This article was downloaded by: [90.178.132.210]
On: 02 September 2012, At: 23:04
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954
Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,
UK
Identities: Global Studies in
Culture and Power
Publication details, including instructions for
authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/gide20
Flying the Flag: Identities, the
Nation, and Sport
John Hunter
a
a
Department of Sport Sciences, Brunel University,
West London, UK
Version of record first published: 24 Sep 2010
To cite this article: John Hunter (2003): Flying the Flag: Identities, the Nation, and
Sport, Identities: Global Studies in Culture and Power, 10:4, 409-425
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/714947397
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.
Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,
sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is
expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any
representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to
date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be
independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable
for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages
whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection
with or arising out of the use of this material.
Downloadedby[90.178.132.210]at23:0402September2012
409
Identities: Global Studies in Culture and Power, 10: 409–425, 2003
Copyright © Taylor & Francis, Inc.
ISSN: 1070-289X print / 1547-3384 online
DOI: 10.1080/10702890390253308
Flying the Flag: Identities, the Nation, and Sport
John S. Hunter
Department of Sport Sciences
Brunel University, West London, UK
This article sets the scene for this special edition, which was originally inspired by the
2001 Brunel University Conference on “The Nation and Sport”. The distinctive complexities
to the interface of sport, nation and identities are illustrated. The notion that
sport presents a problematic intervention into the concept of a nation and the reshaping
of identities is investigated along with the imbalance in the depth of consideration from
different academic disciplines. The import of anthems and emblems, through sporting
usage, is discussed, and the related language of the subject matter, i.e. nation-state,
patriotism, is explored. The potential for increased attention to the subject matter from
anthropologists is illustrated and the need for multi-disciplinary approaches to sport,
the nation and identity is mooted.
Key Words: Sport, nation, identities, multi-disiciplinary investigation
On 26 August 2003, Saif Saeed Shaheen of Qatar won the 3,000 metres Steeplechase
event at the World Track and Field Championships, at the Stade de France in
Paris. For many reasons this was a significant occurrence, in part because he “was
a fortnight ago Stephen Cherono of Kenya” (Barnes, The Times, 27 August). The
fuller significance of this change in name and country may be found in the fact that
Kenyans had won the previous six world titles, the past five Olympic Gold medals,
and the runner-up on 23 August was a Kenyan (Ezekiel Kemboi). To add a
delicious irony to the event, Shaheen’s brother,Abraham Cherono, was competing
for Kenya. Where stands the relationship between “identity, nation, and sport”
with respect to this occurrence? The facts of the matter were that Shaheen had
been “bought” by Qatar in an—apparently blatant—attempt to boost their national
standing through sport. Sport could have been said to be the winner, in the respect
that this was probably the most exciting race of the entire championships, boosted
by the overtones of the Kenyan attempts to defeat their perceived Judas Iscariot.
But, where does that leave the not insignificant matter of “identity”? This recent
sporting item, illustrating the complexity of the aforementioned relationship between
“identity, nation, and sport,” serves to illustrate the potential import of this
special edition of Identities.
Downloadedby[90.178.132.210]at23:0402September2012
This special issue was initially inspired by the proceedings of the June 2001
international conference on “The Nation and Sport,” hosted by Brunel University,
West London. In the attempt to search for an inter-disciplinary focus, scholars of
sport and nation from different disciplines (anthropology, history, philosophy, and
sociology) and from twenty-six different universities (representing the European,
American, Asian, and Australasian continents) came together over two days. The
conference presented the current thinking of some of the leading scholars
specialising in particular national arenas, alongside new contributors. The range of
perspectives and paradigms threw new light on the political realities implicit in the
ongoing interface between the two philosophies of nation and sport and, ultimately,
led to the logical addition of a focus on “identities” to create the framework for
this edition.
Furthermore, in the academic domain of the study of sport, while the interventions
of historians, philosophers, and sociologists (particularly the latter) into sundry
aspects of the interface of nation and sport were commonplace before the end
of the last century, input from anthropologists had been relatively uncommon.
This fact is underscored by Carter’s (2002: 405) point “that there are no anthropological
journals that concentrate on sport.” (That having been said, the contributions
of Thomas Carter [2002] and Noel Dyck [2000] are evidence of a burgeoning
interest in sport as a legitimate matter for academic enquiry among anthropologists.)
The aforesaid conference attempted to rectify this imbalance, with invited
inputs from anthropologists GaryArmstrong and David Gellner, for example. This
special edition is intended to further the aforesaid interdisciplinary communion
while retaining the focus on “identities,” which is the bedrock of this journal.
In this essay, I focus on the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland. There is a particular ongoing change in attitudes toward the phenomenon
of English nationalism, which brings with it the attachments of nation, sport, media,
power, and culture in a unique and recent way (Hunter 2001). However, it is
not the purpose of this opening essay to search for an answer to the British/English
identity conundrum, but to draw attention to it as a significant exemplar of the
difficulty in mind-wrestling with the concept of identity and identity politics. Likewise,
in this edition,Armstrong and Hognestad’s article draws attention to another
facet of identity confusion, their research informing us of the assertion (indeed
boast) by citizens of Bergen that “they are not from Norway, they are from Bergen.”
They consider the dimension of “civic loyalty” in relation to the supposed requirements
of national loyalty in a wealthy Western European state that is famed for its
weather, homogeneity, political stability, and social democracy, surely adding to
the confusion evidenced by the non-sport-related exemplars of the Iraqi Kurds and
Nationalists in Northern Ireland (see the “National Identity and Sport” section in
this article).Wes Borucki’s focus on “Southern (USA) identity” and “honour” brings
in a “different” slant on the notion of identity characteristics. It is interesting to
note the frequency with which the term recurs, both from Borucki himself and his
sources, e.g., Wyatt-Brown. Borucki affirms that, in the 1920s and 1930s, college
J. S. Hunter410
Downloadedby[90.178.132.210]at23:0402September2012
football became a primary means of re-asserting Southern identity, that the martial
spirit of college football allowed Southerners to re-assert their sense of honour
(post Civil War) and that the concept of honour has defined Southern males’ outlook.
