Odds and Ends

Travel clearly is good for the writer in me. I am glad to say that August was the second busiest month, in terms of entries, on this blog. :)

I was confronted by my own deeply repressed racism the other day. It was the day where I was wandering around suburban Beograd, searching for my dentist. I was going round in circles, 30 minuets late when a Roma man, who was going through the trash and extracting the recyclable materials, called me over. In my frustration, and embarrassment at being totally clueless about where I was going, I wanted to ignore him, but I didn't. I went over and he started rattling off in Serbian, and I didn't understand anything. Eventually we figured out what the other was trying to do, and he managed to give me directions (albeit to the wrong dentist). But as he was talking to me, I noticed that I was keeping a certain distance from him and that I had my hand over my wallet in my back pocket. I had done these things subconsciously, but I felt awful once I realized what was going on.

This man had reached out and tried to help me the best he could, and my immediate reaction to him was to condemn him as a thief. It made me think back to HON 299, because I think, in some way, this is the very learned reaction, totally artificial, that Dusan was trying to get us to recognize was part of us. The critical multiculturalist in me has now exposed the deeply subconscious suspicions of otherness, embodied by this Roma man. Now I am aware of this mechanism and hope that I can deal with it in future encounters with the other.

Hmm, is it racist of me to even describe the man by (what I am assuming) is his ethnic origin? I ask this because it feels like I am not looking past his ethnicity if I continue to use it for my social cues. Rather than being a "Roma" man, maybe he is just a man.

The stratigic use of 'um'

Thinking Matters has been a mixed blessing in someways. Though I am thoroughly please that I did it, the down side was it felt like the denouement to my thesis. Consequently I am having a hard time mustering energy to do the last few steps left.

Fortunately I have good reasons to procrastinate a bit longer: I waiting for feed back on chapter three from my advisers; corrections and advice from friends; a stack of other homework that needs addressing PRONTO! Well, that is what I am telling myself anyway.

That all being said, Thinking Matters was a blast, and the best way to see how I will do during my official thesis defense (scheduled for the 8th of May at 5pm: Room 302 Luther Bonney Hall). My presentation was ad lib-ed, with only a few notes and the Power Point as a trigger. It worked well except that, according to some critics, I over-used the term 'um' (often referred to as 'uhh') It makes sense, uhh, because I was, um, speaking of the top of my, uhh, head. As a result, um, I was only a sentence or two, uhh, ahead of myself; 'um', uhh, then acted as a pause for reflection. I think the, uhh, answer is for me to have more written down, and perhaps rehearsed a few times prior to the 8th.

The debate following all the presentations was really interesting also (as was the post-presentation debate & wine with AL), and gave me a few going points to reflect on. Considering the title of the thesis (Soccer in Politics: Bridging Gaps or Building Borders?), the question to ask is, is it an either or situation? Really, my conclusion is that it is both at the same time, and therein lies the problem. The critical multiculturalism I address at the end is, um, a way that this paradox can be controlled, but the paradox will still exist. See, soccer cannot be anything but a competitive game that pits one team/faction against another; if it were anything else, then it wouldn't be soccer anymore.

Anyway, tonight I'm thinking about a different paradox: Turkish society and its desire to be part of Europe, yet hold on to Islamic (i.e. non-western) traditions. Its a paper for my dear friend (literally!) MF.

Someone asked me what I did with my weekend after Thinking Matters: I went to Back Bay and played soccer. What else could I do?

But conversation is where it's at ...

... and being relegated always hurts.

I had my most spontaneous insight into Critical Multiculturalism during a café conversation with L on Saturday. I have been struggling with the last part of my thesis; the part where I analyze my own experience, so this insight came at a good moment. The conversation went as follows:

A community with an exclusive view of its own identity, in this case we were talking about the deaf community, discriminates against all others they don't think meet the standards of "deaf-ness." This doesn't mean a hearing person can't be accepted by the deaf community, be friends, or even be married to a deaf person, but if that hearing individual wishes to be identified as deaf, that is, if they take their personal identity from the deaf community, they will never be accepted as such.

This is the same principle that underlies nationalism. It is not inherently violent against outsiders, but it is the final authority on who can and cannot be a part of the 'group'; a person wishing to identify themselves as a certain nationality or culture must first get approval of that culture or nationality (often in the form of passports). In this sense, a persons own feelings about where they belong in the world are secondary. As I mentioned above, this in-and-of itself will not lead to violence every time, but it is the mechanism that permits violent behavior to be encouraged, as it places one identity/nationality/community above the others.

