David Brooks's most recent column, "The Sporting Mind," retrievable at the following address -- http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/02/01/us/budget.html -- is timely and pertinent to Ricci. He draws upon a yet-unpublished piece by a Duke sociologist on the role of sports in moral education. Gillespie's argument is pitched at a cultural level, and he claims that Western Civilization has witnessed three major "paradigms" for sports as a moral socialization experience. The Greeks featured individual athletic excellence and this served as the foundation for Western thinking about achievement and society in that the accent was on individual effort and not on team work. The Roman paradigm reduced sport to a battle for survival between slaves, not free men; and the ultimate moral message was the State reigns supreme in that it is the State only with the power to devise these fight-to-the-death spectacles as moral parables. Finally, the British model appeared with the return to participation on the part of free men, but with an emphasis on the morality of well-honed team work.
American experience, says Gillespie, has featured in the past a fusion of the Greek and British paradigms. Bart Giamatti, the late Commissioner of Baseball, and a classical scholar at Yale where he served also as President, once said that Americans "act like the British, but think like the Greeks" when it came to sports. Brooks goes on to note that Gillespie is troubled by what he sees as the increasingly Roman cast of major college sports in the U.S. He laments the growth of Big Time college sports because it has become so professionalized and the masses have been reduced, as in Roman times, to mere spectators. He concludes by calling for a return to more widespread participation -- as in intra-murals -- by ordinary citizens; in other words, he's arguing against the socio-political morality of a "Super Bowl Society."
That this is Super Bowl weekend -- and it happens to coincide with our concluding look at Ricci's lament about political science and democracy -- Gillespie's and Brooks's line of thinking is grist for our ongoing conversation. It is worth noting, in case you've not read the article itself, that Brooks takes issue with Gillespie's "normative" embrace of participatory-democratic sports. Brooks ends up saying that it might be absurd, but it's still cool. So what does this have to do with politics, political science, and our common life together?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Athletics and politics has always been hypercompetitive in America, and US politics has become an even more “win-at-all-costs” arena in the wake of the Citizens United decision. Politics are suppose to give off the impression that the political scene is open to anyone, but with the recent Supreme Court decision, politics is accepting the concept that some people are more “naturally political” than others, just as some are more “naturally athletic” than others in sports.
ReplyDeleteThe lack of participation in sports demonstrates that priorities are all screwed up not only in sports, just as politics. As discussed in Ricci and Walker, the key in the fight against apathy is participation, but unfortunately, competition, which is suppose to bring out the best in humans, is causing many to simply give up interests in athletics and politics because they don’t think they have what it takes to make a difference.
Also, in regard to Ricci, the specialization in political science has crossed over to athletics. A 13 year-old middle school quarterback recently committed to USC to play football without taking a snap at the high school level. This is just another example of the glorification of athletics in the US, while other more important aspects of society are constantly ignored.
In their quest to be masters of their fields, political scientists and athletes are missing out on many important alternatives to their craft that can make them as individuals, and their trades, more complete. The only way to improve upon the status quo is to expand one’s horizons, but unfortunately, the extreme competitive nature of both disciplines is walling off potential concepts that can better athletics and politics, and those who participate in them.
Very well said, Joe. I agree with your idea of "expanding one's horizons to improve upon the status quo"--especially in regards to politics. I also agree that the disciplines are looking past this idea because of the traditional competitive nature of the fields, but I'm wondering if this trend is sustainable without significant negative effects in the long-term? (I guess this is kind of what Ricci was addressing in the conclusion of his book.)
ReplyDeleteI know that Ricci mentioned being more "well-rounded" by incorporating texts and ideas from other prominent thinkers/disciplines into the course of learning and, to some degree, I think that Wartburg's "liberal education" has afforded me the opportunity to experience this diversity of multi-disciplinary knowledge. However, I think that MUCH more could be done in terms of this idea. I know that it would have benefitted me as a student of political science because it would have allowed me to approach issues with a much more balanced perspective. I also realize that this is the important part of a class like this, as different perspectives foster a better learning environment...so I would encourage everyone to keep bringing their unique knowledge/perspectives to class discussion. I really enjoy the learning environment this affords us all.
Finally...in semi-related matter, it's my opinion that this idea of balance and diversity of perspectives likely should be something to keep in mind as we proceed in selecting our texts for the rest of the semester. (It sounds like we are on the right track in this realm as well.)
There oughta be a law prohibiting universities from approaching thirteen year-olds to sign letters of intent before they complete at least two years off high school. So what happens if this kid fails to meet SC's admission requirements in the remaining years of his pre-collegiate schooling?
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand . . . maybe this kid could play for a NCAA Div. 1 football power as a fourteen year-old!! After all, intellectual geniuses are admitted to Harvard at ages as young as 12. Why not let the same principle apply to athletics? Why not use the same notion -- merit-based graduation/admission practices -- in high schools and colleges? Why assume that four years is required of all in both secondary and undergraduate-college degree programs? Chris Untiet, a recent political science grad, completed his B.A. here in two years, by maxing out CLEPS, A-P credits, and overloads, saving his parents a pile of money in the process. He went on to earn a Master's in political science at Iowa State thereafter, before working for Hillary Clinton and then heading to California for a time-out before law school or a Ph.D. in political science. By the same token, if we adopted a performance-merit-based standard for earning a B.A., we'd have to assume that some would take longer than the four-year plan that now passes as the Industry Standard. Sooner or later, this idea will be adopted -- and my guess is that it will be sooner rather than later in both pre-collegiate and college learning.