In his book, How Soccer Explains the World, Franklin Foer uses the example of
soccer to explain globalization and its failures “to erode ancient hatreds in
the game’s great rivalries.” While no process can completely erase “ancient
hatreds,” globalization leads to interconnectedness, which can foster an
appreciation for other cultures and open-mindedness, the benefits of which can
be seen on a small scale within specific communities.
A staff writer for Buzzfeed, Alan
White wrote Monday about the comradery within and his personal sentiments
towards the international cricket community after Australian cricket player,
Phillip Hughes passed away on Thursday.
One impact of globalization,
de-territorialization – the concept that the growth of technology makes regional
and geographical territories and borders less relevant in today’s society – has
allowed cricket fans to transcend physical boundaries to communicate and
connect through social media to form a nation of support. Major sporting
events, award ceremonies, and news segments are broadcasted around the world
and what is not broadcasted can be digitally streamed through the Internet.
When news of Hughes death broke, it became immediately available to every
corner of the globe. Within hours after the announcement, cricket fans from
around the world took to Twitter to give their condolences accompanied by
hashtags such as #PutOutYourBats and #CricketFamily in respect for Hughes and
the bond between members of the international cricket community.
In addition globalization increases
exposure of other cultures and customs. As White puts it, “what could be seen
as cultural stereotyping is, [for the cricket community], a chance to bask in
[the] love for each other’s strengths.” In a globalized world, cultural styles
develop between different teams and players of the same sport. Successful or innovative
styles are sought after by consumers of that sport. Coaches and players are
brought in from different nations. People fly all around the world to train
with a particular person or in a particular region. In cricket, there is a
mutual appreciation for the other team’s skills. Differences are not just
appreciated but celebrated amongst cricket fans. What rivalry there is between
teams cannot overcome the cricket community’s recognition of talent. However
the difference between the cricket community’s cadence and the prevailing
tribalism of soccer fans could be contributed to the high standard of
sportsmanship imposed upon cricket.
While Foer provides examples of
persistent stereotypes and rivalries in a globalized world, he falls short in
examining the effects of interconnectedness in other aspects and on other
levels. While cricket is not as massive or globalized of an economy as soccer,
the cricket community does interact on an international level and the effects
of globalization shape every action. What we can see from the cricket community
and their reaction to Hughes death is the success of globalization to
effectively bring together and bond people from around the globe over a shared
interest and appreciate and celebrate the differences between other cultures
that make us unique.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/alanwhite/what-the-outpouring-of-grief-for-phillip-hughes-tells-us-abo
Jennifer, I like that you chose to discuss cricket rather than focusing on soccer because it shows a more pure form of globalization. Soccer is an extremely westernized sport but has grown to the entire world. However, it can be pushed through by major powers. Cricket did not have the same world power stage to be elevated and therefore I think you did a good job showing how globalization pushes not just major ideas, but also the small ideas. It is promising then for smaller, poorer countries to eventually make an impact on the world stage. Do you think that the de-territorialization you mentioned will result in almost entirely assimilated cultures? Do you think that would be good or bad if all cultures became assimilated?
ReplyDeleteChelsea, I don't think de-territorialization can lead to entirely assimilated cultures, at least I don't believe it is foreseeable, as I believe there are still some boundaries to communication, such as not sharing a common language. While I believe there are benefits to absorbing, experiencing, and understanding another culture, and sometimes the mixture of cultures can produce new ones as evidenced by the culture of the cricket community. I overall think assimilation leads to the disappearance of some cultures and their replacement with others which then leads to the disappearance of different points of view, thought processes, concepts, etc.
DeleteJennifer,
ReplyDeleteI think Phillip Hughes's death is great example of how globalization has positively impacted the world. Through cricket, a sport most do not know about, Hughes rose to fame. Despite lack of knowledge for the sport, the world was able to come together to honor a man who devoted his life to a mostly unpopular sport. Many would expect this treatment if Lebron James or Cristiano Ronaldo passed away, but globalization has allowed the whole world to recognize and respect such moments for all. Nelson Mandela, despite his higher profile, got this same respect when he passed away. The spread of technology has its negatives, but the ability for interconnectedness throughout the world is a great plus.
Jennifer, you state that one of the benefits of globalization is a greater appreciation of cultures and open-mindedness. I feel that this is a common opinion on globalization, but I wonder among whom the opinion is common. Do you think developing countries find that globalization yields a greater appreciation of cultural differences? Perhaps this is a largely Western way of thinking.
ReplyDeleteOlivia, I really like your question. I would say that yes, I believe this opinion would be more common among more developed and/or Western nations than developing countries and that is a great point. I feel that in certain situations like the one above, it is hard not to see some of the benefits of globalization, but this is certainly not the case every time. In fact there is still a lot of stigma, racism, and xenophobia present in every country regardless of the impact of technology and globalization. I can see globalization working both ways, to both develop a greater appreciation and open-mindedness in some clusters of the globe and further ignorance, fear, and hatred in others. Globalization is a double edged sword, what it does is magnify the impact. However from what I can tell developing countries would more often face the negative impacts of globalization and this may be due to their lack of economic and technological resources and access.
DeleteJennifer -
ReplyDeleteA couple ideas of why the cricket community might have more sportsmanship:
1. Cricket is a smaller sport, so it's players and fans have a weaker fan base. This weakens regionalism and increases association with the international cricket community.
2. Cricket isn't as globalized. It exists almost entirely in Australia, England, and Southern Asia, where there are not a lot of international hatreds. The citizens of those nations have no reason to hate each other, so they don't become as violent as soccer fans.