This June, 2014, over 3 billion people will watch
the World Cup Final in Brazil. This event will be afforded more attention (of a sort) than any previous event.
Does mass attention mean one ought to watch it if
convenient? Does this sort of scale offer at least one reason to watch it?
These are the sort of questions I hope to work
with on this blog. At the very least, each entry will consist of claims I find
convincing and questions I find compelling.
I will not post frequently. (At least I don’t
think I will.) I welcome most sorts of comments. We have not developed
conventions that would help a blog be recognized as academically rigorous. I
have seen a few that deserve to be seen that way. I will attribute and link as
best I can.
In the end, this work is meant to help me reach
some conclusions. I also see it as an opportunity to present some ideas that I
care about. Eventually I hope to have a full document that I can edit and resubmit
to a wider public.
The Main Points
The following claims will sometimes work as
premises and sometimes as conclusions. In other words, sometimes I will look at
the implications of these claims and at other times I will lay out reasons to
believe them:
1. Acts and are interpreted by means of the
background behind them. This background consists of images, habits, ideas,
beliefs, and arguments. When I use the word “norms”, I am speaking about all of
these things.
2. Acts and events are interpreted based on norms of truth, rightness, and expression. For a theory of interpretation and social criticism, I draw largely from Jürgen Habermas. I have replaced “sincerity” with “expression” and will explain that someday. But let's not stop...
2. Acts and events are interpreted based on norms of truth, rightness, and expression. For a theory of interpretation and social criticism, I draw largely from Jürgen Habermas. I have replaced “sincerity” with “expression” and will explain that someday. But let's not stop...
3. Sporting acts and events fall under #1 and #2.
4. Sporting acts and events are meaningful. This
means they have the capability to shape the background which is used to
interpret other acts and events, in and outside of sport.
5. Critics, by which I mean creative interpreters,
can make the meaning of sports acts explicit. They can also shine a light on
the background that is influencing interpretation now or will in the future.
Here are a few questions that I plan to bring up
soon:
What are the consequences of denying recognition
to women as capable of sport or as capable of what I will call “sports glory”?
Soccer will be the most frequent source for me. So
much writing on “soccer” is only about men’s soccer in Europe and South America
even as it is just called “football” or “soccer”. What are some consequences of
this?
A lot of very clever soccer and sports writing just will not include women athletes. Hacks who dismiss or mock women outright are easy to dismiss but what are we to do with those for whom women athletes are simply invisible or always off-topic? What is lost?
What is the purpose of being a fan? What are some
types of fan? Which sorts are morally appropriate? When should a fan walk away
from a club?
We can be hostage to images and ideas and
arguments that we do not even know are in play. What can be done if we see that
people are being denied equal respect due to widespread adherence to bad norms?
What needs to happen to make sport good? Is it
merely good if it entertains? Must it be interrupted or steered if it is to promote virtue or social goods?
Why are sport and masculinity so strongly linked? What
needs to happen to de-link them and what sort of consequences could we see when
we do de-link them?
What effect does a market have on sports acts,
events, and organizations? And vice-versa?
How should we look the effect art, beauty, and
drama can have on institutions? (I will use the term “beauty” to signify lots of
aesthetic experiences.) What are the relevant differences between sporting
institutions and other organzations dedication to the presentation of beauty,
like dance companies, museums, and theaters?
Why do we need to tie sporting acts to narratives?
Why are so many of these narratives NOT about a much of athletes just trying to
win?
Well that's exhausting! And, to think, I once turned to soccer as a break from just these sort of questions. It turns out the game is ine world and the world is in the game.
I am inspired by many things I’ve read and by many
matches I have seen. Hannah Arendt will come up. So will Miranda Fricker’s work
on epistemic justice. In my teaching (mostly introductory college philosophy) and here, I presume no background on the readers' part. You should get all the background you need as we go. Call me on that.
Again, your comments will be very helpful.
If you want to see how it's done Jennifer Doyle’s blog From a Left Wing, her journalistic work, and her new blog the Sport Spectacle are magisterial. Most people
who check out her work end up archive binging. She makes many points but she is
a master at showing how meaning changes when big facets of humanity are not
recognizes as capable of producing meaning. I can only hope the fact that my
background is different enough from other people writing on soccer that I will
generate something distinct as well as plausible.
From
a Left Wing ended with her announcing a need to
move on and worried that her critiques end up “feeding the beast”.
The world is so much worse than it could be. So is the beautiful game. Despite that, I remain
confident that peer-to-peer critique can undermine the manipulations of money,
power, and privilege. In the long run, conversations will bend the world and the game towards justice.
Hi, Jason. The questions you propose interest me. To me, the series of questions seems intuitively right. When i read, "Why are sport and masculinity so strongly linked? What needs to happen to de-link them and what sort of consequences could we see when we do de-link them?" my thought was that the cultural emphasis linking women/girls with beauty/aesthetics means that it's hard for women to embody the feminine if they also play sports. I could detail why this is so, but I won't at the moment. However, I will point out that my 11-year-old son and I recently watched part of a televised collegiate softball game (women, obviously), Texas A&M versus I-don't-remember. My son thought the players were very good. He thinks softball is weird. He's not sure why women play a different game than baseball. The fast pitching impressed him, especially because the underhanded technique stumps him. My remarks differed somewhat. For example, I found it strange that these strong, powerful women engaged in a sport were almost all wearing big bows in their hair. These outsize, outgrown infantile ornaments contrasted bizarrely with the the women's physical presence and their movements. Another thing I'm sure you've thought about is whether how the idea of competition functions for women versus men -- to what degree competition is acceptable, and in what areas of life it is and isn't okay, and whether it takes, let's say, explicit versus implicit form. Also, to what extent do women versus men feel failure is acceptable, and what does it mean to fail publicly? I ask this given that sports involves failure at things and losing, often publicly, and accepting that doing so is okay. Anyway, I'm interested in what you're writing. On a personal level, I never understood while growing up that I could be inherently athletic yet terrible at sports. I knew something complicated was happening but couldn't pin down what that was, or how to overcome it.
ReplyDeleteAngela, I really enjoy your comments.
ReplyDeleteYou mention the bows. All women athletes are charged at some point as being transgender, even if they are pursuing a sport designated as "theirs" like softball. Women's gymnastics even insists on 'grace' in floor routine judging. If the athletes are choosing the bows, that is fine. It generates a contrast. There is a long history of coaches and leagues requiring women athletes to grow out their hair and do other measures in order to not be mistaken as butch. Leagues often had moral requirements that seemed nineteenth century. These persist in places now, though the journalism on such matters is left to dedicated independents.
On NPR during Clinton's "don't ask, don't tell", I remember a soldier describing a moment when every woman softball player on her base was asked if she were lesbian or not.
With national soccer teams, many women have been rendered vulnerable and subject to attack. For example, the coach of the Nigerian team expelled all suspected lesbians and issued mandatory prayer sessions, destroying careers and the teams' performance.
By the way, no one in Major League Baseball can hit a top softball pitcher. It's a completely different skill set.
When women's soccer teams in the US were sponsored, they often were told they needed to grow out their hair, etc. Women run into a whole other level of trouble when they encounter leagues, media, and owners.
I really like your point on failing publicly. The most dramatic moment in a big tournament is seeing a team collect the runner-up medal. These games just don't stop until most people are declared lost. I would like to hear more from good sports writers about what is in it for the 20th best sprinter or still playing at an amateur level when it's clear that's it.
Competition is what drives the action and the drama. It is why we don't know what is going to happen. It turns each event into an unrepeatable one. Competition did not make any gut-level to me when young. Theater did.