I happened to look up from my computer at 544 pm to take in the view of back bay. I am in my usual position in the Glickman, slaving over this thesis. My eyes were drawn to the patch of grass behind the large Hanaford by moving figures. I focused my eyes and saw men; men chasing a white leather ball. These men are playing soccer. At present I am struggling to compose a personal soccer ethnography based on last years experience in the PUSL, and I long to be down there on the pitch with these men. I have not played soccer in almost four weeks, and I need it. It is so tempting to pack up the bag right now, and go play. After all, I need constant praxis of this topic if I am to truly understand it.
...but alas, I won't make my debut today. I'll save that for the weekend, or next week. I am looking forward to it: playing with Portland's immigrants and soccer fans, playing with friends, and playing for fun. These pick up games are football at its most pure. No money, no ideology, none of Schmitt's thesis anywhere to be seen. Out there, it is not friend against enemy, its deft dribbling, soft touches, splitting passes, and laughter. After the sun sets an it's to dark to play, the game abandons and we all go home until the next time.
I can't wait...
Showing posts with label immigrant. Show all posts
Showing posts with label immigrant. Show all posts
Wednesday, April 9, 2008
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
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.
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.
Monday, January 21, 2008
Meeting with Big D (part II) ~ 1/21/08
As Serbia goes to a run off election between the hardline Nationalists and the pro-EU party, on the day when America celebrates the legacy of MLK, and after an interesting debate with E about the Racino issue and racism towards Native Americans, I finally got a sit down with Dr. D to take a look at the thesis.
As it stands the thesis is something of a compromise between the initial idea/inspiration for the thesis, and Dr. B's interest in doing a field study, a personalized experience with soccer culture in a community/region where marginalized peoples engage in the game. This second part was an idea that we banded around a few months ago, but that I never really was able to develop fully in my head, at least as part of the thesis.
So today, we looked at what I was hoping to get out of this project. This is not a one off for me, but really just a first chapter/trip into this subject. Considering my basic time frame (the thesis technically being due in May), the praxis is becoming something of an issue. As it stands, I was going to look at a very general cross section of soccer players in the US, players from USM, from an indoor league, and from the pickup games at Back Bay. But this doesn't really look at the "at risk" demographic meant to be the subject of this thesis.
If I think back to Oggi's speech (almost a year ago now) what had me so crazy was the possibility that soccer was available for use as a means of conflict resolution, or as empowerment of minority/repressed/illegal/other/'immigrant' communities. Since then the paradoxical nature of this has become clear to me. That the nation state can also tap this source for its own designs, perpetuating racism, inequality, and power structures. In light of the current complaints coming from the larger EU clubs complaining that the African Nations Cup is taking away the African stars for the next few weeks; considering the debate over immigration currently in the EU, this might rather be the focus of the project.
So, the suggestion was to look at the paradox of a sport that on one side empowers these communities, and on the other, allow the Nation State to further its ambition of control and power. Instead of trying, at this juncture, to do some field study, focusing on the theory supported by examples to support either side of the argument. The question will be to see if this debate is sustainable, if the co-existence of these two antithetical ideas means soccer is inherently dangerous, or if the risk is acceptable?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)