June 26, 2006
Sojourns: Bored by the World Cup
Let me confess at the outset that my lack of interest in the World Cup is matched only by my ignorance of the sport itself. Call me what you will. A philistine. A provincial. A vulgarian. An ugly American. But I have not been getting up in the morning to watch the matches. There is a reason for this I think. Sports are an acquired taste and deeply autobiographical. I grew up on the Jewish faculty-brat diet of baseball and basketball. By the time I was in college and self-consciously developing an interest in the arts and literature, televised sports seemed like something from a distant planet. When I returned to watching sports in my thirties, it was with the intense relish of rediscovering forgotten pleasures. I wanted the sweet succor of bygone days and older knowledge. Learning new things was for different regions of my brain and other times of day. Thus soccer fell between the cracks in my life. Too bad for me, I hear you say.
By not developing an interest in the World Cup, or at any rate by not professing one, I am something of a traitor to my own professional class. Even the most sports-averse and tweed-adorned professor these days can be seen taking a break to watch the surprising run of Ghana or the stalwart march of the Germans. (I find no great surprise, for example, that this very website, ordinarily so earnest and sober, so interested in international affairs, science, and medicine, has two separate bloggers reporting from the games.) The World Cup has in other words developed an odd kind of reach. It is both sports and not sports. Clearly billions of people who grew up in countries other than my own feel an intensity of fandom I cannot really understand, but which equally clearly provides the kind of visceral pleasure in viewing I can. I am however not interested here in what motivates soccer fans in the countries where the sport thrives. What I'm interested in, rather, is the acquired situational appreciation of soccer and its elevation into a sport that is more than a sport.
Perhaps I should just phrase this is as a simple question. Why do intellectuals or the chattering classes or the intelligentsia care so much about the World Cup? The least generous answer is simple Europhilia. Like smoking Gauloises or eating haggis, watching the tournament expresses a kind of vicarious belonging to a different continent, a sign that you spent your junior year abroad in Florence or Paris or Edinburgh and, when pressed, even know a word or two in a different language. Seen this way, one's viewing habits provide a form of cultural capital and means of distinction. The sport is not simply a competition like the World Series; it is rather something of an aesthetic artifact, the appreciation of which becomes a badge of sophistication. It is, in the words of the New York Times, a "beautiful game."
To be a little less cynical, the World Cup is for some clearly less about sports than about international relations and politics. On this account, the games are interesting for their allegorical significance. Teams really do represent nations after all. If say Ghana defeats France then centuries of colonialism and domination are momentarily upended in a great reversal of fortune. Even the uglier dimensions of the tournament—violence, "hooliganism," racism, and the like—are interesting because they express some underlying sociological or political cause. One is interested in the sport not because it is a "beautiful game" but because of what it reveals about class tensions, race war, the new Europe, etc.
In either case, viewers of the World Cup watch the game from a sort of distance: the distance of aesthetics or of politics. The first translates the game into a mark of distinction and cultural capital; the second translates the game into an allegory or a symptom. The thing about such distance, at least for me, is that it gets in the way of the deeply intuitive and primal enjoyment that accompanies watching a sport with which one is intimately familiar. So I return to autobiography. Suburban kids now seem to be introduced to soccer as a matter of course. (Hence the specter of the American "soccer mom" looming large over pollsters and politicos everywhere.) When I was in elementary school back in the 70s, however, soccer was only beginning to be touted as the next thing to come. Some day soon, we were told, everyone would be kicking checkered balls, right about the same time as we would be measuring things in metric. The great metric conversion never came. And by the time soccer camps and leagues sprung up I was very much into other things. I simply never developed the self-transcending pleasure watching soccer that I did with other sports.
I tend not to think my own history is that unique, so I doubt that many Americans of my generation did either. While I am interested in the interest in the World Cup, therefore, the tournament itself leaves me bored.
Posted by Jonathan Kramnick at 02:02 AM | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c562c53ef00d8349bdd7253ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Sojourns: Bored by the World Cup:






















Comments
The person who coined the phrase "the beautiful game" wasn't from the US.
And Argentines, for instance, are fully aware of the poltical narratives informing (say) their defeat of England thanks to Maradona's "hand of God" in 1986.
In other words, for most of the world, a "deeply intuitive and primal enjoyment" of football quite happily combines with an awareness of its aesthetic and political aspects.
And you may be bored, but that's hardly a good reason for you to be condescendingly uninformed.
Posted by: Jon | Jun 26, 2006 10:03:40 AM
Jon,
Where do I say that intiuitive and primal enjoyment preclude aesthetic and political appreciation? The two obviously can inform each other. My point was that the adoring response of the American chattering classes and intelligentsia tends to be mediated by aestheticizing or (what is tantamount to the same thing) politicizing distance.
And what's wrong with intuitive and primal enjoyment? I tend to think it's a good thing. Please give some more!
