SPORT 1913 - 2013

part one_CHAPTER 2

symbolic use of the sport of rugby union by Nelson Mandela to attempt to overcome divi- sions with South Africa or of the military jun- ta in Argentina and its use of the 1978 men’s FIFA World Cup. Also illustrative of the sig- nificance of sport are the comments made by the French President Jacques Chirac, follow- ing the English rugby union victory in the 2003 Men’s World Cup, when he wrote to the then British Prime Minister, Tony Blair: ‘Rare- ly have I seen a match of such commitment and intensity. This deserved victory is also a victory for Europe’. The reality of European culture is more complex than these comments suggest and two important caveats concern- ing sport, identity, and being European, need to be made. Sport both unites, and divides ‘us’ (Maguire 2012b). Chirac was correct to point to the intensity of this match, and sport mat- ters in forming ‘our’ habitus: ‘our’ identities and ‘sleeping memories’ that compose indi- vidual and collective consciousness. Indeed, the cradle for the emergence and development of modern sport is in European culture – its content and meaning are embedded in its lu- dic traditions and cultural values more broad- ly. That’s why sport matters in European life. Sport is a form of symbolic dialogue: it sym- bolizes the strict requirements of how a dia- logue should be conducted and involves a dra- matic representation of who they think they are and who they would like to be. Furthermore, sport stadia are theatres in which people experience a range of pleasur- able emotions and exciting significance: the

excitement of the well played-game, but its significance lying in the fact that sport is a fo- rum in which communal self-revelation oc- curs. That is, modern sport is a form of sur- rogate religion in which there occurs the communal discovery of who we are and what Europeans stand for. Hence, why a handball incident involving French footballer Thierry Henry in a 2010 FIFA World Cup qualification match mattered not only to the people of Ire- land, but to Europeans more generally. How- ever, at another level, Chirac was wrong. For the English, the rugby victory symbolised the old Empire striking back and had nothing to do with being European. The social signifi- cance of sport is thus highly contested. That is, at this stage in the (re)integra- tion of ‘Europe’, identities are still more firm- ly rooted in the locality, regionality and na- tionality that makes up the European continent. In this regard, sport contests rein- force and express ‘invented traditions’, ‘imag- ined communities’ and national habitus – even more so as the evident tensions in the current Eurozone crisis have re-awakened older enmities and rivalries. ‘Europe’ may play golf against the USA in the Ryder and Solheim Cups, and the globalisation of sport has blurred the boundaries of the nation and iden- tity, yet, it is still the passion of patriot games that underpins international sport, reinforces nationalism and can lead to an aggressive as- sertiveness of who ‘we’ are against ‘them’. Football hooliganism is better controlled within stadia, but the social mores that give

rise to such encounters remain features of a range of societies. In contrast to these aspects of global sport, Nelson Mandela has observed that ‘sport is a viable and legitimate way of build- ing friendship between nations’ and a UN re- port concluded that ‘sport brings individuals and communities together, highlighting com- monalities and bridging cultural and ethnic divides’ (Maguire 2012a). Sport, as a form of intercultural dialogue, has the potentiality to extend emotional identification between members of different societies and civilisa- tions, but it also fuels rivalry and de-civilising counter-thrusts. How, and in what ways, this contradictory role is played out requires both much greater empirical investigation and firmer evidence based policy formation at a European level. Sport then acts as a social glue and as a toxic. Let me explore this significance of sport a little more closely. In examining the phenomenon of sport it is clear that performances emerge and develop in a network of numerous structural determi- nants and processual conditions. That is, the practical craft and creativity of sport involves a mutual relationship of interdependence with wider structured processes. Given this, it is nec- essary to probe the production, distribution and reception of athletic performances. While the performances of Rafael Nadal is very differ- ent from that of Pablo Picasso, each are per- ceived as uniquely gifted individuals, excep- tions who stand outside of general social structures. However, the products of their

25