Wednesday, December 31, 2008

One more for good measure

Rob Hughes wrote recently that football must take care of its own. He was discussing the Icarus-like life of many stars of globalized football. Specifically, he mentions Gazza and Best as the fallen ones. Best died of alcoholism and Gazza may soon find a similar fate. I am mentioning this because, in part, I agree with Hughes, and in part, I think there is no true remedy.

Football, the sport and all those who control it, is responsible for those who make it their life, their source of income, and their identity. Football is attractive and alluring, it awakens passion, love and hate. As a little boy and an adult man, I have often dreamed of donning the shirt of FCB and running out with the lads, splitting the defense of the opposition with a deft pass, or stealing the last minuet winner. I wonder if I wouldn't give up everything to be endowed with good timing and golden legs? Of course, for most of us it is a fantasy to be indulged in as a fantasy.

But for many it becomes a reality. And one the individual is incorporated into the system of professional football, well, then the system carries some responsibility. Of course, all individuals have a choice at every given moment, but the system is responsible for its output: i.e. the players. While part of what is seductive about football is the physical contest, the other part is the glory. The glory today, as always I suppose, is fame and fortune. Soccer players are celebrities, fashion icons, goodwill ambassadors and movie stars. In short, they are brands.

This affords them much attention, wealth, luxury and excess. They are, in a sense, free of much of what keep the rest of us behind the desk, behaving in a moderate manner. But this is also where the danger lies, as in the case of Gazza and Best. Once you taste the sweet nectar of fortune and fame, who wants to go back? Some of us simply cannot handle that pressure and go mad. Soccer stars become drunks, criminals and megalomaniacs. And it is the sport and those behind the sport, which created this, thus they share the burden of responsibility. When Gazza gets wasted in a bar and gets in a fight, he is doing so, I would argue, because he needs the fight, the attention and the distraction.

But there is an even deeper problem here, one which is fundamental part of the sport itself (indeed, this is part of team sport in general). That flaw is the fact that football is at its essence a game of combat, of tactics and moves designed to crush the opponent. As such, it doesn't allow for understanding of the plight of the others, nor of the weak members of your own. It is highly aggressive and at times violent. This, in turn, is how the individuals within the sport are brought up, cultured, and expected to perform. In order to succeed, this becomes their life, and more often than not, it spills over into their private life: with violence, with drink, and with drugs. This is particularly acute in the post-career period, when the one thing you spent your life working on, is no-longer available to you, it is only natural that you also experience a loss of identity. Loss of identity, as we know from nationalism, always paves the way for violent counter-reaction.

But I also suggested that the sport cannot solve this problem, and I said so because it would mean introducing ideas, through counselling and adapted training methods, etc., that are antithetical to competition, professionalization, and war. For these types of individuals not to emerge, the focus on competition, besting, success, and glory would all have to be removed. An then? Well, then it just wouldn't be football anymore. Then there wouldn't be any Gerd Mullers, or Lionel Messis, there would be no games on TV, and at the World Cup, everyone would win.

Of course, what has been done, can be undone. That means that though the sport cannot ever avoid the creation of Icarus, it can help catch them on the way down, provide them with post career counseling, etc., what ever they need to not destroy themselves and their loved ones.

Change you can believe in!

Half day at work and little to be done.

It is the turning of another year, the moment where, in our minds, the old is passing into history and the new is being dreamed up and born. For many of us, the year will be born in a violent, angry drunken rage, yet these hours seem to me better suited for reflection on what has passed, what is, and what will be.

We can take so many different approaches to the year's ending/beginning. Is it just another day in the seemingly endless cycle of days and nights, seasons and ages? Is it really the moment of renewal, when the leaves of the West are turned over and everyone gets a new start? Is it a global conspiracy by clubs and beer companies to raise their profits? Is it a mechanism of control where we throw off our chains for a night, fly into a savage rage, only to wake up with such a hang over that we resolve to be more in control (and dutifully put the chains back on)?

It is, in my eyes, all of these things and none of them. It is what it needs to be for each of us, and it has been many things for me over the 28 years of my life. At times a raging party to shed excess energy and cover insecurity over my future in a warm blanket of excess; at times a quiet evening, just another in a series that will continue until I die; at times an evening for self-imposed isolation meant to provide answers for what-ever it was I was searching. It has been a lonely night, and lively night, and a night to feel loved or in love. It has been forgettable and memorable. Some times it has dragged on, other times it was all over to quickly.

