Quantcast
Connect with us

Americans are alienated — and football is making it worse

Published

on

By Erin C. Tarve for Salon.com

We have heard, it would seem, more than enough reasons to stop watching football: from the outsized risk of brain trauma apparently inherent to the game, to the exploitation of black athletes by a league whose power brokers are overwhelmingly white, to the miserable working conditions of NFL cheerleaders, to the culture of hypermasculinity it fosters, leading to the deaths of young men on the practice field and violence against women off it.

ADVERTISEMENT

Yet, even with all these controversies, even as Americans increasingly pull their young sons out of the game, support for football remains high. After a dip in ratings last year, the NFL is back in full force this season, seemingly impervious to criticism and extending welcoming arms to an enthusiastic fan base that apparently wants nothing more than to return to the comforting tradition of watching Tom Brady win yet another Super Bowl, averting their eyes when the ugliness becomes too much to bear.

This feminist philosopher is repulsed by football’s myriad abuses and senseless harms. But as a fan raised on the sport, I have to admit that I find it hard to give up entirely. If you talk with many deep-thinking football fans—including former players—they will tell you something similar. At the turn of the twentieth century, the philosopher William James found himself in a strikingly similar predicament.

James was part of the growing pacifist movement of the time, committed to the anti-war cause but worried that it was ultimately hopeless. Barely a generation removed from the Civil War, Americans were well aware of the horrors of war yet always seemed ready for a fight, balking at the idea of diplomatic solutions to international conflict. How could the pacifist movement hope to succeed in the face of such deep-seated emotional attachment to war?

James proposed a solution in the 1906 address “The Moral Equivalent of War”. His approach was not to try to convince people their attachment was wrong, but to take that attachment seriously—to recognize that it might be indicative of a deeper need that could be addressed in less destructive ways.

Beneath Americans’ attachment to war, James thought, was the tacit recognition of the values of discipline and self-sacrifice that militarism inevitably called forth, an inner “pugnacity” that could not be eliminated, even from enlightened folk, and above all, an anxiety about the end of manliness that the post-industrial age seemed certain to usher in. Satisfying these desires and calming this anxiety was only a matter of finding the right substitute. James proposed instituting compulsory enlistment in a public works service corps for all able-bodied young men—effectively a domestic Peace Corps. Rather than slaughtering their fellows on the field of battle, these young men would labor and sacrifice while away from their families to build bridges and clear fields, doing their part in humanity’s long struggle in the Sisyphean work of civilization’s survival.

ADVERTISEMENT

Though James’s solution was not taken up in America, his diagnosis of the problem was, at least in part—in particular by the very men who popularized football. Even today, football is heralded by its proponents as the singular tool for preserving masculinity, and for teaching discipline and self-sacrifice. Moreover, men from University of North Carolina Coach Larry Fedora to Donald Trump decry critics of football’s violence as imperiling the future of the country, suggesting that without football, we would be in grave danger as a society. In danger of what, exactly, isn’t clear. The threats are evident, at least as they are envisioned by some of football’s staunchest proponents: softness, feminization, or even loss of control of the men they gawk at on the field, who may just might start “running the prison” if they aren’t careful.

My instinct is to write football off entirely, to reject it as hopelessly backward, and to condemn those who find themselves attached to the sport—myself included—as fundamentally morally deficient. But, as James said of such approaches to eliminating war, “as a rule they do fail,” both for alienating their audiences and for failing to inspire the kinds of feelings for which people are willing to sacrifice.

What would happen if instead we followed James’s strategy, and took people’s attachment to football seriously as a moral issue? Part of some fans’ attachment to football is clearly a disturbingly rosy view of masculine domination, hierarchy, and obedience to leadership that was at home in early-twentieth-century white America but which many of us today rightly reject. Such attachments should not be ignored—but neither should they be indulged as the one unshakeable underlying longing.

ADVERTISEMENT

Thinking of my own upbringing as a football fan, I remember being far less interested in the militarism of the game itself than in the way its rituals brought me close to my family and community. Listening to football players of all ages, I am struck by the obvious thrill they experience both in working together and in pushing themselves to exceed what they thought possible. Watching students on college campuses who are sometimes isolated and far from home find friends by recognizing familiar team colors on a sweatshirt across the classroom makes me pause to reconsider what it is that fans love, when they say that they love football.

But still, contrary to James’s view of war, I do not see in football as such a set of values worth preserving. Too often, the values football has passed down are all too clear in their commitment to domination and destructiveness. But rather than suggesting that we fight against Americans’ attachment to football, or that we try to argue ourselves out of it, we should recognize in that attachment something deeper, which has the potential to be productive rather than destructive. Beyond the nostalgia and hierarchy, there is a human desire for connection, belonging, and celebration of the capacity to overcome obstacles together. In our social-media-siloed and fragmented world, football has been helping us fulfill a genuine need. That fulfillment has come at a terrible, unacceptable price. But it is the price, not the need, that is within our reach to change.

ADVERTISEMENT

We should move away from football. We should think creatively about what sorts of community institutions, public spaces, physical education, or changes to our political process could wean Americans from our dependence on this ritual. But getting over it will take more than making moral arguments. It will take finding and supporting other practices that give people access to those increasingly scarce connections, experiences, and conversations in non-destructive ways.

Erin C. Tarver is an associate professor of philosophy at Oxford College of Emory University and the author of “The I in Team: Sports Fandom and the Reproduction of Identity.”


Report typos and corrections to: [email protected].
READ COMMENTS - JOIN THE DISCUSSION
Continue Reading

Breaking Banner

‘I can’t wait for revenge’: White House aide vows payback over Trump impeachment trial

Published

on

The White House legislative liaison is seeking revenge as President Donald Trump faces an impeachment trial in the Senate.

According to Bloomberg reporter Daniel Flatley, legislative affairs director Eric Ueland walked past a group of reporters at the Capitol and said, "I can't wait for revenge."

White House liaison Eric Ueland just walked by a pen of reporters and said “I can’t wait for the revenge.”

— Daniel Flatley (@DanielPFlatley) January 23, 2020

Continue Reading

Breaking Banner

Fox News legal analyst shames ‘unworthy’ Republicans who have already decided to acquit Trump

Published

on

Fox News legal analyst Andrew Napolitano's latest column explains why President Donald Trump's actions are worthy of impeachment -- and he shames any Republican senators who have already made up their minds.

Napolitano starts by making the case that there is enough evidence to credibly charge the president with crimes, even though Democrats in the House only impeached him for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.

"Federal election laws proscribe as criminal the mere solicitation of help for a political campaign from a foreign national or government," he writes. "There is no dispute that Trump did this. In fact, the case for this is stronger now than it was when the House impeached him last year. Since then, more evidence, which Trump tried to suppress, has come to light."

Continue Reading
 

Breaking Banner

Lindsey Graham screeches at reporters over impeachment: Trump ‘did nothing wrong in his mind’

Published

on

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), a close ally of President Donald Trump, on Thursday complained that the president's impeachment trial should end quickly because the American people "need a break."

"I love Joe Biden but I can tell you if the name was Trump, there would be a lot of questions asked," Graham said moments before House managers were expected to argue for the impeachment of President Donald Trump. "I want the public to understand, the claim Democrats are making -- there's no there there."

According to Graham, if Trump "thought he was doing something wrong, he would probably shut up about it."

Continue Reading
 
 
Help Raw Story Uncover Injustice. Join Raw Story Investigates for $1 and go ad-free.
close-image