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

Further reflections on a changing society

Serbia, the Serbian man: such complex constructs of history, time, religion, porno, and handbags. Yes, male handbags, or as the Serbian man likes to call them, Pederuca. You will recognize in the first part of that word 'pede', which is French is slang for homosexual. Thus these handbags a basically fag bags. But these are not items worn by the gay community, rather, they are high fashion among the hetero community. Yet they retain the title of Pederuca within the mainstream; a sort of recognition of the homo-erotic nature of this highly chauvinist male culture.

Thus the Serbian man can recognize his fag-ness without having to confront his own repressed desire to try 'it', even if only once. But it also serves as a way for the men to try and dominate each other (as if that isn't homo erotic), by making fun of each others Pederuca. I can hear them now: "nice pederuca, what, are you a fa***t?" Its similar to how American baseball players like to slap each others asses, or how high school jocks do the "sack whack." Alternatively of course, one might conclude that this is in fact a sign of how secure the Serbian man is, in his sexuality. Maybe, but if he is, then why is he so afraid of Homosexuals?

Serbia is on many levels a very intolerant society, including towards differing ethnicity, skin color, gender, and sexual preference (unless you are two hot lesbians making out in public, then they love it).  I am no expert in these issues, but I remember reading somewhere that we (earthlings) have a tendency to strike out at things we don't know, or understand. In the modern era that has evolved into what we call discrimination (racism, sexism, nationalism, patriotism, etc). It's all still based on fear in any case. So if the Serbian man is so safe with the knowledge that he really only wants to be with women, then why the hate?

The 'Out' Serbian Gay community is very small as a result, and it is fairly intimidated by everyone else. As a result of my flatmate, A., being gay, I have met a lot of the gay community here in Belgrade, thus I have this insight. The hate that this community feels is the product of the mainstream ideology not being entirely sure of its own identity, seeing in the "alternative" lifestyle a challenger. For what ever reason (I blame religious indoctrination, and recommend Caliban and the Witch to anyone who disagrees) this paradigm exists, it is symbolic of an ideological struggle and, more significantly in my opinion, a shifting society. With Serbia becoming a more open place welcoming in a growing number of tourists, western rapprochement, and with a growing gay community, the ideology is necessarily changing also. Even though ideology has never been a stable thing, the majority always try and make it so, in an attempt to stay on top, and react with violence when it is challenged, clinging to symbols of their ideology (i.e. the Orthodox Church).

Don't believe me? Go down to the Church next to the small Roma pre-school for the Gazela kids, and ask the Clergy why they are building a wall on top of the wall. Surly they won't tell you it's because they can't stand the thought of Roma being given a chance. Or you could ask a Serbian man if his Pederuca doesn't make him feel...a bit gay. 

Update

MeMUNC is over, the semester is over, the thesis is just going through a few tweeks, Graduation is done, the Family have returned home, Oliver Kahn has retired, Hitzfield has left Bayern for the Swiss National team, and worst of all: the Bundesliga Season is over.

Oh well, guess I'll have to watch the Champions League final on Wednesday and then take in the Euro Cup (starting in 21 days) ... damn. Even worse - I'll be watching a handful of games in Paris.

On  more serious note, Dr. B and I talked about what the post-semester (read: season) slump would be like. Although I have kept busy with MeMUNC and next week I have pleanty of work at the Trade Center, and after that, hopefully a job, it is still tough to be done with the work I really enjoy - academia. Now it's time to reflect on the next step, whatever that may be. Top choice is still Right To Play - but I may find myself unqualified for the position. Alternatives are the State Dept., general work in a variety of locals (UK, Germany, France, US).

In more immediate terms, working for the PUSL this summer will be good, and might even get me the experience needed for joining Right To Play. Beyond the fact that RTP works with sports as a way to restore communities (see all of the below entries for the many problems this brings with it...), my attraction to the program is also that it takes place outside of the west. I continue to be fascinated with places I've never been and are entirely different from those I have been.

Why is this? I had a discussion with E about this yesterday. It seems connected to my ideological perspective that we should also live without borders, both mental and physical (at least as far as they prevent us from moving, and existing, as freely as we want. My lack of roots or any "real" homebase is another important factor. I not only live as a sort of modern nomad, but I also feel most comfortable advocating philosophies and ideology that suggests nomadic life as a solution to global problems.

I have no roots to create a strong nationalistic identity for myself, no religion to retrain me from moving into new cultures. I was educated with other global nomads in a school system designed, in many ways to socialize us into a western ideology, yet it also demanded tolerance of difference. I follow a philosophy that advocates against being obsessive about your identity and trying to control the chaos in the world. As a result: I constantly seek expansion and change outside of myself - so as to stretch what is inside.

Film Recommendation: La Commune (Paris 1871)

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!

Thinking Matters Abstract

Title: Soccer in Politics: Identity, Power, and Nationalism

"The appeal of soccer to individuals of all cultures, genders, and ethnicities has made it the world sport. This popularity has not come without a price however, as most places with soccer cultures also see violence and discrimination.

Creating a theoretical framework based on theories of nationalism, power and identity will set the stage for this paper, after which a historical narrative of soccer focused on its colonial legacy will be constructed and analyzed. These two elements will provide a picture of a sport used to create myths of national superiority and to stir up tensions. Then, by studying cases of discrimination towards fans and players from “other” communities in Europe, the paper will place the modern game within the historical and theoretical narrative. Emerging from this is a sense of a society still repeating these racist and colonial narratives, through the import of foreign players under suffocating contracts, and the establishment of normative identities.

Left to consider are the questions of how so many international organizations can hold soccer up as panacea for social and economic problems and if the paradox of a sport that unites as it divides leaves the possibility of soccer as a performance of resistance?"