Tonight I will be in Belgrade, Serbia. Most likely the night will be some combination of the above: I will reflect on the moments past and those still to come, I will find quiet moments before heading out to join the party. At that point I will likely drink a bit to much, leaving me feeling a bit destabilized in the morning and with a promise to be more dignified and sober over the years to come.

But no matter where or with which friends I spend the evening, I know that I will think about how to structure the New Year. After all, I am a product of the Western ideology which has taught me to observe the New Year as a time to make resolutions, to focus my desire for self-improvement onto tomorrow, and to spend the night with friends. So now I ask myself, in honor of this tradition, what is this New Year going to mean for me? What will I do that is better than last year? How will I take control of the chaos and forge it into something meaningful (as if chaos had no meaning)?

Well, it is a hard one to answer, but try I must. My 'answers' will not appear here however, they will be scribbled down somewhere, or stored in my memory banks with a note to review again December 31st, 2009. Ultimately I do not take the ritual seriously, and I don't believe this is my chance at making change for the year ahead; rather I think change comes whenever you want it too. You just have to make a choice and work on it.

With that said, all that is left to say is Cheers! Cheers to 2008 and all that was part of that period of time; cheers to the people I interacted with; cheers to all the experiences I had; cheers to all the tears and laughs; cheers to all the death and life; cheers to good food, great music and long drinks; cheers to good football where ever it occurs...

... and cheers to you. Welcome to the brand new world, bienvenue en 2009

Wednesday, December 17, 2008

Face to Face with my Thesis

I know the blog has taken on a life of its own, that it has strayed far from the original concept - a blog/log of my work on the topic of Football and Politics. While this may be true, I can say that the topic is never far from my thoughts, and from time to time, I see something or experience something, which brings home one or more of my fundamental arguments.

I had such an experience on Sunday. I was playing with my usual team. We had fun, we scored goals, we made good and bad passes, and we scuffed a lot of shots. But no-one got angry; well, apart from Marco, who got angry when "the ball hit me in the face for the second time, and the fat guy laughed." But apart from that we all had a great time, and as usual, I felt the tensions melt away.

One of the regulars on my team, a giant of a man, is, it turns out, a real live hooligan. He is that guy, who follows Svezda around the country (both the football and basketball team) and watches the game with the Delije. He also has a tattoo, which expresses his opinion of the police; and he is no fan. But this guy, for all that he is close to 7ft, is one of the happiest, nicest, gentle and well mannered people I have met. There is nothing about him and the way he presents himself, which would suggest violence and allegiance to a ultra-nationalist organization. More over, he really likes me, and likes speaking in English, which also doesn't fit the Serbian hooligan image.

Thus we see the contradiction, and one that is seen in many hooligan cultures. How can a nice, friendly man, like my team-mate, have such a fascination with, and participate in, such a violent community? As I said, he is not exceptional though. In the heyday of English hooliganism, there were many "respectable" citizens (doctors, lawyers, etc...) who were in the various firms around the country. I don't know where the answer to this lies, except to suggest that, in my team-mate, we witness the artificial nature, the constructed nature, of identity. It is this construction that allows two seemingly contradictory persona to co-exist in a single individual.

When I returned home, I switched on the TV and found myself watching Shalke Vs. Hoffenheim. The game was the final game of this first part of the season. I was, I must say, a bit shocked at how nasty the game was. There were endless fouls and fights, two red cards, and continuous yelling. All of this on the pitch, not in the stands, where you might expect it. As I was watching it, I though, how is it possible that a game, being broadcast live on TV, with professional players, in a stadium, with no less than 4 referees, be so dirty? There is so much regulation, and real consequences to the fouls and fighting. Yet, the game I had just played had no regulation at all, except for the honor system (self-regulation), and not once has there been a fight, and excessive foul, or verbal abuse.

Again, I don't have the answer, except to suggest it may be the fact that in the Bundesliga, they are playing for a prize, and their wages; while in the little bubble next to the basketball stadium, we are not. So, while my game restored my faith that the game can be a simple, fun game, as I watched the Shalke game, I was once more disappointed.

Saturday, December 13, 2008

Not the 20.00 News...


Digging in the Dirt

Well, time to get my hands dirty. I just received the confirmation from Columbia Univ. that my proposed paper has been accepted. I'll be presenting a paper at ASN Convention 2009 on my Birthday. That means I am committed to being in NYC in the spring; I've always liked the City in the spring. The topic of my paper you ask? 