Hence, any seeming perceived narrowness in my initial focus will be seen to
expand through the above, and other articles, concluding with Jarvie’s contribution
on internationalism and global sport.
Sport in academe
What may be somewhat surprising—in the British context, at least—is that academic
studies specific to the concepts of nation and sport took until the 1980s to
emerge. If the historian Richard Weight (2002: 457–72) is correct, the football
(soccer) World Cup final (between England and West Germany) of 30 July 1966
was “an event which would come to dominate English national identity in the late
twentieth century.” Indeed, one may ask: why the hiatus between 1966 and the
1980s? Weight’s arguments correspond with my (2001) view that the very existence
of Scottish nationhood (Heffer 1999; Ichijo 1999; Ignatieff 1994) has been a
catalyst for the supervention of an English nation, with “the impetus from major
sports (including football) particularly” being a vital factor.
Indeed, 1986 may have been the watershed year for the emergence of specific
academic interest in the interface of nation and sport. Articles by John Hargreaves
and Alan Bairner in conjunction with John Sugden were exemplars of the crossover
from studies under a general banner heading of “comparative studies of sport”
to specific studies of nationalism as a phenomenon applicable to analyses of sport.
Language used by aforesaid writers is key. For example, Hargreaves (1986: 155)
referred to “a construction of the nation which embodies an accommodation to
. . . feelings of national identity” and Sugden and Bairner (1986: 98) stated, “in
1984 . . . Provisional Sinn Fein demanded that Republican punishment squads
desist from using hurling sticks, a long-standing symbol of Irish nationalism.”
These two examples alone, the former generic, the latter specific, sit easily under
the umbrella title of “the nation (or, nationalism) and sport” and illustrate the general
and specific in the paradigm “nation and sport.” By the 1990s, the edited
series by Allison (1993) (ref. Hoberman 1993 and “sportive nationalism”), Jarvie
and Walker (1994), and Armstrong and Giulianotti (1999), demonstrated the developing
breadth of consideration of the “nation and sport” by sport academics.
Evidence of press writers’ concern with the topic came with this later wave and
examples from this period are referred to in the next section. But the almost wholesale
absence of deferential concern relating to the interface of “sport and nation,”
from scholars of ethnicity and nationalism and from academics of anthropological,
historical, philosophical, and/or sociological persuasions, has left a vacuum
that this special edition is attempting to rectify. A recent and, by any standards,
significant exemplar of the sins of omission is given by Conversi’s (2000) treatise
on “The Basques, the Catalans and Spain.” The status of each and every soccer
Identities, the Nation, and Sport 411
Downloadedby[90.178.132.210]at23:0402September2012
match between FC Barcelona and Real Madrid is surely internationally recognised
as much more than a game of football, indeed an expression of cultural and historical
differences (see Jarvie, in this edition). Conversi (2000) draws conclusions
based on historical and cultural explanations, yet the aforementioned (at least biannual)
occurrences of (not just sporting) significance fail to merit mention. Walton
(2001: 119–133) offers a sharp contrast: his essay on Basque football recognises
the anthropological, cultural, historical, and political surrounds and the import of
their interface with sport.
Notable exceptions to “the absence of deferential concern” have appeared, e.g.,
Hobsbawm (1990: 143)—“The imagined community of millions seems more real
as a team of eleven named people”—and Hutchinson’s (2001) observations on
“nationalism, moral regeneration and sport.” However, the temporal lapse between
the contributions from such distinguished scholars as Hobsbawm and Hutchinson
only supports the “vacuum” argument. The Association for the Study of Ethnicity
and Nationalism (ASEN), for example, has been in existence for over twelve years,
yet the subject matter of sport and nation has failed to reach journal or conference
status to date (though there are prospects that this august body intends to rectify
the omission1
). Identities (volume 9) has indicated its concern with the topic (Carter
2002; Sorek 2002; Armstrong 2002) prior to this edition, but exceptions prove the
rule. Armstrong’s (2002) perception that “Football (in Liberia) is thus capable of
evoking national pride and a sense of collective belonging” encapsulates the identities-nation-sport
interface that is worthy of more critical attention from a wider
academic base. Of particular relevance is Carter’s (2002) support—from an anthropological
perspective—for “the absence of deferential concern” theme. This
is illustrated by his view that there may be recognition of “the growing importance
of sport” among British sociologists and historians and that NorthAmerican equivalents
have followed suit, but these are “recent developments” (examples include
Jarvie and Walker 1994; Bairner 2001; Hobermann 1993; Jarvie 2001).
Sport and the press
If a “vacuum” exists, one does not need to refer to the laws of physics to know that
someone or something will step in to claim the space. In this particular respect, the
British printed press over the last decade illustrates not only their preoccupation
with the subject matter, but also their interest shifts (as a means to an end scenario?)
as the topic became increasingly newsworthy from their perspective. Why?
Coverage of international sport, incorporating, as it does, the sport/nation interface
sells newspapers, it being both dramatic and emotive, and sport itself being
photogenic. There is the added advantage to the press of being in a “can’t lose”
situation, i.e., the nationalistic behaviour, and all that it entails, of fans may be
sufficient to give them all the drama and emotion they need, never mind on-thefield
events.
Let us examine examples of the aforesaid “shifts.” In 1994, Michael Palmer
J. S. Hunter412
Downloadedby[90.178.132.210]at23:0402September2012
(Sunday Telegraph, 12 June) and David Miller (The Times, 13 June) made what
could be considered to be well-judged and moderate remarks, relating to their
perception of a developing negative relationship between nationalism and sport,
via their articles relating to the “soccer-inspired war” between Honduras and El
Salvador in 1969 (Kapus´cin´ski 1990) and the (then) forthcoming 1995 Rugby World
Cup in South Africa, respectively. Miller offered a “warning that nationalism (in
South Africa) will reach unprecedented proportions during the World Cup,” based
on his experiences of the 1994 South Africa versus England Test series. Not least
of the concerns was the fact that not two, but three, national anthems were played
before matches: both the old and new South African anthems were utilised (illustrating
Jarvie’s point made below). By 1996, Colin Welland (The Observer, 17
March) was demonstrating an even deeper concern in relation to Pakistan’s defeat
at cricket by India when he commented, “Nationalism, to my mind the dirtiest
word dreamed of in man’s philosophy.” The setting was Calcutta and the outcome
“unhinged the people of Pakistan, forcing their defeated team to fear their return
home, diverting their flight, effigies of Wasim (their captain) burning in the streets.”
