It is said that nations reveal themselves in their choice of sports and the way they play them. David Brooks in an interesting article points out the centrality of sports in the cultural and social life of a country.
Of course, people in any country participate in sports for a variety of reasons—health and fitness, stress management, socialization, relaxation, and others. But one of the more important reasons is character development. “Sport builds character” is an often used phrase. The Victorians, who were behind the idea - and who invented most of the sports we play - believed it bred every virtue you can think of: self- confidence, respect for the rules, a sense of fair play, physical bravery, grace under pressure, equanimity in defeat and magnanimity in victory. Indeed it is argued that sports culture influences young people as they are growing up.It discourages whining, and rewards self-discipline. It teaches self-control and its own form of justice, which has a more powerful effect than anything taught in the classroom.
Every country has a favorite sport which in a certain sense defines its essence. The concentration of a country on a particular sport also pervades its entire culture and mind set that emerges in interesting and contrasting ways
Thus the US, which does have a number of favorite sports- baseball, basketball, football – but football remains the quintessential American sport and defines its character. American football is played over four quarters and lasts one hour in terms of official playing time although it drags on usually for a couple of hours with all the interruptions for TV ads and injuries. It is a game of power and strategy where each player has to function as a part of the effort at all times. While there is a coin tossing captain, the fact is that the entire effort is coordinated and led by a quarterback. And the important thing in US football is that there is always a result- there is always a winner and a loser.
By contrast, European football or soccer takes only ninety minutes with one break. There is a captain but the only role he seems to play is to wear a small armband and to remonstrate with the referee when one of his team is being turned out of the game. The eleven men do play as a team but winning more often relies on individual brilliance than any coordinated attacks. Also it is not sure that each game will end in a result- a draw is an equally acceptable outcome.
Indian cricket, however, lasts 40 hours- yes 40 hours- spread over five days. Even the shortened version of the game- the one dayer- lasts for 8 hours with breaks for morning tea, lunch and evening tea. For the non aficionado, it is often difficult to make out if anything is happening on the field for long periods of time. It is difficult to determine who is the leader of the team as everyone seems to congregate to offer advice on how to proceed. The external elements play a major part whether it is the state of the pitch or the possibility of rain during the match. And, of course, even after five days, it is equally possible that there is no result – called a draw- and the opposing teams move on to another locale to repeat the five day game and perhaps another draw.
Growing up, children in these countries must imbibe the culture and rhythm of these popular sports. Thus is it any wonder that American kids and adults are impatient for results in quick time and want a clear winner or loser? Or that the Europeans tend to accept draw as a fair conclusion to any combat and are willing to wait for another occasion to find a result. Or that the Indians learn patience and are willing to accept the influence of external environment on their lives or the absence of motion as normal?
Throughout Western history, Professor Gillespie of Duke University, argues, there have been three major athletic traditions. First, there was the Greek tradition. Greek sports were highly individualistic. There was little interest in teamwork. Instead sports were supposed to inculcate aristocratic virtues like courage and endurance. They gave individuals a way to achieve eternal glory.
Then, there was the Roman tradition. In ancient Rome, free men did not fight in the arena. Roman sports were a spectacle organized by the government. The free Romans watched while the slaves fought and were slaughtered. The entertainment emphasized the awesome power of the state.
Finally, there was the British tradition. In the Victorian era, elite schools used sports to form a hardened ruling class. Unlike the Greeks, the British placed tremendous emphasis on team play and sportsmanship. If a soccer team committed a foul, it would withdraw its goalie to permit the other team to score. The object was to inculcate a sense of group loyalty, honor and rule-abidingness — traits that were important to a class trying to manage a far-flung empire.
American sports like football, Gillespie argues, have an ethos which is a fusion of these three traditions. These sports teach that individual effort leads to victory, a useful lesson in a work-oriented society. But as in sports, it is necessary to navigate the tension between team loyalty and individual glory.
Cricket played in the British tradition had always emphasized team work and loyalty. It was said that “The battle of Waterloo was won on the playing fields of Eton” But when the cult of the amateur was replaced by the money culture of the professional, the team ethos rapidly frayed.
But now sports in every country has become too Romanized. Seasons have become too long and the arenas too gargantuan. Athletes have become a separate gladiator class, and the recruitment process gives them an undue sense of their own worth. Individual players – be they football quarterbacks, soccer stars or graceful batsmen- are now bought and sold for the different leagues at annual auctions. Does this remind one of the slave auctions a hundred years ago in the deep South of the US? A cult of “win at any cost” now pervades the entire sports scene and incidents of ball tampering, ball handling and use of performance enhancement drugs have become a regular feature. As one coach sardonically put it “winning may not be everything, but losing is nothing”. Spectators too have been reduced to an anonymous mass of passive consumers of other people’s excellence.
It is indeed a far cry from sports inculcating good habits like self discipline, team loyalty and hard work in the citizenry of a country..
No comments:
Post a Comment