"Roma's 'Gazella' Settlement in Belgrade: Between Nationalism and Globalism"

This will be my first  conference presentation (unless you include Thinking Matters), and will be fun. But how to address this issue? It will be a combination of interviews with the Gazella inhabitants and Serbian (non-Roma) citizens, theoretical discourse, and a small project with the kids of Gazella. I'll be reaching back to some of the theories from my thesis and HON 299 class (Critical Multiculturalism, Performance Ethnography, Carl Schmitt, Balibar, Foucault, etc...).

~~

From a while back:

Americans have no clear idea what a powerful force Nationalism can be, and how it can be a true barrier for equal access in so many parts of the World. National identity in the US is virtually non-existent, and is synonymous with citizenship. People in the US, by and large, are loyal to their state first, then to any ethnic affiliation they have. For the African-Americans and the South American-Americans this relationship is the most difficult, and these two communities are often the most distinct from the hegemonic "American-ness", yet if push came to a shove, if, to use Huntington's language for a moment, there were a clash of civilizations, then I believe their American identity would trump the day. As a result of this configuration, this loyalty to citizenship and state, it is possible to have multicultural communities live side-by-side.

This is a very different story in the rest of the world. Looking at this corner of the world, Serbia (and this can be applied to the wider Balkan peninsula), ethnicity is first, then citizenship. Even if you share a citizenship, you will likely split if there were tensions/conflict between your ethnicities. In Serbia, you have people claiming to be Serbs (in this case the ethnicity is determined by affiliation to the Orthodox Church, thus you can only be a Serb if you are Orthodox. A Jew or catholic could only be a Serbian Citizen), Croatians, Albanians, Bosnians, Bosniaks, Hungarians, Romanians, Vlachs, Roma, etc.

In all these cases, the ethnic affiliation is more primary over the citizenship. It is also the cause of significant discrimination for those not belonging to the Hegemon, which in the case of Serbia, is Serb ethnicity. I would argue, if there were conflict between Albania and Serbia, or Serbia and Croatia (both of which have occurred in the past), then the Serbian citizens who identified as Croatians or the Serbian citizens who identified as Albanians would side with their ethnic affiliation, not their passport.

I wrote this piece (it has been edited since) on the way home from visiting Councils for Inter-ethnic Relations in Vojvodina. I'm thinking now, however, that the exception to the rule is likely the Roma population. They are exceptional in many ways however, as there is no homeland they can claim, no geographical expression (historical or current) which they claim. Furthermore, they are persecuted in every corner of the world; they tend to be impoverished and; most of them are not registered in any formal manner. Thus, they are often 'invisible' persons.

Tuesday, December 9, 2008

US Media in Crisis

The Times of India reported today that three of the largest papers in the US, were on the verge of failure: LA Times and Chicago Tribune are filing for bankruptcy, and the New York Times is refinancing its office building to keep the lights on...

Is this getting much media coverage in the US? When I google it, all I get is the one story in the Times of India.
 

Saturday, December 6, 2008

Why Serbia Doesn't See Change in 'You Know Who'

To be clear to all the Obama-ites out there, this entry is not a personal political statement, but rather a reflection of how his appointments are viewed from over here, on the fringe. So please don't send the Rightist Police after me...

~Vice President: Joe "I split up Yugoslavia" Biden
~Secretary of State: Hillary "I encouraged Bill to use NATO forces in Serbia" Clinton
~National Security Advisor: James "I used to Run NATO" Jones
~Defense Secretary: Robert "I was appointed by Bush" Gates
~Treasury Secretary: Timothy "I worked for the IMF" Geithner
~Commerce Secretary: Bill "I worked for Clinton" Richardson
~Chief of Staff: Rahm "I also worked for Clinton and I have brass balls" Emanuel

I am, of course having a bit of fun here. I don't know if these choices will end up being wise or not, and they may well be. I hope so. But irrespective, the opinion in Serbia of these individuals is less than choice. All of them, in some form, are associated with the Clinton era, the NATO bombing and Kosovo conflict, and in general, with the Washington establishment.

Thus, for Serbia, there will be little tangible change coming from the US after Jan. 20th. Naturally, Obama cannot ponder every single country when making these appointments, but he will have to expect that the choice he made, will send a negative message to quiet a few corners of the World.