Noam Chomsky on sports

I actually thought this way for awhile in high school... and although I resumed my interest in sports eventually, and it continues until this day, I like to be prodded into some self-examination now and again. Although Chomsky can be almost too reflexively anti-authoritarian - it colors all of his work - I do find some validity to positing that the intellectual energy we spend analyzing sports could be put to use into solving our problems and getting the Republicans out of power...

Excerpted from a speech, as featured in the documentary "Manufacturing Consent":


Take, say, sports -- that's another crucial example of the indoctrination system, in my view. For one thing because it -- you know, it offers people something to pay attention to that's of no importance. That keeps them from worrying about -- keeps them from worrying about things that matter to their lives that they might have some idea of doing something about. And in fact it's striking to see the intelligence that's used by ordinary people in (discussions of) sports (as opposed to political and social issues). I mean, you listen to radio stations where people call in -- they have the most exotic information and understanding about all kind of arcane issues. And the press undoubtedly does a lot with this.

You know, I remember in high school, already I was pretty old. I suddenly asked myself at one point, why do I care if my high school team wins the football game? I mean, I don't know anybody on the team, you know? I mean, they have nothing to do with me, I mean, why I am cheering for my team? It doesn't mean any -- it doesn't make sense. But the point is, it does make sense: it's a way of building up irrational attitudes of submission to authority, and group cohesion behind leadership elements -- in fact, it's training in irrational jingoism. That's also a feature of competitive sports. I think if you look closely at these things, I think, typically, they do have functions, and that's why energy is devoted to supporting them and creating a basis for them and advertisers are willing to pay for them and so on.

I'd love to be able to fundamentally change who I am and what I care about sometimes, but I think that ship has sailed.

But he is right: It IS meaningless. The junkies will never admit that. They ascribe all sorts of poetic horseshit to the glory of overcoming the odds (enter string of cliches here). Just admit you have money riding on the game, or you enjoy a good hit, or that you tie your identity to your home team because you need something larger than yourself to believe in.

It isn't "wrong" to be into sports, as long as you're honest with some perspective thrown in.

But I don't think it's necessarily a negative to have a common experience with other fans. In a lot of ways sports can bind a community (or tear it apart, I'll admit).

I still don't want to be surrounded by Longhorn mania - it intrudes on my happiness. :P

Because we all know you can't be interested in something trivial and something important at the same time. :eyes:

Most sports junkies think it IS important. They beat the snot out of each other over their teams. A Denver Bronco fan killed a guy in a bar just before that team's 1978 Super Bowl appearance because of an argument about who would win. And on and on...

If sports fans (and I am one, by the way), were honest enough to admit they are balancing the trivial with the important, then I wouldn't even see fit to post this.

But, still, people need a release. You cannot expect them to continually pound their heads to the grindstone. I honestly do understand the hero worship that tends to ensue from athletics, yet I find that they are continually important as a release and only if used as such. Trust me, there are times when I notice that I am not using them in the correct manner either.

I adore Chomsky. I adore his anthropological work, his models are still up to date, his politic theory is wonderful, but I feel sometimes that Chomsky is too stodgy for his own good. And, yes, I realize that I am an anthropologist saying that. But, I don't worship the ground that man walks on. Furthermore, I feel that even taking his words and actions and making them sacred (again, according to Durkheim's model) are a distraction away from the full brunt of it.

I believe the point of Chomsky is as a paragon of what liberals should think like; however, it is the onus of all in a culture, specifically organicially stratified, to adjust themselves to be free thinking gears within that culture. Again, I steal from Durkheim, so perhaps I am not doing enough to stand away from him.

I posted this to nudge us to re-examine our cherished attitudes. I am a sports fan myself, but sometimes I question the worth of my dedication.

I think it is healthy, if we can avoid being too turgid.

;) I see you and raise you one.

Let me tell you something I once heard at a conference: We look into so much just knowing that for some reason that some specific culture partakes in some specific act for some specific reason, but sometimes, they just do it for the hell of it.

That being said, I honestly believe that sports can be. . . addictive. (Please, people that gone through recovery treatments do not think I am making light of that, I am not. I am simply speaking from first hand experience.)

As I said on my anthro final. I read a few papers that describe some cultural practice and then conclude "this makes them strong and so will help them to survive (because only the strong survive)"

Seemed like idolatry of both strength and survival, but I am not sure how quoting either Chomsky or Durkheim makes them idols. Aren't we thinking about what has been said rather than genuflecting before the one who has said it?

I was being a bit cynical in that response about using Durkheim so much. It is best to construct off the past to understand the now, rather than to thumb one's nose at it.

but the man dearly needs to have a little fun. Sometimes a game can just be that.

I like that his musings are out of the mainstream though. Sports is so cherished by people of all walks of life, that I can sense the discomfort his words could engender among the rank and file - having their ideals and hobbies put into question.

That being said, I enjoy what I enjoy, as entertainment, if nothing else. As long as I remember that sports is entertainment, I can keep a balanced perspective.

Sports is so cherished by people of all walks of life, that I can sense the discomfort his words could engender.

It's an easy target, though, and one that can lead to unnecessary self-marginalization. It is not illiberal to enjoy competitive athletics.

But I must poke myself from time to time into thinking about why. :-)

Happy New Year to the UlyFamily! :party:

Poking oneself occasionally is an excellent practice. :)

Best wishes for this trip around the sun to you and Nini and all you hold dear...

