This week, we read and discussed Franklin Foer’s How Soccer Explains the World: An [Unlikely] Theory of Globalization. Although rather unmoved by the text itself, the discussion made me think about the effects international sports have on international relations.
During the discussion, I looked up which countries are currently at war. The countries that stood out to me as countries I’ve recently heard in the news were: China, Colombia, India, Pakistan and the United States. Of the countries listed on the Global Security website as at war with another nation, the United States was the only country that participated in the World Cup, and unenthusiastically at that.
It seems like soccer, cricket and any other international sports have become a replacement for war. Because countries like France, Spain and Italy have the opportunity to interact with other countries on a competitive, non-war battlefield, they are able to focus all the nationalist energy that would have been exhausted during a lengthy, brutal war on a nice, friendly, but competitive sports game.
They way I see it is the purpose of war is to assert a country’s authority over another, proving that the said country is indeed more powerful than the other. At sporting conventions like the Olympics, the FIFA’s World Cup, and the Cricket World Cup countries join together to prove their superiority to other countries. The sporting field or arena is the equivalent of a battlefield and the team players are the country’s warriors. The entire event reinforces nationalism and patriotism and unties countries’ citizens.
I know that there are other reasons for war like territorial expansion and getting a pretty girl back to her rightful home, but why can’t sports just replace war? Make the bet before the game and the winning team reaps the benefits, neither team facing mass mortality. But I guess that’s just my ideal game plan… maybe I’ve been watching Merlin too much…
keep in mind that dueling was considered a sport in this era :)
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/index.html
http://www.cup2010.info/countries/countries.html
http://www.cricketworld.com/countries/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9nELdkADD0&feature=related
Sports as a surrogate or metaphor for war -- interesting stuff! Absent a universal consensus among all states (and perhaps relevant non-state actors) to recognize the soccer pitch or baseball field as the new battlefield -- and supremacy there as equivalent to political superiority -- I'm not sure sports can ever replace the practice of war, but the similarity in vocabulary used to describe the two (strategy, offense, defense, attack, striker ...) certainly suggests some important similarities. Indeed, many sports today come from training exercises for warriors and soldiers.
ReplyDeleteBut the influence has started flowing the other way too: What do you think of this argument against the language of sport infiltrating war?
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2003-04-06-lipsyte_x.htm