Sportuguese

For this week’s reading assignments I thought I would be talking about Suits’ article “Tricky Triad: Games,Play, and Sport,” but despite his entertaining writings and his attempt to differentiate between sport and game, his is not the article that captured my attention.  Maybe it was Klaus V. Meier’s follow-up article to “Tricky Triad,” “Triad Trickery: Playing with Sports and Games.”  Although a follower of Suits, Meier felt that Suits did not properly define sports, even though he did agree with the definition of games.  I agree with Meier and his explanation, or categorization, of sports, but that his not what I want to talk about.

Instead, as the title suggests, I want to talk about the language of sports.  Jeffery O. Segrave wrote a fascinating article investigating the use of language in sports and about sports.  His article, “A Matter of Life and Death: Some Thoughts on the Language of Sport” resonated with me.  His introduction talked about the use of sports metaphor and how common it is in American vernacular that we sometimes don’t realize we’re using them.  Segrave said in his introduction, “To understand the power of metaphor is to understand how we shape our arguments, organize our perceptions, create our ideologies, control our feelings and, in the end, construct our public and private selves.”  Who knew sports metaphors were so ingrained in our lives as to help shape them.  Admitting that each sport  has its own metaphors and jargon Segrave focuses on three aspects of sport speak that involve all sports: “the conventions of violence, sex, and the machine.”  I am going to add my input along two of these sections as they relate to me or as I understand them.

The first segment Segrave discusses is the language of violence.  Sure, everyone knows sports are violent, especially when played at the professional level, but Segrave is talking about the words we use to describe sports, sporting events, or even athletes themselves.  He mentions how no one wins their competitions anymore.  Instead, we insert as many synonyms we can to describe the “beat down” one team received at the hands of the other, or how badly the losing team was “annihilated.”  I found it entertaining that Segrave adds snippets of newspaper articles that talk about the colorful, exaggerated language used when writing or describing a sports event.  But that train of thought extends to describing the teams themselves.  In choosing mascots or team names, the intent or thought (and correct me if I’m wrong) is to choose something that intimidates your opponents.  When I read this, I immediately thought of my time as a kid playing soccer league soccer.  So I want to extend that metaphor even further.  In choosing or allocating nick-names for players, often there is the same intent.  My team was told that we choose any nick-name we wanted to place on our jersey, so naturally we started picking names that we intimidating, like weapons.  For me, I wanted something that was lethal and powerful because that is how I wanted to perceive myself and my skill–which was neither lethal or powerful, but hey, I was only six or seven years old.

Another example of football’s adoption of “war” terminology with the “Draft.”

Violence in sport is best exemplified by the language we use to describe American Football. If you’ve ever listened to a sports broadcast of a game or have been keyed in on a description of a play, then you’ll know football is often compared to war.  Segrave says “the language of football is the language of war,” which tends to be true when you think about it.  With words like “blitz,” “bombs,” “offensive and defensive lines,” “ground attacks,” it is clear war metaphors describe the sport, and is also occasionally applied to coaches and players.  But just because football uses war metaphors to describe its behavior doesn’t mean it is the same as war.  There are many more sports out there that use war metaphors to describe themselves and make no qualms about how violent they are.  Admitting to its violence Segrave makes a fascinating observation.  Sports are looked at as controlled violence.  “It is in fact only by controlling violence that sport sustains our interest and enliven our attention,” claims Segrave.  He continues to claim that sports prevent destructive behavior which is detrimental to society.  I find myself on the fence with this statement and the observation of sports as controlled violence.  It reminds me of similar claims by completely different companies that their products are outlets for aggressive behavior.  I have two that I am thinking of, in particular, but I will mention only one; video games, specifically violent video games.

Having grown up with video games, there is a fondness for them, a feeling of nostalgia that tempts me to be sympathetic to their claims, but I cannot allow memories of good times negate rational thinking.  Some time ago there was a huge outcry by concerned parents that violent video games were to blame for violent behavior.  The video game companies countered by saying their games were mere outlets for which aggressive behavior could be channeled, and not the producer of violence.  I am not here to discuss which side is right or wrong, but am merely trying to bring to mind the video game companies’ claim that they control violence.  That their violent video games keep people from going out and expressing their aggressive behavior on society.  It is hard for me to believe that video games can do this, but I can see how sports does, although with the advancements in technology making their way into the video game world it can be more possible.  My thinking is that it is possible, but I am not entirely convinced, that sports, through its physical nature, can drain away the violent energies we store up each day.  But that is through the participation in sports, not just spectating (which recently has become more violent too).  Isn’t that why we want children to engage in sports, so they drain all their energy on the field and come home much calmer, easier to manage?  In that same sense, wouldn’t the world be less inclined to fight one another if the political leaders of respective nations that disagree would settle their differences in a boxing ring?  Why make so many die just because you don’t like your neighbor.  If you really think yourself superior, then prove it on the basketball court.  Or better yet (and for example let me use the US and Iran), have the leaders and their cabinets or supporting council form two teams and play a game of football, getting out all their violent desires on the field and taking it out on each other instead of the people who are forced to war on behalf of their leaders. (I could go n forever but that is another topic entirely, which I may revisit someday).  So, I can agree to a degree that sports does control violence, but through participation in the physical nature of the game.  It actually reminds me of, just slightly, how Meier defined sports as requiring “the demonstration of physical skill and prowess,” in his article “Triad Trickery.”