I have no interest in sports but I am also glad my friends and family who do like sports have this diversion they enjoy. i don't begrudge people their fun just because I don't share in it, that is kind of assholish, IMHO.

I've heard sports called stupid enough today. Everything has an audience, who am I to say what sucks and what doesn't?

I mean, imagine all the brainpower that goes into art and music. Not even creating it, just listening to it. And you find people all the time that can go into detail about oil paintings or the latest U2 release, but don't know the first thing about, say, Tom DeLay's troubles. Art, music, theater, dance, etc.--these are all just distractions intended to keep us from being the Ultimate Liberals.

Screw art! I'm not going to do anything except watch CSPAN!

:crazy:

Art is as its best, transcendent and provocative, a product of creativity. Not that sports is without those moments or merits, but it is much closer to vicarious exhibition and dazzle than art. Both can overlap into the entertainment world, but they are unrelated to such extremes as to make the comparison pallid.

A major difference: Art is marginalized by the mainstream. Sports is embraced by it.

For the record, CSPAN is entertainment. Politics is the entertainment branch of industry.

If it's interesting enough to enough people, it'll eventually get co-opted and commercialized.

And if politics is entertainment, then it's right there with sports, art, music, etc.--ergo, it keeps people from devoting their full energy to bettering the world, and thus, less energy should be spent on politics. Which would make it a little hard to change anything about the world. I guess that leaves closing our eyes real hard and wishing.

Singling out sports as unique in promoting jingoism, or preventing people from pursuing more 'worthy' causes, is asinine. It's no different than tsk-tsking film because of "Triumph of the Will" and "The 47 Ronin."

and not just entertain. Music? It depends on the song writer. Songs tell stories. Much of the music of the 1960s and 1970s was political in nature. Four dead in Ohio. One Tin Soldier rides away. I think it's so groovy now that people are finally getting together. This is the dawning of the age of Aquarius.

Same with theater or cinema. Plays and movies tell stories, which can educate and inspire. I would like to see the local theater group do "We bombed in New Haven"

It could be said that art, music, theatre, etc. could inspire and spread a message. Not so much sports.

Billie Jean King.

Muhammad Ali.

Joe Louis.

And on, and on, and on...

Art is just more able to be used in such a manner.

Sport is a natural outgrowth of certain aggressive elements inherent in the nature of humans as group-oriented social primates. It's war by proxy, essentially. And it's a bit much to posit that love of sport represents part of a social indoctrination process, considering that it's something that's indepedent of culture and found in all human societies through all of known history.

Outside of that flaw (the knee-jerk nature, not the anti-authoritarianism itself), I am drawn to the argument that we DO have the intellectual ability to devote great energy and complex problem-solving acumen to the world's problems, and judging by the way people analyze sports, we need to channel that ability. :-)

Not that much difference in fundamental terms between the Roman arena and Monday Night Football. Panem et circenses.

But I don't necessarily think that the ability to analyse the minutiae of sports necessarily translates into any greater capacity for problem-solving on a global scale. Put it this way: would you trust the crowd in a bar to watch a heavyweight championship fight to rationally analyse the world's problems? I don't know that I would. I don't see this view as necessarily "elitist", either...merely a recognition that one can't logically analyse anything without first understanding it, and that most people, given human nature, are likely to propose a solution that favours their own individual or group interest over the common good of humanity (and I think the polarising nature of sports fandom kind of illustrates the point).

though considering how little of our intellectual ability most of us use, I see no reason why we couldn't conceivably do both.

Seem to be the only news broadcasters who don't have an issue with telling their producers that they are pushing stories of little consequence.

I googled this earlier tonight, too. wierd coincedence.

I've a similar thread (you beat me to the punch) inspired (ironically enough) by my uber-conservative former boss. He would occasionally opine that sports is the new opiate of the masses.

I think there is definitely truth to it, and on a lot of levels, unfortunately, though I remain a sports fan and I certainly believe it's possible to have a reasoned and balanced interest in sports ...

It's the rare human who doesn't feel a need to belong, to associate, to feel a part of a group. Sport is promoted in many cultures as the most desirable method for this; indeed, in some sub-cultures if you're not a fan of some team or sport, you're looked upon as something of an oddity and perhaps even a pariah.

Therein lies the problem, if indeed there is one. I sometimes wonder if "extreme" sports fans don't bond to the point of excluding others, thus limiting their own social growth. Otherwise, I consider fandom quite a healthy sociological practice. And to those who say "Why sport?" I say "Why not?"

Play him on the station all the time, but I semi-disagree w/ him on this. You've got to have balance in life, and if you're smart enough, you'll balance out the trivial and non-trivial to complement each other..

n/t

I have no problem discussing any of the things mentioned. Yes, the stereotypical brainless jock does exist as well as the stereotypical pimpled nerd but most people can balance.

Even our basest beggars are in the poorest thing superfluous, right? It's like the people constantly saying "Why are you doing x when you could be using that time to (defeat the Republicans / help Katrina victims / cure cancer"--we all have an x. We all waste time somewhere in the most meaningless and inglorious ways possible. So what? That's natural human behavior. Some people are overly obsessive and wasteful in their leisure hours, but we all waste time somewhere.

...http://www.odemagazine.com/article.php?aID=4210