His key message was warning Britain against complacency. However, in the same
year (albeit in the tabloids) extremism took centre stage as The Mirror, The Sun,
and the Daily Star used the European Football Championships (hosted by England)
to unleash headlines and photographs (e.g., two English players, Gascoigne
and Pearce, in World War II battle-dress), to promote articles that were, at the very
least, anti-German in tone and, at their worst, jingoistic. These led to the intervention
of Lord Wakeham, chair of the Press Complaints Commission, his intention
being to avoid a repetition of English jingoism impacting on the World Cup in
France in 1998 (to little or no effect, as it transpired). To quote Carol Midgeley in
The Times (14 May 1998):
In 1996 the commission said certain articles about the German football team were in
bad taste because they used analogies from the war . . . yesterday Lord Wakeham
appealed to the editors’ ‘common sense’ in an effort to avoid the jingoistic tabloid
headlined that appeared during the Euro 96 tournament . . . (he said) ‘we want to
have robust reporting and we don’t mind people being partisan’.
“Robust reporting” and “people being partisan”—hardly a censure! Mirabile dictu,
the above exemplars seemed, instead, to have effected (inspired?) a shift in stance
among broadsheet sports editors and writers by 1998. The previously implied
moderation of 1994 was replaced by, for example, Mitchell’s comment in The
Observer (5 July 1998) to the effect that the departure in defeat from the World
Cup of Germany, Argentina, and Italy was cause for indulgence in “a scintilla of
Schadenfreude,” raising the spectre of English nationalism in what is, after all, a
British broadsheet. However, jingoistic interludes continued unabated in the broadsheets
(despite Wakeham’s interventions in 1998). For example, Rob Hughes in
The Times (22 April 1999) drew the unwarranted (by any standards) analogy beIdentities,
the Nation, and Sport 413
Downloadedby[90.178.132.210]at23:0402September2012
tween “the old enemies . . . in the final of the European (football) Cup . . . England
versus Germany, Manchester United versus Bayern Munich,” despite the fact that
the majority of the Manchester United team were not English and a number of the
Bayern Munich team were, similarly, not German. Likewise, both had fan bases
that were both international and pan-European. The use of club, as distinct from
international, football in this instance only serves to underscore the extent of the
aforesaid “shift.”
An early snapshot vis-à-vis the arena of “nation and sport” is now evolving,
incorporating the negativity implicit in recent press intervention, the aforementioned
relative lack of interest from scholars outside the domain of sport studies,
and the largely sociological approach from sport academics. The point being made
is that while the academic study of sport has flourished internationally, the study
of nation and sport has been largely uni-disciplinary (sport sociology) and the
resultant impact on the press and, indeed, national and international sport federations,
has been limited.
National identity and sport
In and beyond sporting arenas, natural identity and nationalism continue to be
important concerns in Britain as well as in the other locations and societies examined
in this special issue (including Spain, the United States, Ireland, and Scotland).
The complexities of citizenship and national identity are clearly illustrated
through the following personal case. According to my passport, I am a British
citizen. This document states that I am a citizen of the United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland. So far, so good. When I go on vacation abroad, for
example, my national identity is seemingly explicit. However, my sporting interests
are multifaceted, with particular interests in football, rugby, and track and
field athletics. Now, in the first instance, I come from Northern Ireland; when that
“country” plays in a major football championship, I identify with Northern Ireland.
In the second instance (as alluded in Tuck’s and Bairner’s articles), rugby is
an all-Ireland team game, with which I again happily identify myself. In the final
instance, vis-à-vis the Olympic Games particularly, I come closest to the “vacation
scenario,” referred to above, as the United Kingdom identity manifests itself. Now,
the question is: how many of the foregoing are national identities?
My case represents (shared by many other people in the British Isles, I suggest)
“an identity continuum,” extending from the “strong” sense of national identity at
one end, to the “weak” sense of other national identity at the other. The “strong”
sense may be defined by the British citizen who believes in the concept of a United
Kingdom and is more likely to be seen waving a Union Flag at the “Last Night of
the Proms” or supporting the United Kingdom Independence Party, rather than
attending what s/he may see as the trivial and divisive issue of an England versus
Scotland game of Rugby Union—that “annual grudge match” (Ignatieff 1994).
However, definitional questions arise with regard to the notion of national idenJ.
S. Hunter414
Downloadedby[90.178.132.210]at23:0402September2012
tity. How permanent does it have to be? Is it not, by definition, a cradle-to-grave
scenario? Au contraire, how temporary can it be? Furthermore, where sits nationalism
with the post-Soviet and post-Yugoslavia “new nations” who find that the
most global acceptance of their new status is acceptance as a player in the International
Olympic Committee (IOC) and Federation Internationale de Football Association
(FIFA)? Similarly, the “national” football team of Palestine was admitted
by the Union of European Football Associations (UEFA) in 2002, yet is not a
“nation” as defined by United Nations acceptance.
I have previously suggested the temporary (indeed, very temporary) state that
national identity can imply in the sporting context and to the chameleon-like possibilities
that can come with it (Hunter 1995b). Examples abound, e.g., the renowned
footballer,Alfredo di Stefano, who represented bothArgentina (his homeland)
and Spain (courtesy of residence) in international soccer (Gellner 2001).
Sven-Göran Eriksson (manager of the England national football team) is a potential
cause celebre in this instance. It is to be assumed that the vast majority of this
Swedish-born man’s waking and working hours are spent in concern for the good
of the English national football team. He will speak English for most of the day,
associate with predominately English people by and large, and feel with the nation
in their hour-and-a-half of footballing needs when the occasions arise. He may
indeed feel English in his most defining moments. However, he cannot be English
in more than a temporal dimension; he is Swedish and, in all probability, will
remain so.