Since the language of the machine is used in sports, is this what we see?

The other aspect of sport mention by Segrave that I want to talk about is “the language of the machine.”  What fascinates me more than what Segrave points out, is how obvious it was and how accustomed I was to hearing sports described in a mechanized manner that I didn’t think how much we compare sports to machinery–or how the language sometimes evolves with machine technology.  Especially when playing team sports and wanting to work together to accomplish your goal, you think of cogs or gears, each working with the other to make something function.  When doing well, then the gears are “well oiled.”  This extends even to individualized participation as well.  When I tire of pedaling my bicycle, I will think to myself, “I ran out of steam,”  as if I were a steam engine.  Similarly is the phrase, “ran out of gas,” to demonstrate the modern times.  It is intriguing how we relate human performance to machines.  Segrave delves a little into the possible psychological reasons we might do this.  Maybe this helps us dehumanize competition thereby emboldening us to defeat our adversary.  More than anything else, Segrave believes that mechanizing sports is done for control.  It has been an endless battle of man against nature, and by using the language of machines, something man-made, we can exert control over the uncontrollable.  His argument makes sense to me, especially with the illustration of our use of stadiums and arenas to, in essence, create a controllable environment.  Segrave worries that there is another reason why the language of the machines is used in sports.  There is a battle that every person will lose (if you fight against it, anyways), the battle against mortality.  By comparing athletes to machines it may be an attempt to immortalize them.  Segrave worry is about the bid for immortality but what it will cost; namely dehumanization.

If you see sports as one big machine and the players nothing more than the parts of the machine then there is a disconnect from the sport and the players.  This actually reminds me of a movie I re-watched recently, “Real Steel” with Hugh Jackman.  For those few who have no idea what this movie is about allow me to explain, briefly (or go here http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0433035/).  Basically, it is a world, just slightly in the future (maybe 20 years or so) and where large robots “box” one another instead of people, hence the use of “steel” in the name.  For the purposes of my point this is all you need to know about the movie, expect for an explanation made by Hugh Jackman’s character about the evolution of the sport of boxing, he himself being a former boxer.  He explained that boxing evolved from simple boxing, where people use their fists only, to mixed martial arts, where any part of the body could be used.  The thirst for violence and the limitations (and ethics) of the human body, prompted the use of robot fighters.  Since they were not human, they could exact and withstand harsher punishment.  And just like the sport of boxing, when humans still fought, robot boxing evolved, albeit with the advancement of technology.  But I digress.  Perhaps, this is Segrave’s fear, that the more we dehumanize sport, the easier it becomes to place them in life-threatening situations, all for the sport of it.

The language of life and death is an overarching language of sport which is probably why Segrave uses it in his title.  Yet, despite the instances where sports reminds us of death and violence, it also inspires us with words that make us feel alive.  Segrave uses an excellent example; baseball.  In baseball, the proactive players, like the pitcher or the batter, are described “at” or “being’ their roles.  A pitcher “pitches,” a batter “bats.”  Even the time of the year in which sports are played, or venues, remind us of life and death.  Segrave postulates, like with the language of the machines, the language of life and death are our ways of trying to control what we cannot control, namely our lives.  We live and die beyond the restrictions we try to exert.  Sure, we can influence our lives for better or for worse with our life style choices, like playing sports is a positive influence on our lives, but ultimately control lies beyond our capabilities.  So, we compensate.  And sports, speaking of metaphors, fits perfectly into this equation.  It is something we control and our choice of words in describing it creates the illusion of mastery over the elements.  If there is one thing to take from this lesson, it is how beautiful and creative we are when it comes to describing sports.  It was mentioned in Segrave’s article that the sports section of newspapers were the most descriptive, colorful, illustrative section of the entire paper.

One last thought on the language of sport.  So far I have talked about sports locally, but a lot of what was explained, theorized, and talked about extends past the borders of this country.  Sport can be a language unto itself.  Using sports to transcend language and cultural barriers.  I have done that with soccer (football to the rest of the world).  Though brief my physical involvement in the sport, my love for the game allows me to communicate to others despite differences we may have.  My own brother was able to do this very thing in Pakistan.  He didn’t speak Pakistani or any other Arabic language, nor did his teammates, but they were still able to teach football soccer to the children there, using the international language of sports.  I will pay more attention to the language of sport used in sport reports but I will also recognize the power of sport to be a language unto itself as well.