With regard to How
Soccer Explains the World by Franklin Foer, one aspect that I find
especially interesting can be found in the second chapter. This chapter,
entitled How Soccer Explains the
Pornography of Sects, deals with the ongoing hatred and disgust between
dissimilar groups. The example in the novel has to do with the dislike between
the Protestant supporters of the Glasgow Rangers Football Club and the Catholic
supporters of the Celtic Football Club. I find this relationship interesting as
it sheds an intriguing light on the concept of globalization in a modern
context.
Due to the
sectarianism of the Protestant and Catholic supporters of the Rangers and the
Celtics, Foer notes that there have been at least 8 deaths that are directly
connected to this rivalry. This kind of hatred between groups goes against what
one would typically think would result from globalization. A greater ease of
communication and higher level of interconnectedness should yield itself to
more cultural understanding and acceptance between groups. If we can more
easily communicate with people from different upbringings and different
backgrounds it would make sense that we, as a global society, should be able to
better understand different people. As “globalization enthusiasts” of the
nineties would put it “once a society becomes economically advanced, it would
become politically advanced – liberal, tolerant, democratic.” Contrary to this
logical school of thought, the relationship between Celtics fans and Rangers
fans presents a scenario driven by, sometimes violent, hatred between “sects.”
It is for
this sectarianism that I find the increased pluralism of the two teams
interesting. Foer notes one player for the Rangers, Lorenzo Amoruso, often
times encourages the Protestant Rangers fans to chant and sing along to
anti-Catholic songs. The irony being that Amoruso is Catholic. I find it
intriguing that despite this sectarianism we can still see globalization at
work. The increased interconnectedness between states and groups of people has
allowed for Amoruso, among others, to be Catholic players for the Rangers. It
is clear from this that globalization is still evident in the world of soccer.
I, however, find it interesting that globalization has not necessarily had the
cultural impact that I along with the nineties “enthusiasts” would have
expected.
Having said that I think it is
important to keep in mind that one major impact of globalization is the
unequalled economic prosperities. Increased interconnectedness between
different states and different groups of people allows for the potential of
incredible economic growth. It is from this impact that Foer makes a very
interesting point. He explains why in the context of soccer we don’t see a more
accepting, pluralized group of Protestant and Catholic supporters. Economic
ventures and the possibility of profit are huge driving factors. It is for this
that Amoruso encourages the singing of anti-Catholic songs at the games, it
allows for more economic benefit. I find it interesting that consumerism seems
to be more of a predominant result of globalization in this context. The
globalization in the soccer industry, or in this instance at least, seems to
have less to do with the spreading of ideas and cultures, and more to do with
the potential to make money. From this it is more understandable that hatreds
between sects can carry on throughout generations despite a more interconnected
society.
Overall I find this concept very
interesting. I would fully expect that globalization would lead to a more
accepting, understanding global society. However, scenarios like that in the
novel demonstrate how hatred between sects can be longstanding with little room
for reconciliation. It’s interesting how cultural understanding is not always the
most likely result of globalization.
Works Cited:
Foer, Franklin. "How Soccer Explains the Pornography of
Sects." How Soccer Explains the World: An Unlikely Theory of
Globalization. New York: HarperCollins, 2004. 35-50. Print.
Shirk, Mark.
"Globalization."
Lecture, GVPT200, College Park, MD, November 12, 2014.
You make a lot of really good points regarding the factors that drive support for globalization. I thought it was interesting - and very accurate - that you used economic motivation as an explanation for the lack of multicultural unity that one would expect to result from globalization. I tend to view the world in a very optimistic manner, so I would like to believe that increasingly globalized societies will eventually improve relations between nations and cultures over time. Unfortunately, money often speaks much louder than any desire for a more accepting and unified global society. What do you think would need to change in order to resolve this issue? Do you think that it's even possible to maintain the economic benefits of globalization while also improving the relationships between various ethnic or religious groups?
ReplyDeleteAlthough this may seem pessimistic I think that humanity, as a whole, has an inherent greed. For this reason I think it would be very difficult to improve relations between ethnic or religious groups without the economic benefits of globalization suffering. Giselle mentions below how McDonalds is widely accepted in over 100 countries. I think this shows that we are capable of embracing other culture to an extent, but perhaps we're not at the point to fully embrace foreign cultures.
DeleteNice blog post Thomas. I was surprised when I read that chapter of the book as well. Just as you and various other nineties "enthusiasts" I thought increased interconnectedness would bring about more acceptance of other cultures and ideas, but from the example given in the book, it appears that that is not the case most times. I say most times, because globalization has brought a some understanding and acceptance amongst different countries. Take McDonald's for example. McDonald's can be found in over 100 countries. This American fast-food chain is widely accepted within these different cultures, if it wasn't accepted, then McDonald's would go out of business in these countries.
ReplyDeleteI think that the McDonalds example is a great point. I think that it shows that people can be culturally understanding and accepting in the contexts of globalization. Ideally this would be the case in all scenarios but the fact that humans are capable of accepting other cultures to some degree is a good first step.
DeleteVery interesting topic to explore. Intuitively, it makes sense to think that globalization would render people more accepting of other cultures because that exposure will lead to less ignorance and fear. But I think globalization is something that is too broad to carry this assumption. Like I have mentioned in other blog's comments, and struggled with in my post, is the idea that globalization can make our world better much worse or better. I think globalization intensifies the social and economic constructs that are already in place. One could easily say that globalization might make people less accepting of other cultures and belief systems, like Foer example shows. I know this is why you explored this topic, and you did a great job of doing so, but I don't think we should be surprised this is a consequence of globalization.
ReplyDeleteI agree completely with your statement of how globalization "intensifies" social and economic structures already in place. Perhaps I find this outcome of globalization more surprising because I would have expected that humanity as a whole be more willing to embrace foreign cultures. Perhaps this way of thinking is a tad naive.
Delete