With the continuum of national identity outlined, I sit somewhere between the
British Bulldog type and the Sven-Göran Eriksson model, with “stronger” and
“weaker” senses of national (indeed, non-national) identities completing the framework.
However, the situation is complicated by the existence of what may be called
pseudo-national identities, derived from sporting allegiances. An example of this
may be found in the situation where the majority of Scottish soccer fans will support
“anyone but England” at World and European occasions (particularly when
Scotland has not qualified for the tournament). To quote Bairner (2001: 51), “it is
frequently only to the extent that sport can be recruited to the traditional antiEnglish
cause that it truly unites the Scottish people.” Another example of the
malleability of national identity in sport come in the attraction of Samoans to play
for the New Zealand All Blacks on the World Rugby stage. Inga Tuigamala was
probably the most successful import, playing for theAll Blacks from 1991 to 1993
and thereby making his name as an outstanding player in World Rugby terms. This
enabled him to carve out a professional rugby career—in England—and he was
then able to return and play for his native Samoa. The irony is that it was economic
advantages that caused him (and others) to move to New Zealand, but the subsequent
economic advantages gained through his success allowed him to resume his
actual “national identity” through sport. (The Cherono-Shaheen/Kenya-Qatar scenario
portrayed in the opening paragraph of his essay is a far from novel occur-
rence.)
Identities, the Nation, and Sport 415
Downloadedby[90.178.132.210]at23:0402September2012
In search of Jerusalem: anthems and emblemism
Since 1992, I have had a long-held and ongoing concern with the use of national
anthems at international sporting events and have, for example, taken the (English)
Football Association (FA) and the (English) Rugby Football Union (RFU)
to task for their instrumental stance in the perpetuation of the use of the British
national anthem before matches featuring their national (English) teams. Now, the
question is asked: when is an anthem a national anthem? By definition, an anthem
has a hymnal quality and a national anthem is an officially recognised national
hymn (or song). This begs a further question: who designates the “official recognition”?
The contradiction created by the (mis)use of an anthem that is officially not
theirs by the FA and RFU is self-evident.
In relation to the foregoing, an international contrast is offered by the fact that,
while England teams use “God Save The Queen” as probably little more than a
“battle-cry” (Hunter 1992), the Belgian national football team is heralded with La
Brabonçonne, to the evident disaffection of the Flemish support contingent (Govaert
1997). In the latter instance, however, the flag that is waved by supporters is the
Belgian flag, not the Flemish or Walloon alternatives. The contrast could not be
starker. A further contradiction is exhibited by the fact that Scottish national teams
use “Flower of Scotland” as their “anthem.” It contains specific anti-English lyrics,
yet is used at Scotland versus England matches (in rugby, for example), consecutive
to “God Save The Queen.” The wider implications can be seen in noting
“the adoption by such a conservative institution as the Scottish Rugby Union of
. . . ‘Flower of Scotland’ . . . was a profound gesture” (Jarvie and Walker 1994: 4).
The situation, however, is complicated by the use of “anthem” in strong and
weak senses (as with “identity”). The strong sense, in this case, has an implicit
“goodness”; the weak sense leaves usage open to misuse and abuse.Authors herein
touch upon these different senses. Bairner refers to “(England) rugby (fans) acquiring
their own anthem—‘Swing Low Sweet Chariot.’”Armstrong and Hognestad
refer to the pre-match rites at a home game for Brann football club in Bergen,
where “the crowd of over 18,000 stood and sang a rendition of what sounded like
an anthem . . . but it was not the national anthem.” Universal/technical language
problems abound.
The case for emblems is, if anything, even weaker. “National” emblems, e.g.,
the Irish shamrock, have little substance in the aforesaid “official” sense of state
recognition and the common confusion in the United Kingdom over correct terminology
in the case of the Union Jack/Flag only underscores this point. However,
sport fans attach great import to their “emblemism”—a growth aspect of the 1990s
(an era of adoption of symbols of identity, whether that be of their club, their
country, or indeed multi-national manufacturers, e.g., Nike)—and nowhere was
this better exemplified than by the introduction, or “resurrection” (Heffer 1999:
33), of the Cross of St. George into English football. Ironically, the appointment of
Sven-Göran Eriksson as England coach in the same year as the Cross of St. George
J. S. Hunter416
Downloadedby[90.178.132.210]at23:0402September2012
appeared for the first time on players’shirts created a seeming paradox—an apparent
limit placed on the extent to which nationalistic traits should be pursued against
an increase in seeming visual aspects of Englishness. Perhaps the football authorities
were, by then, well convinced by Perryman’s (1999: 15–32) view that “football
(has) acquired . . . a central role in projecting and reflecting what it is to be
English.” One may ask of Perryman: what is quintessentially English about football
support? His references to the St. George’s flag and an “alternative” national
anthem (at international football matches) are followed by the view that “it can
give (the English) an identity to play with.” This is hardly a notion of English
identity that is likely to find favour with fellow Britons, other Europeans (particularly
in those cities where the England football team has played in the past decade),
and—not least—among many English people, including English football
supporters.
Jarvie (2001) has suggested that “ultimately the elimination of national flags,
national anthems and the parading of national teams would reduce political tensions
between nations.” Herein, he draws attention to Cronin’s (1999: 23) question,
“is sport being appropriated by countries in the search for a new national
identity?” (The latter was paralleled by the thinking of Hunter in 1994, when the
author used the more strident sense of “misappropriation.”) Borucki takes a slightly
different tack on the emblematic issue. Alongside the concept of “honour,” references
to “the Confederate battle flag” permeate his article. The fact that “there is
no more waving of the Confederate battle flag at the (University ofAlabama home)
stadium” can be viewed as an intra-national exemplar of support for Jarvie’s contentions
referred to above (see Borucki, in this edition). A concluding question is
posed at this stage: does the use of anthems and emblems in conjunction with sport
strengthen or weaken (indeed temporise) the notion of national identity?