This means there is never a true acceptance of the individual within these groups, nor is there ever an acceptance of outsiders either. This static, rigid interpretation of culture, or community and of identity essentializes norms and values to the point of creating division and and an unwillingness to share yourself, your rituals, with others for fear of it being corrupted. Under the right circumstances, this leads to violence. By circumstances I mean economic insecurity, territorial insecurity, etc. In these situations leaders will emphasize the differences between yourself and the 'other' in order to pit you against the other. We see this in the US with the fear of Arabs, in the Balkans between Serbia and Kosovo, in Asia between China and Tibet.

What Critical Multiculturalism offers is an opportunity recognize that culture is not an inherent 'thing' that we are born with, that cannot change, and that its standards are exclusive. Culture and community should rather be seen as fluid, evolutionary, learned and inclusive, as this will permit a much deeper understanding of the 'other' and a reduction in one's possessiveness of your own culture. Identity is inevitable; we need a world-view in order to understand what goes on around us in the world, and as such it is inevitable. But this doesn't mean it has to be exclusivist and divisive. A critical multiculturalist attempts to challenge their own ideology by going into the cultures of others, living as they do, and then looks back at themselves. This perspective exposes the power dynamics of cross-cultural relationships and de-essentializes norms and values.

Ultimately, this is not about giving up your own values, but simply about being able and willing to look at yourself from the 'other' perspective, and having a willingness for you culture to change. This means shedding your 'ownership' of your identity and accepting a individual on their own terms, not on the terms you want them to operate. But this is also a huge challenge to the status quo and a very difficult thing to achieve, even for someone as willing as me.

How is this relevant to soccer? Soccer should never be so important that it prevents you from seeing other things as important ... just kidding. Soccer is a bit antithetical to Critical Multiculturalism as it emphasizes a team mentality. But as long as soccer is not a metaphor for the norms and values in society, as long as it is not held up as symbolic of the power of the culture, then it can be a positive communal game and bloody good fun!

What? Its snowing again?

March 12th already, and this is the first entry for the month... it's been a minute. The progress report is that I have, in theory, two thirds of the thesis written now, and what I think is the most difficult chapter (the middle one) done.

"done", what do I mean by done (Briggs, 2007)? In a rough draft anyway; it is now a platform from which I can build up and out. Done has a lot of finality behind it, perhaps to much, we are never done, not even in death.

I had a conversation with Briggs about the proper use of the ';' today. Apparently it is the abused child of the punctuation world, being incorrectly employed by more people than any other. Poor thing. I'm sure I have been responsible for victimizing it a time or two. It should be used as a pointer; it should indicate that what follows is an elaboration on the idea of the words preceding it.

The other important topic that came up was placing more emphasis on 'I'; putting more of myself into the project by weaving in personal experience. One of the critiques of the first chapter was lack of, not context, but something similar. What would be a useful addition in the first chapter is more examples of how the theories might be weaved into the practice of soccer, by weaving soccer into the discussion of theory.

One way I can achieve this is by bringing in a picture to analyze that can tie in all the elements of the theory. My first thought was a picture of the French National team from 1998. The team was composed of players from the remaining or former colonies. This would give me a reference point for race, colonialism, multiculturalism and nationalism. For power and civil society I would need a different one, but maybe I could work it in.

Then I thought I could just use the picture of CD El Salvador and the Somali Youth from the final of the Fathers Day tournament. It's a picture of a Latino team next mixed in with a Somali team, and a few Europeans mixed in. Black next to tan, next to white. All is soccer kit, all in America, unified by the game and competition, yet divided by color, history, class, and team.

Multiculturalism, part II

Almost a year ago, while he was still just the lowly Exchequer, Gordo proposed all immigrants/migrants coming to the UK, seeking citizenship, be "obliged" to undertake community service.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/6399457.stm

According to the BBC article, this was meant to assist in the integration of these people in British life. But this really amounts to a sort of slave labour, which conjures up images of a colonial past that ought not be repeated, yet seems likely to be. This idea of earning citizenship through a series of tests and labour means British citizenship has more value than any other citizenship in the world, and thus is an exclusive club of individuals who conform to a certain standard. Of course every country has a system like this, and thus we are all guilty of perpetuating this mentality of national superiority.