Posted by: Jonathan | Jun 26, 2006 11:12:34 AM
As you know, I'm not an avid fan of any major sport. But I question whether the aesthetic and political dimensions of enjoyment are distancing and are not inuitive and primal, which is different from saying that both kinds of enjoyment can't be had at the same time. It's well beyond my experience, but accounts of the Brooklyn Dodgers and NY Yankees games, with the former as the working class team of the day, accompanied by the vaudevillean brooklyn Sym-Phony, strike me as politics made inuitive and visceral. Talking to people (no ex-pats) about who they support, at least here in NY, I've commonly come across the answer the "underdog", but the underdog nation. This is seldom understood in a reflective way, but in an "have I heard of the country" kind of way. It seems pretty visceral to me. And that may be the appeal of sporting events such as this: it take the normally distancing effects of aesthetic and political judgments and makes the aesthetic and political primal and inuitive--which is not necessarily a good thing.
Posted by: Robin | Jun 26, 2006 11:39:08 AM
Soccer - or "futbol" as I grew up calling it in Latin America - is a great game simply because it is the most popular sport in the world. If baseball were played around the world (and if the "World" Series was really that), it would have the same status.
It's neither "Europhilia" nor some veiled allegorical interest in politics and international relations that makes Americans interested in soccer. This is classic over-analyzing. Perhaps natural for an academic, but it lacks common sense. (Also, neither Brazil nor Argentina, last time I checked, are in Europe.)
I would say American fascination with soccer, where it exists, is the flip side of American exceptionalism: the idea that "we are different - and better - than the rest of the world." Americans celebrate their differences, and their view of their country as the "New Jerusalem", but when the World Cup comes around many feel that they are perhaps missing out on something, and become curious about all the fuss. Americans love a good party, and the World Cup is possibly the best party around. I'd be curious too in their place.
Posted by: Futbolista | Jun 26, 2006 12:39:31 PM
Robin,
I think rooting for underdog nations is allegorical no matter how it is expressed, which is not to say that visceral or intuitive sports allegiance (or politics) is always a good thing. It can lead to bashing fans of the opposite team, etc.
Posted by: Jonathan | Jun 26, 2006 3:22:01 PM
Hi J, nice work.
If certain intellectuals watch soccer from a distance, as a form of distinction or badge of cultivation, what about those who only watch them watching? Is their non-belonging also a form of intellectual distinction, a signal that they transcend the debates around them?
And check out this article, from 1966, on the World Cup. I think you'll like it...
http://www.newyorker.com/archive/content/articles/060703fr_archive01
Posted by: Asad | Jun 26, 2006 3:35:44 PM
Jonathan, allow me to quote you:
"In either case, viewers of the World Cup watch the game from a sort of distance: the distance of aesthetics or of politics. [. . .] The thing about such distance, at least for me, is that it gets in the way of the deeply intuitive and primal enjoyment that accompanies watching a sport with which one is intimately familiar."
I have nothing against "intuitive and primal enjoyment," either. Nor did I suggest you did. (Indeed, you suggested the opposite.) But what you suggested was that aesthetic and political appreciation required a "distance" that (and I quote again) "gets in the way of [this] deeply intuitive and primal enjoyment."
I merely pointed out that this was uninformed.
Posted by: Jon | Jun 27, 2006 12:15:32 AM
Interesting post this, but silly really.
I am not a sports fan. But I watch some sports, yes, on that pseudo-aesthetic and distancing device called TV. I watch the Olympics, the World Series, I watch the Stanley Cup, I watch the Fifa World Cup.
And, yes, I have a higher degree and "write" about "International Politics" for a living. So you might call me defensive.
The thing about watching the best a sport can offer is not unlike reading all the works on the Booker shortlist, or appreciating a virtuoso of rap, or ballet, or string theory or comedy or the national spelling bee. It is about human achievemnent, the best of the best. Ah, maybe that's just not cynical enough for you.
On thing about the World Cup that is like the Olympics but different from the rest is that you can watch the best do their thing anywhere in the world, as I have, with UN diplomats in Sweden, with Serbian refugees in Slovakia, and with Bedouins and stable boys(just last week) in Giza, Egypt. And not a single one of these varied people in their oh so! varied circumstances would comprehend a single thing you have said, though the smarter ones would recognize you as one of those contrarians from the "chatering classes" who delights in mocking those very chattering classes to which you, so self-evidently, belong.
What they do understand is this: Soccer is a game. Evidently popular almost everywhere, among all classes. Chattering and untouchable alike.
Posted by: kb | Jun 27, 2006 2:36:00 AM
I think rooting for underdog nations is allegorical no matter how it is expressed, which is not to say that visceral or intuitive sports allegiance (or politics) is always a good thing. It can lead to bashing fans of the opposite team, etc.
Posted by: rem sleep disorder | Mar 10, 2010 4:35:32 PM
Thanks for the share Keep posting such kind of information on your blog. Thanks once again.
Posted by: Super bowl 2013 | Dec 23, 2012 6:58:57 AM
Post a comment