Nation-state
Hutchinson’s (1994: 1–2) reference to “the success of the French Republic as the
first nation-state” suggests that France of the time indeed possessed the characteristics
that embody nation-statehood with a new, and common, sense of identity
claimed by their citoyens. However, moving forward from then to the end of the
last century, in particular to the temporal surrounds of the (football/soccer) World
Cup in France in 1998, how accurate would the assertion be that the acclaim of the
French people for the success of their national team was representative of a similar
expression of nation-statehood?Would not the notion of interactive multiculturalism
(Mi˘scevic 2001) be a more appropriate framework to understand national identity?
This example is intended to broach the notion that population shifts, immigration,
and political correctness with respect to multiculturalism may have shifted
the definition of the nation-state. There are two extremes that can be used to illustrate
this point. On the one (good?) hand, Nelson Mandela’s vision of a “rainbow
nation” should—if the vision became reality—lead to a “rainbow-nation-state”
Identities, the Nation, and Sport 417
Downloadedby[90.178.132.210]at23:0402September2012
(though the terminology sounds somewhat too labyrinthine to suggest universality).
On the other hand, the ethnic cleansing—often undertaken by the paramilitaries
drawn from the football terraces (Vrcan and Lalic 1999)—that led to the establishment
of the new Croatia inadvertently caused it to be an example of strictly correct
use of the term nation-state. Relevantly, and somewhat ironically, sport played its
part in both the above shifts. South Africans’ success in the 1995 Rugby World
Cup in their own country was an event that Mandela himself, resplendent in Springbok
jersey, held dear as a crucial stepping stone for the “rainbow-nation” conception
(see Jarvie, in this edition). In Croatia, the 1998 World Cup third place finish
demonstrated football’s role in nation-building. Sack and Suster (2000) use the
emotive verb “shocked” in relation to the effect of the latter on the international
football community, although how much the “shock” was related to unforeseen
success or a seeming triumph for an ethnic-nation-state is open to interpretation.
In this edition, Bairner refers to “a sense of belonging to a nation state of which
one is not a citizen,” a notion paradoxical to some. The apposite reference by
Armstrong and Hognestad to the conception of a “city-state” has relevance here.
How do we define nation and state today, and how is sport related to both? Although
Ross (2002: 42) suggests that “wrangling over terminology and abstract
concepts often seems pointless” (in his case, in particular relation to “the East
German past”), he goes on to defend such “wrangling” and “to point out the limits
of particular concepts against historical evidence.” It is possible that recent history
may have rendered universal usage of the term “nation-state” passé, even if this
may seemingly conflict with Hutchinson’s (1994: 134–163) arguments when he
concluded, “the nation-state is not dead.”
An unlikely (if ecclesiastically cerebral) source of support for the demise of the
notion of the nation-state came from the newArchbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan
Williams, via his Dimbleby Lecture in December 2002. The Archbishop considered
that “we are witnessing the end of the nation state, and that (it) is being replaced
in the economically developed world by what some call the market state.”
(It is not the purpose of this essay to debate this issue in depth but, if the Olympics
and World Cups are now more about marketing than sport, there is a good case to
be made here.) However, Matthew Parris of The Times (21 December 2002) took
him to task for his “misconception,” as he put it. Parris suggests that “though many
existing nation states may feel threatened—from separatist nationalisms within or
supra-nationalisms above—nationalism as a human force is alive and kicking; some
would say too hard.”
Measured agreement with the Archbishop’s stance is one of degree rather than
kind. His “market state” conception comes at the negative end of a concept-replacement
continuum; it is argued that the notion of “interactive multiculturalism”
might fill the void if we accept the notion that “nation” and “state” have become
uneasy bedfellows, in substance and in literal, conjunctive terms.
I pose another question at this stage: have deliberations on the import of the
nation-state been an almost exclusively male preserve? Support for my stance comes
J. S. Hunter418
Downloadedby[90.178.132.210]at23:0402September2012
from Colls (2002: 115–123), who devotes most of a chapter to “The Women,”
asserting that, even in an advanced democracy such as Britain, “women’s relationships
with the state were always ambiguous.” Similar echoes rebound from Deb’s
(2002) article, vis-à-vis the Indian imbroglio, when he concludes that, “the relation
of state to women is patriarchal, undemocratic and class differentiated.” However,
if my contention that the term “nation-state” may be rendered passé holds
true, the same may not be said of the interface of identity, nation, and gender.
Bringing sport, and an anthropological reflection, into the equation, Carter (2002:
414) notes that, “Sport and gender is a burgeoning theme within sports studies”
and refers to “gender, identity and sport” as a “critical issue.”
Identity, nation, and gender
A term that is common currency with regard to “the nation” and “women in sport”
is exclusion (Hargreaves 2001). A parallel is suggested with the Alabama case, as
outlined by Wes Borucki. An examination of his article (Borucki, this issue) suggests
that even established nations might have difficulties with inclusion; a strong
literal contrast is offered via these two scenarios.
As an acknowledged authority on the subject, Jennifer Hargreaves (2001) illustrated
her concern “with the interplay between sport, gender and nation . . . (and
how) women in sport . . . negotiate their identities and places in the nation.” She
stated that “even when women are the focus of attention, other processes of exclusion
are taking place” and drew on the exemplars of Olympic champions Hassiba
Boulmerka and Cathy Freeman to exemplify this argument. In the former case,
Boulmerka “took up residence in other countries” in order to escape the Muslim
fundamentalist position but remained an “Algerian national,” suggesting that the
nation can have its cake and eat it, too. In the latter case, Hargreaves’ view is that
“Cathy Freeman represents a myth about democratic freedoms and equal opportunities
for Aboriginal women in Australia” (refer also to Jarvie’s article in this issue).
A salient question that arises is whether or not “identity, nation, and sport”
(similar to “nation-state”) comprise a male construct and/or seeming preserve (the
latter emanating from the former) leading to “exclusion”? Hobsbawm appears to
have answered this question in the affirmative when he observed that “what has
made sport so uniquely effective a medium for inculcating national feelings, at all
events for males, is the ease with which . . . individuals can identify with the
nation. . . .” (1990: 143, emphasis mine). Jarvie’s remark that, “it has been suggested
by some that . . . in a dour Calvinistic Scotland . . . the notion of sport and
nationalism does not . . . involve Scottish women” (2001) also tends to support this
conclusion.