If we really believe in equality of nations, cultures, ethnicities, etc., then why care where the individual comes from? Why make it a requirement that this person become someone different in order to join your team? What difference does it make if this individual lives in your community as a Nigerian, a German, a Russian, an Argentine, a Malay, or a Brit? Does the small book confirming your national identity really make you a different person?

The conservative and liberal multiculturalists would argue it does. For the conservative, this is a symbol of your inferiority to the hegemonic culture you are trying to join; for the liberal this is a symbol of how you are different, and though its ok to be different, you are only 'authentic' in your Nigerian/German/Argentine/Malay-ness if you have the papers to prove it.

The Resistance/Critical approach is to view these "common" identities as both artificial and racist. The borders put up and maintained by the conservative/liberal approach amount to a desire for ideological purity, and a belief that even though there are multiple identities out there, they can/should never mingle beyond basic recognition of the other.

The critical response is to break the border down entirely, not only through a rejection of borders, "common" identities, and purist immigration policies, but also by fostering an understanding of these "other" individuals as individuals (from their own perspective). Furthermore, a critical multiculturalist will try to see themselves from the perspective of the "immigrant," thereby deconstructing their own position vis-à-vis this individual.

So, for Gordo to suggest there need to be harsher tests and formal labour for those migrants looking for citizenship is a way of forcing a new identity upon them, stripping them of their native one. Of course, this is all presented in a positive light, as the pathway to all the resources and wealth of the West, which is why the individual has left their original home in the first place. So its not meant as a racist, mean, exploitative policy, yet that is what it becomes. What the Americans call "exceptionalism" suggests that because of the clear superiority of a capitalist, democratic, enlightenment based identity, forcing 'others' to adopt likewise, is actually a good thing for the world.

But really, it is both anti-democratic, and anti-diversity.

Getting a handle on Multiculturalism

In late March of 2006 Nigerian Adebowale Ogungbure was playing for 4th division Sachsen Leibzig when he was subjected to racist abuse from some hooligan fans at the end of the game. This was not the first time he had experienced this, but instead of ignoring it as he usually did, he responded. He gave the fans a Nazi salute and made the Hitler mustache with his two fingers; a response triggered a physical attack by the hooligans and later his arrest by German police.

The justification for the arrest was that such recreations of Nazi symbolism is illegal in Germany, regardless of context. Though his arrest lasted less than a day, it throws up serious questions about the nature of German law, the racism of the supporters, and the powerlessness of minority individuals such as Adebowale. In a sense, the player was arrested for exposing the true identity of the abusive fans, and the repressive nature of German 'order'. If the law banning the Nazi salute is meant to remove this mentality/ideology from the culture, it has clearly failed. While overt Nazi-ism is not widespread in German society, it is clearly still a presence. According to the Spiegle article, this is particularly the case in the eastern states where the economy is stagnant.

From a critical multiculturalist perspective this arrest is symbolic of a conservative approach to diversity, which suggests that assimilation into the hegemonic culture is the path to stability and equality. For minorities coming into the system, they can only be integrated once they have thrown away their own heritage and language in favor of those used by the hegemon. What this is doing is repeating the narrative of European powers during their colonial periods, where they invaded foreign countries and set up institutions, laws, and schools reflecting the homeland. The native populations were only 'acceptable' as more than savages when they passes through the socialization of the new power, rejecting their native culture.

Even the liberal multiculturalist view is no more comforting. The liberal approach is to view difference as inherent and 'in-and-of-itself' rather than a product of any kind of historical context. Thus the problems in minority communities today are the result of people who simply won't "get over it." This allows a hegemonic culture to reject the need for real re-evaluation of their relationship to this community. By accepting diversity and affirming their support for it through cultural events and diversity days, the hegemon is able to maintain distance from a true understanding of the needs of that community.

So when a young black man exposes some white fans for what they really are, ethnocentric and nationalist, he is viewed as a threat to the system as a whole. His actions are not interpreted in a "performative" context, but as foolish, insulting, or inappropriate. He is then charged with "unconstitutional behavior".

But what of the fans who set Adebowale off? The club president said simply it was a on off incident and put it down to fans getting over excited.