together. In learning center This will be a real challenge; one I have not yet cracked.
For my thesis it's a bit different, as I am observing something fairly spontaneous, and I will have no problem being part of the game, thus assisting the experience in being.
Hmm, there is more to this, but I don't seem to quite have it tonight. More Denzin methinks.
Friday, December 7, 2007
...and then he threw the book at them ~ 12/7/2007
“This self-same Government brings new meaning to fascism. In fashioning free-market, state-supported millennial capitalism, neoliberalism makes the corporate marketplace primary. It encourages consumption by redefining citizens as consumers and equating freedom with the choice to consume.
“The concepts of multiple democratic public spheres, civic space, citizenship, and democratic discourse disappear in the pedagogical practices ad spaces of millennial capitalism. In these deregulated corporate spaces a dismantling of the structures of public education welfare, housing, and affirmative action occurs. Corporate and (ad)venture capitalists define the new public morality. They know no shame. It is a racist Darwinian morality, celebrating the survival of the fittest.”
(Denzin, 2003: 231)
In this context motivation is the key component. Are governments and companies entering into regions of the world in conflict, out of purely altruistic reasons? Do they really think that modernization is the key to democratic evolution, to true and sustainable social justice? Not in Denzin’s opinion. More likely is the scenario that they are extending an ideological wing over these places in order to create new markets, new consumers, new worshipers at the altar of capitalism.
At the learning center, five rooms located at the entrance of a housing project and run by the local government, a similar analysis can be used. When I go there to help the kids with their homework, I am so often correcting their English, telling them Shakespeare is important, that math is real, etc. All of the things we talk about are essentially euro-centric, post enlightenment. There is little discussion of anything related to their own history (cultural and literal); so am I, as a volunteer, not being employed to turn these kids in “Americans” in order for them to be able to assume an American identity?
Part of the reason I chose to play mancala with them, is precisely because it is a non-European one. It’s simple, can be played outside of a capitalist system (in the sense that anyone can dig holes and collect pebbles without spending money), and it is familiar to them, thus part of their culture (as chess would be to mine). The reaction of the kids was telling. All of them knew how to play it, all of them were focused on it, and all of them had fun.
Will I have the same to say about soccer? I think it might get a bit more complicated because of the colonial legacy associated with the game. But, on another level, the game can be played outside of the system (one always hears about kids playing with rag balls) or at least with only a minimum contribution (say $5 for a ball). As the paternal character in Goal! said to the young latino protégé: “Look at this. Two jackets for a goal and a ball. That’s all you need.”
“The concepts of multiple democratic public spheres, civic space, citizenship, and democratic discourse disappear in the pedagogical practices ad spaces of millennial capitalism. In these deregulated corporate spaces a dismantling of the structures of public education welfare, housing, and affirmative action occurs. Corporate and (ad)venture capitalists define the new public morality. They know no shame. It is a racist Darwinian morality, celebrating the survival of the fittest.”
(Denzin, 2003: 231)
In this context motivation is the key component. Are governments and companies entering into regions of the world in conflict, out of purely altruistic reasons? Do they really think that modernization is the key to democratic evolution, to true and sustainable social justice? Not in Denzin’s opinion. More likely is the scenario that they are extending an ideological wing over these places in order to create new markets, new consumers, new worshipers at the altar of capitalism.
At the learning center, five rooms located at the entrance of a housing project and run by the local government, a similar analysis can be used. When I go there to help the kids with their homework, I am so often correcting their English, telling them Shakespeare is important, that math is real, etc. All of the things we talk about are essentially euro-centric, post enlightenment. There is little discussion of anything related to their own history (cultural and literal); so am I, as a volunteer, not being employed to turn these kids in “Americans” in order for them to be able to assume an American identity?
Part of the reason I chose to play mancala with them, is precisely because it is a non-European one. It’s simple, can be played outside of a capitalist system (in the sense that anyone can dig holes and collect pebbles without spending money), and it is familiar to them, thus part of their culture (as chess would be to mine). The reaction of the kids was telling. All of them knew how to play it, all of them were focused on it, and all of them had fun.
Will I have the same to say about soccer? I think it might get a bit more complicated because of the colonial legacy associated with the game. But, on another level, the game can be played outside of the system (one always hears about kids playing with rag balls) or at least with only a minimum contribution (say $5 for a ball). As the paternal character in Goal! said to the young latino protégé: “Look at this. Two jackets for a goal and a ball. That’s all you need.”
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
Think and Write ~ 12/05/2007
How Do I feel now?
It was a lot of fun to read my proposal/introduction out loud. I found myself enjoying the text and thinking I had written good stuff. The last week of end-of-term madness has meant not much work was done around the thesis, perhaps this is why it felt so fresh.
The feed back I received was good and I think I have a clear idea of how the text needs to progress between now and then. After 6 months of reading, thinking and writing, to still feel good about the topic is great. Somehow I am not burnt out on it yet. Unlike in my other classes... I am glad the semester is ending in someways. As much as I love academics, and will probably continue to live at the library over break, I am reaching a breaking point.
Maybe this has something to do with how much I am enjoying the thesis work; now other stuff seems less important. I begin thinking "why do I have to do this?". Well, I know why, of course. I am also aware that I am learning despite my resistance to some of the subjects. Lets have this discussion again next semester while I struggle through math....
Final thought: What will the big D think?
It was a lot of fun to read my proposal/introduction out loud. I found myself enjoying the text and thinking I had written good stuff. The last week of end-of-term madness has meant not much work was done around the thesis, perhaps this is why it felt so fresh.
The feed back I received was good and I think I have a clear idea of how the text needs to progress between now and then. After 6 months of reading, thinking and writing, to still feel good about the topic is great. Somehow I am not burnt out on it yet. Unlike in my other classes... I am glad the semester is ending in someways. As much as I love academics, and will probably continue to live at the library over break, I am reaching a breaking point.
Maybe this has something to do with how much I am enjoying the thesis work; now other stuff seems less important. I begin thinking "why do I have to do this?". Well, I know why, of course. I am also aware that I am learning despite my resistance to some of the subjects. Lets have this discussion again next semester while I struggle through math....
Final thought: What will the big D think?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)