The foregoing can be considered in the light of Sarah Pink’s article in this issue,
with the discriminating factor being that bullfighting in Spain is in essence an
intra-national, rather than international, sport. That does not make her arguments
any less powerful per se; the fact that bullfighting resonates with the notion of
Identities, the Nation, and Sport 419
Downloadedby[90.178.132.210]at23:0402September2012
Spanish masculine machismo, if anything, strengthens the case for examination of
the intersections between gender, identity, nation, and sport, such that the “prejudice”
perceived by Pink and “marginalization” (of black, disabled, and lesbian
women; Hargreaves 2001) may become more universal concerns. The articles in
this issue exhibit male support, indeed conscience, for the concerns of Pink and
Hargreaves. Gellner (2001) has observed that “women’s national sports teams . . .
are very far from being popularly accepted as equally valid and worthy representatives
of the nation” and Bairner (this issue) connects “the masculine element” to
“the patriarchal power relations that affect sport throughout the world.” Recognition
that there is a problem is, at least, one step toward solving it.
Patriotism: the last refuge. . .
Unlike other “family” concepts, there is no body of knowledge available for “patriotism,”
in the definitional or applied senses, that is comparable to the extensive
literatures on nationalism and identity, for example. Exact reasons why are difficult
to detect. Suffice it to say that a world weary of two world wars and their
supposed patriotic worth may be one; the purported archaic sense of the term may
be another. Gellner (1983: 138) did suggest definitive connections between “nationalism”
and “patriotism,” with “loyalty” being a central feature; perhaps his
“high culture” emphasis has rendered his stance archaic in the intervening years.
In order to refute the outmoded conception of patriotism as the “last refuge of a
scoundrel,” I will focus instead on the modern interpretations attributed to the late
Russian intellectual Dmitri Likhachev, i.e., “For me, patriotism is the love of one’s
country, while nationalism is the hatred of other people’s” (as quoted in his ‘Obituary’in
The Times, 1 October 1999). The question then arises of how to apply this to
the sport axis if, indeed, it can be so applied.
Two distinct approaches to this question have emerged in recent years. The
1998 Gothenburg conference on ‘Sports and Values’ led to the publication of articles
by Morgan (2000), Dixon (2000), and Gomberg (2000), all of which explored
various connections (or purported connections) between sport and patriotism.
Second, the very title of Weight’s (2002) historical tome—Patriots—suggests
an eminently relevant source, particularly with the presence of the “national
identity” sub-titling. In it, he explores the decline of Britishness and the purported
rise of powerful new identities in the constituent parts of the United Kingdom,
from the perspectives of cultural, economic, political, and social history, with a
partial focus on “sport” and “identity.”
Adding to the confusion, the articles by Morgan, Dixon, and Gomberg are placed
together in a section called “Nationalism,” yet patriotism (not nationalism) is the
subject matter of the latter two articles. And Morgan (2000: 75) uses the notions
interchangeably, stating that “patriotism . . . (is) . . . one important strand of nationalism.”
Dixon (2000: 75) introduces the notion of “moderate patriotism” and proceeds
to infer that “patriotism in sport can result in a jingoistic lack of moral reJ.
S. Hunter420
Downloadedby[90.178.132.210]at23:0402September2012
gard.” Gomberg (2000: 89) goes further when he refers to the prospect that “patriotism
in sport may be part of a national identity that leads to mass participation
in patriotic wars.” Gomberg (2000: 92) also makes troubling (in this author’s
eyes, at least) connections between “war,” “national identities,” and “patriotism.”
Acceptance of the foregoing stances would certainly distance us from the
Likhachevian model. However, total absence of consideration (indeed, mention)
of the conceptions of “civic” and “ethnic” nationalism weakens the arguments
from any standpoint (Bairner 1999: 12–25.)
The recent availability of Weight’s sentiments was expected to throw an academic
light of definition on the topic of “patriots.” However, definitional stances
again prove to be elusive. Within the sport axis, he offers the perception that “football
was becoming an equal source of patriotism” in drawing an analogy between
the reaction of the English public to (a) the rampage by Scottish football fans when
they invaded the Wembley pitch after the 1977 match between England and Scotland,
tore up large sections of the turf and broke the goalposts, and (b) the removal
of the Stone of Scone—“an ancient symbol of Church and state”—fromWestminster
Abbey in 1950.Apart from the temporal gap (which might suggest a largely different,
interested “public” on each occasion), the juxtaposition of “football” and
“patriotism” does not sit easily: football and Scottish nationalism were bedfellows,
surely, by 1977. Without the sport axis, he allies his thinking with that of
Gomberg (2000), referred to above. In relation to Dr. Samuel Johnson’s “last refuge”
notion, he accepts that it is “often taken out of context” but proceeds to ascribe
it (“perfectly,” in his view) to Margaret Thatcher’s “manipulation” in relation
to the Falklands conflict in 1982. Football, nationalism (Scottish or otherwise),
Church, state, war: an absorbing potpourri, but one that surely does not
bring us closer to an agreed stance on “patriotism” per se.
Perhaps more than any other writer, Grant Jarvie has consistently embodied the
terms “patriot(s)/patriotism” in connection with sport. Jarvie (1994: 1–8) considered
the argument that “sport . . . helps to consolidate . . . nationalism, patriotism,
and racism.” Herein, as one example, he refers to the argument that “sport helps to
build national identity and patriotism.” However, if any conclusions can be drawn
from the foregoing interlude, they suggest that definitional problems continue to
abound.
The American (USA) sport and language axes can also be seen to present a
further problematic twist to the above. Bairner (2001: 92–110) quotes no less than
four authors—Wilcox, Pope, Crepeau, and Sage—who all make value judgements
in respect of a perceived connection between sport and patriotism. Without commenting
on the validity of these judgments, it is worth recalling the fact that the
pre-eminent sports in the United States (American football and baseball) are intranational
concerns; when they do participate in major international sports competitions,
e.g., the Davis Cup (tennis) Final in 1992 and the Ryder Cup (golf) in 1999,
the overtones have been blatantly nationalistic and not patriotic in any true sense
of the latter word.
