Culture January 3, 2013 In Defense of Sports Why let capitalists have all the fun?

? BY Bhaskar Sunkara Beyond betraying an ascetic disdain for something a large part of humanity finds pleasure in, too many progressives see sports ahistorically, unable to envision them in a different context. In one of his final essays for Newsweek, Christopher Hitchens argued that sport breeds conflict and brings out the worst in human nature. By then an apostate to the Left, on this topic the late essayist clung to his roots; progressives have long been suspicious of sport. That many radicals aren t watching football every Monday night is hardly surprisin g. Modern sport took shape under capitalism and embodies many of its values: com petition, empiricism, chauvinism, hierarchy and discipline. Win at all costs is th e mantra of our most revered coaches. The play clock mirrors the frenzied dance of industrial society. Preparation for games revolves around repetitive training , not unlike the fluid motion that powers the assembly line. With the rise of sab ermetrics, team owners can quantify and evaluate performance solely from numbers and algorithms long the dream of a ruling class drawn to the cold calculus of scie ntific management schemes. Former NBA All-Star Allen Iverson s drives to the hoop weren t as good as we thought, the statisticians tell us. Beauty does not matter, only efficiency. None of these qualms are wrong. They re just missing something the ecstasy so many g et from watching sports, a joy that can t be reduced to false consciousness. Beyond betraying an ascetic disdain for something a large part of humanity finds pleasu re in, too many progressives see sports ahistorically, unable to envision them i n a different context. With roots in English public schools and other unsavory places, organized sport was originally an elite phenomenon, but the early working class made no such err ors. Taking advantage of the free time guaranteed by the eight-hour day, workers began to democratize games like soccer and rugby. Before long, major social dem ocratic parties across Europe were using sporting clubs and festivals to constru ct working-class identity and promote solidarity. By 1928, German sports societies had more than two million members, most of whom were affiliated with the Social Democratic Party. These clubs offered escape an d a sense of belonging to the masses. Thousands hiked and learned to swim, freei ng themselves, however fleetingly, from the grinding indignity of wage labor. In Austria, during the Red Vienna period (1918-1934), a new stadium was built to h ost a Workers Olympiad, which welcomed participants from across the world a testament to the internationalist impulses of a confident and forward-looking movement. Another sports world seemed possible, one that could have averted commodificatio n and wrestled play away from the grips of work. Of course, on that and many oth er fronts, the story didn t end so well for European workers. Yet the historical l esson is clear: As much as sports have sowed divisions historically, sporting cu ltures based on different sets of values are possible. Sport has become unlinked from the Left, but that can be undone. That process won t be hastened, however, by progressive criticism that smacks of e

lite disdain for the messy passions of the masses. Hitchens, for example, seemed to particularly object to fandom s raucousness and lack of gentility, as in this thought experiment:

Picture this: I take a seat in a bar or restaurant and suddenly leap to my feet, face contorted with delight or woe, yelling and gesticulating and looking as if I am fighting bees. I would expect the matre d to say a quietening word at the le ast, mentioning the presence of other people. But then all I need do is utter so me dumb incantation Steelers, say, or even Cubs, for crumb s sake and everybody decides I am a special case who deserves to be treated in a soothing manner. Hitchens, you ll note, doesn t bother to explain why identifying with a group of fan s with whom you have no organic connection, sharing a collective joy in victory or anguish in defeat, is necessarily dangerous or reactionary. Such attitudes se em to have more to do with the social position and neuroticism of the intelligen tsia than they do with anything inherent to sport itself. Of course, special scorn is visited on the out-of-shape person who enjoys watchi ng football on Sunday, but can t bother to exercise. The naivet of this stance is b reathtaking. Our working lives are so draining, with hours only getting longer: Who can blame someone for enjoying leisure on her day off? The joy that sport offers us comes in two forms: as passive spectators and as ac tive participants. The dichotomy drawn between these two kinds of leisure is a f alse one. In a society that valued leisure and the good life, we could have our ca ke and eat it, too and then exercise away the calories in a publicly funded rec le ague. One can even imagine aspects of sports that most closely mirror the capitalist e thos taking on a different context in a better society. Competition is brutal an d ruthless in neoliberalism, under which, in many parts of the world, winning an d losing carry life or death consequences. But competition in a safe environment can be a positive thing, encouraging innovation and rewarding hard work. Those words (which could well have been lifted from a TED talk) might elicit eye -rolls from readers. Indeed, they are the qualities associated with sport that h elp reinforce the ideological underpinnings of capitalism. If society were like an impartially refereed basketball game, as capitalists wish to believe fair, gove rned by fixed rules, a place where talent and dedication pays off the wealthy gett ing wealthier would only draw the ire of the envious losers, those unwilling to accept the outcome of a fair game. People wouldn t be held back by structural ineq uality, but by themselves. Of course, the analogy doesn t hold: The court of capitalism is tilted, the basket s crooked. Still, it s not sport s fault that it makes for a dangerous metaphor in t he wrong hands. Separated from the present context, we can imagine the new ways in which labor and play could intermingle in a future society governed by equali ty and abundance rather than exploitation and scarcity. The discipline and pride of an artisan who hones a skill, like an athlete who trains toward perfection, would not go away in such a world, it would just be a path made accessible to mo re of us. Simply, a critique of the structures that control and commodify sport, exploitin g labor all along the way and narrowing our cultural horizons, should be kept se parate from a critique of the actual content of sport. Progressives should be concerned about the conditions of production for the ente rtainment consumed by the public. They shouldn t, however, launch broadsides again st that act of consumption itself. That ascetic rejection of sports from Orwell, w ho called sports war minus the shooting, to Hitchens and beyond represents nothing m