Identities, the Nation, and Sport 421
Downloadedby[90.178.132.210]at23:0402September2012
In the first instance, the United States was competing against a small country—
Switzerland—and, with home advantage, in Fort Worth, Texas. TheAmerican team
consisted of a “dream team” of Andre Agassi, Jim Courier, John McEnroe, and
Pete Sampras (the Swiss had just two players—Jakob Hlasek and Marc Rosset).
The fact that the United States won, as expected (3–1), became largely irrelevant
in the light of the behaviour of their supporters and players. Commentators at the
time referred to the deliberate unsporting tendencies of the spectators and the flagwaving
antics and bad-mouthing of the players (Hunter 1995b). In the second
instance, the United States victory over Europe was marked not by their comeback
from 6–10 down, but by the reaction to the manner of their celebration of victory.
When Justin Leonard holed what turned out to be the winning putt, it provoked the
invasion of the green by players, wives, caddies, and spectators—all in contravention
of golf’s etiquette, which demanded that they wait until Olazábal attempt his
putt. Particular anger was expressed about American player Tom Lehman’s
behaviour; how much of which was related to the fact that he was a professed and
practicing Christian is difficult to gauge. Typical of the reaction to the victory was
that it “was tainted by jingoism and poor sportsmanship” (www.golftoday.co.uk/
tours/tours99/ryder/preview29.html).
May it simply be the case that the term “patriot” has different meanings in
different parts of the English-speaking world? (After all, the United States uses
the term “patriot” as an epithet with a particular brand of missile.) However, can
we allow this to “be the case”?An extension to the “vacuum”—created by linguistic
non-definition and/or misuse, in this instance of “patriot(s)/patriotism”—would
appear to have been created. I would contend that the role of academics is critical
for the resolution of the “definitional problems” and will return to this matter in
my conclusions.
Conclusion
This special issue of Identities is intended to address various interweavings between
sport and nation that affect the construct of identity. The aspects of religion
and national identities (Bairner), sport and “making” nation (Tuck), internationalism
and patriotism (Jarvie), gender (Pink), race (Borucki), and “city versus state”
identities (Armstrong and Hognestad) are all elements that are, in their own right,
worthy of singular attention in the study of identities, power, nation, and sport.
These articles suggest that the impact of sport, in a commercialized, increasingly
global era, on nation and identity may be one of the most powerful factors to
influence the shaping, indeed reshaping, of identities in the twenty-first century.
The dangers arising from the interface of sport and identity, leading to “reshaping,”
should be by now apparent: if the proliferation of “non-national identities”
and “pseudo-national identities” continues unchecked through sport, what ultimate
effect will that have on poorer nations (in economic terms) particularly? Gender
equity and equality may be settled on paper and in debate, but the reality in the
J. S. Hunter422
Downloadedby[90.178.132.210]at23:0402September2012
field of sport is another matter altogether. The lack of accord on the very language
is apparent. The reaction of scholars, politicians, and captains of the sport industry
to these warning signs may determine whether the “reshaping” of identities occurs
to the disadvantage or advantage of nation and individual. Scholars of the topic
must take a lead that the aforesaid “politicians and captains” can follow. It is pleasing
to note Thomas Carter’s (2002) arguments regarding the positive future for
anthropology and sport but, at the risk of sounding trite, I would suggest strongly
that there is strength in unity and that the sooner we adopt a multi-disciplinary
approach, so much the better for the influence that we can bring to bear. The collective
investigative tools are available and have sophisticated quality. The timing
could not be more apt, with the growing impact of sport in relation to identity,
culture, and power.
Notes
Received 20 June 2003; accepted 4 September 2003.
Address correspondence to John S. Hunter, 30 Partridge Road, TheAvenue, Hampton TW12 3SB, UK.
E-mail: jshunter40@hotmail.com (The author was formerly Head of Physical Education and Sport
Sciences at Brunel University, West London.)
Sincere thanks are due to Sebastian Garman, my colleague at Brunel, for his role in influencing my
insight into studies of identities, the nation, and sport over more than a decade. Whether it was by his
introduction of me to the Association for Studies in Ethnicity and Nationalism, his support as copresenter
of “The Nation and Sport” Conference in 2001, and/or the endless (or so it seems in retrospect)
morning coffees when we debated the issues arising and put the world (of nations) to right, the
resultant effect was profound. I have valued his academic camaraderie and scholarship, and this journal
edition reflects on his contribution to the conference.
1. Communications between the author and John Hutchinson, 2002.
2. Survey of Philosophy of Sport students, Department of Sport Sciences, Brunel University, West
London, 2002.
3. Conversations with Professor John J. Jackson, University of Victoria, B.C., Canada, reminiscing on
the academic contributions of our former colleague, the late Peter McIntosh.
References
Anon. 1999. www.golftoday.co.uk./tours/tour99/ryder/preview29.html
Anon. 1999. Obituary column, The Times, 1 October.
Armstrong, Gary and Richard Giulianotti 1999. Football Cultures and Identities. Basingstoke, UK:
Macmillan.
Armstrong, Gary 2002. Talking Up the Game: Football and the Reconstruction of Liberia, WestAfrica.
Identities: Global Studies in Culture and Power 9 (4): 471-493.
Bairner, Alan 1999. Civic and Ethnic Nationalism in the Celtic Vision of Irish Sport. Sport in the
Making of Celtic Cultures. Grant Jarvie, ed. London & NY: Leicester University Press.
Bairner, Alan 2001. Sport, Nationalism and Globalization: European and North American Perspectives.
Albany: SUNY Press.
Identities, the Nation, and Sport 423
Downloadedby[90.178.132.210]at23:0402September2012
Barnes, Simon 2003. The Times, 27 August.
Carter, Thomas 2002. On the Need for an Anthropological Approach to Sport. Identities: Global Studies
in Culture and Power 9 (3): 405–422.
Colls, Robert 2002. Identity of England. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.
Conversi, Daniele 2000. The Basques, the Catalans and Spain. London: Hurst.
Cronin, Mike 1999. Sport and Nationalism in Ireland: Gaelic Games, Soccer and Irish Identity Since
1884. Dublin: Four County Press.
Deb, Kushal 2002. Secularism, Personal Laws and Gender: The Indian Imbroglio. Studies in Ethnicity
and Nationalism 2 (2): 20–29.
Dixon, Nicholas 2000. A Justification of Moderate Patriotism in Sport. In Values in Sport. T. Tännsjö
and C. Tamburrini, eds. London & NY: E & FN Spon.
Dyck, Noel, ed. 2000. Games, Sports and Cultures. Oxford and New York: Berg.
Gellner, David 2001. Why are the British So Peculiar? Anthropological Reflections on Sport, Nationalism
and Hierarchy. Paper presented at the Nation and Sport Conference, Brunel University, West
London, June 13–14.
Gellner, Ernest 1983. Nations and Nationalism. Oxford: Blackwell.
Gomberg, Paul 2000. Patriotism in Sports and in War. Values in Sport. T. Tännsjö and C. Tamburrini,
eds. London & NY: E & FN Spon.
Govaert, Serge 1997. L’hymne National Belge Fait-Il Encore Frissoner? Nationalismes sportifs.
Quasimodo (Printemps): 117–120.
Hargreaves, Jennifer 2001. Outsiders in the Nation: Sport and Women on the Margins. Paper presented
at the Nation and Sport Conference, Brunel University, West London, June 13–14.
Hargreaves, John 1986. Sport, Power and Culture. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Heffer, Eric 1999. Nor Shall My Sword. The Reinvention of England. London:Weidenfield and Nicholson.
Hoberman, John M 1993. Sport and Ideology in the Post-Communist Age. The Changing Politics of
Sport. L. Allison, ed. Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press.
Hobsbawm, Eric J. 1990. Nations and Nationalism Since 1780. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Hughes, Rob 1999. The Times, 22 April.
Hunter, John S. 1992. “Negative effects of anthems.” The Times, 31 December.
Hunter, John S. 1995a. Nationalism and Sport: ACase for Separateness to Mutual Advantage. Physical
Activity for Life: East and West, South and North. B. Svoboda and A. Rychtecky, eds. Proceedings
of the 9th Biennial Conference of the International Society for Comparative Physical Education
and Sport July 2–7, 1994. Prague, Charles University.
Hunter, John S. 1995b. Nationalism and Sport: Further Perspectives. Proceedings of the 38th ICHPER–
SD World Congress, Scientific and Pragmatic Aspects of Health, Physical Education, Recreation,
Sport and Dance, July 9–16. J. W. Varnes, D. Gamble, and M. B. Horodyski, eds. Gainesville:
University of Florida.
Hunter, John S. 2001. The Emergence (or Re-emergence?) of English Nationalism with Sport as the
Catalyst. Paper presented at the Nation and Sport Conference, Brunel University, West London,
June 13–14.
Hutchinson, John 1994. Modern Nationalism. London: Fontana.
Hutchinson, John 2001. Nationalism, Moral Regeneration and Sport. Paper presented at the Nation and
Sport Conference, Brunel University, West London, June 13–14.
Ichijo, Atsuko 1999. When was the Nation? The Scottish Case. The ASEN Bulletin. 17 (Summer): 3–
11.
Ignatieff, Michael 1994. Scotland: A Different Country. BBC TV Scotland. Independent. 14 November.
Jarvie, Grant and Graham Walker, eds. 1994. Scottish Sport in the Making of the Nation: Ninety-Minute
Patriots? Leicester: Leicester University Press.
Jarvie, Grant 2001. Sport in the Making of Nations. Paper presented at The Nation & Sport Conference.
Brunel University, West London, June 13–14.
Kapu´sci´nski, Ryszard 1990. The Soccer War. London: Grant Books and Penguin Books.
J. S. Hunter424
Downloadedby[90.178.132.210]at23:0402September2012
Midgeley, Carol 1998. The Times, 14 May.
Miller, David 1994. The Times, 13 June.
Mi˘scevic, Nenad 2001. Nationalism and Beyond: Introducing Moral Debate about Values. Budapest:
Central European University Press.
Mitchell, Kevin 1998. The Observer, 5 July.
Morgan, William J. 2000. Sports as the Moral Discourse of Nations. Values in Sport. T. Tännsjö and C.
Tamburrini, eds. London and NY: E & FN Spon.
Palmer, Michael 1994. Sunday Telegraph, 12 June.
Parris, Matthew 2002. “For God’s Sake, Archbishop, This Isn’t the State We’re In.” The Times, 21
December.
Perryman, Mark 1999. The Ingerland Factor. Edinburgh: Mainstream.
Ross, Corey 2002. The East German Dictatorship. London: Arnold.
Sack, Alan L. and Zeljan Suster 2000. Soccer and Croatian Nationalism. Journal of Sport and Social
Issues 24 (3): 305–320.
Sorek, Tamir 2002. The Islamic Soccer League in Israel: Setting Moral Boundaries by Taming the
Wild. Identities: Global Studies in Power and Culture 9 (4): 445–470.
Sugden, John and Alan Bairner 1986. Northern Ireland: Sport in a Divided Society. The Politics of
Sport. L. Allison, ed. Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press.
Vrcan, Srdjan and Drazen Lalic 1999. From Ends to Trenches and Back: Football in the Former Yugoslavia.
In Football Cultures and Identities. G.Armstrong and R. Giulianotti, eds. Basingstoke, UK:
Macmillan Press Ltd.
Walton, John 2001. Basque Football Rivalries in the Twentieth Century. Fear and Loathing in World
Football. G. Armstrong and R. Giulianotti, eds. Oxford: Berg.
Weight, Richard 2002. Patriots: National Identity in Britain 1940–2000. London: Macmillan.
Welland, Colin 1996. The Observer. 17 March.
Wright, Lesley J. M. 2001. Sport, the Nation and National Pride. Paper presented at The Nation and
Sport Conference. Brunel University, West London, June 13–14.
Identities, the Nation, and Sport 425
Downloadedby[90.178.132.210]at23:0402September2012