ore than a failure of vision. ABOUT THIS AUTHOR Bhaskar Sunkara, the founding editor of Jacobin, is an In These Times staff writ er. He blogs at Uprising, the magazine's blog covering movements for social and economic justice. Follow him on Twitter: @el_bhask

Reader Comments I would add a few additional points about watching and following sports. One be ing that sports provide a rare synchronous experience that has been nearly elimi nated from every other realm of public life and mass media. When every presiden tial address is pre-released, TV shows placed on Netflix, and headline stories c ycle through websites at a speed of every two hours, sports provide a basis for common experience and allow people to speculate on a common uncertainty. There are no spoilers in sports and because of that it s an area of discussion and debat e, however vapid it may be. Second, sports may provide the most visible example of functioning labor unions protecting the interests of their members. You can argue about their public rel ations strategy, but it s a great opportunity for labor to make a statement on how they can make impacts on working conditions and member welfare, in addition to salary and benefit negotiations. Additionally, as a follower mostly of college sports, I enjoy the representation of public institutions in sports. Yes, I know, these aren t exactly athlete schol ars , but representing an educational institution and creating common identity bet ween its alumni and students seems a bit more worthy than representing a sponsor or an owner. Posted by Ian R. on Jan 3, 2013 Competition is a myopic view of achievement. Competition is a state of rivalry whe re efforts are tested. Collaborative preparation, effort, effectiveness and exec ution create opportunities for greater success (i.e. means to win or meet a goal). A runner doesn t compete with the hill. When Bannister broke the 4 minute mile ot her runners didn t compete against Bannister they worked to break the (4 min.) mar k. Individuals collaborate with experts (books or otherwise) while teams work a structured, collaborative plan. Posted by rikperry on Jan 5, 2013 Pro sports labor unions are good examples of busted unions, in that they provide the least benefit to those who need it the most. Posted by Richard_Pietrasz on Jan 5, 2013 There is sport, and there is pro sport. The former is open to participation by most people. The latter is big business and entertainment, with its usual corru ption. In USA, most pro sports teams, and athletes, are not only subsidized by the taxpayers, but make money out of killing babies and their families. The lat ter, of course, is via the advertising revenue from the military and major contr

actors. Posted by Richard_Pietrasz on Jan 5, 2013 War minus the shooting is better than war plus the shooting.

Posted by stevesailer on Jan 6, 2013 As an innocent bystander I came late (and extremely reluctantly) to participatin g in sport at 15, and continued only because a team associated with my younger b rother was desperate. By 16 I could see its value with working class youngsters like myself, and was also assisting with training and secretarial roles, and at 18 I had my first coaching success with a side which undeservedly won the Premie rship. As a teacher it could be used to help lift school attendance, involve stu dents, and even improve academic performance; but that s now all in the past, as s port at the top level (as with much else in life) has become theatre, money, and little else. A valuable tool (and it s not the only one) has been lost, and intel lectually challenged progressives find joy in this because they haven t the nous to appreciate the realities of human nature. Forgive me for being so kind to them. Posted by Norman Hanscombe on Jan 7, 2013 I think it was Chomsky who said sport is something that can safely be ignored . He went on to describe the average fan as having an irrational attitude of subservie nce to authority . He elaborated on this by describing how the average fan was pre tty ignorant about those things which should concern him/her e.g. politics, busi ness affairs, medicine, etc, etc. But when it came to sport he had a raft of fac ts and figures and opinions in his/her grasp, e.g. who scored the winning goal i n the match between Bohemians and Finn Harps in March 1974. P.S. I think it might have been Brendan Bradley, but could be wrong. Posted by Old Codger on Jan 7, 2013 at 4:32 AM

http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/14305/in_defense_of_the_spectacle/