Patheos

BuddhistCatholicContemplativeEvangelicalGeneral ChristianHinduJewishLatter-day SaintMuslimNew VisionsProgressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Patheos

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos Patheos on Facebook Patheos on YouTube

eidos

In Praise of Woggabaliri (The Sports Fandom DIscussion Continues)

Last updated on: October 27, 2019 at 5:05 am   by John Mark N. Reynolds

In Praise of Woggabaliri (The Sports Fandom DIscussion Continues) 2019-10-23T18:21:15-04:00 John Mark N. Reynolds

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Are professional sports good for a community or for us?

I think so, maybe. A critic, but a good faith one, suggests that I am quite wrong.  Steve Baughman, lawyer and gadfly (in the good way!), argued that professional sports fandom is quite bad, for the Republic and for us. His argument was interesting, but I thought it failed philosophically and practically. 

Now I am excited to present a response to my defense of the good done by professional sports fandom. Following normal guest discussion rules here, Mr. Baughman will have all the space to himself for a day and then I will respond the next. I greatly appreciate Baughman’s engagement with an issue that while less important than some life or death issues of our time impact many.

If I should not enjoy an Astros game or love watching the Packers play, then I want to know. The dialectic, the wonderful wondering about everything when a person meets a sensible critic, is the best way I know to find out. Thank you Mr. Baughman for pursuing the dialectic on sports fandom with me.

Mr Baughman writes:

In Praise of Woggabaliri.

This is a terribly awkward time to be defending a case for the irrationality and dangerousness of professional sports fandom. Not only did the World Series start about an hour ago but, if I understand correctly, one of the competing teams is from my interlocutor’s hometown. Yikes!

It is also awkward because John Mark Reynolds makes some powerful points against my view. Indeed, on first reading his lengthy and thoughtful piece I was inclined to lighten up a bit with all my distress over the intensity and pervasiveness of professional sports fandom. After all, with insightful and self-reflective people like that amongst pro-sports fans, why should I worry? Or at least, why should I worry so much?

Still, while Reynolds has given me much to think about with his comments, I am back to worrying.

Before I explain why, there are a couple of issues that we should dispense with because they manufacture disagreement between me and Reynolds where none actually exists. My argument is that professional sports fandom is irrational and dangerous, not that it is without positive qualities. Yes, friendships are made, nerds and jocks bond, Jackie Robinson and Jesse Owens moments break odious barriers, and, as Reynolds eloquently puts it, “The very triviality of the immediate connection in pro-sports, the rituals and the boundaries, make meeting of minds from different classes easier.”

Good stuff, no doubt. But the same happens in Dullybonking. (Don’t google it; it’s a placeholder word I just made up to stand in for almost any irrational and dangerous social group activity you can think of.) Passions-in-common, even irrational and dangerous ones like those displayed by Dullybonkers, can do good stuff. So I consider Reynolds’ point about the positives of pro-sports fandom not very relevant to the issue in play here.

Also, I hope I made it clear that I fully share his point about the spectacular artistry professional athletes demonstrate and the merriment they impart to us spectators. Oh, and the excitement! Didn’t I say I love watching runners caught in the pickle? And Roger Federer’s astonishing between the legs shots? And if I actually watched a Green Bay Packers game I would undoubtedly feel the same about their skill.

So after conceding that there is all this good stuff, what’s my problem? I will now climb back into the trenches and resume firing.

Significantly, Reynolds and I agree that the activities in pro-sports are trivial, arbitrary and banal. What I would like to see him do is direct more firepower to my claim that the irrationality of which I complain resides precisely in caring so much about these trivial, arbitrary and banal things. That is the heart of my concern!

Reynolds does acknowledge that everybody knows it is “just a game.” But that seems to me platitudinous. Why do the “just a game” folks scream so loudly, bite their nails, get angry at the umpires, experience elevated pulses, euphoria, sadness, and rejoice with intense vigor despite the palpable disappointment of some young man who really really wanted to be a hero (with his mother likely watching) striking out to lose the game? This does not sound to me like “just a game.“ And these, by the way, are not excesses of fandom, like beating up supporters of the opposing team. These are integral parts of what professional sports fandom is. If you doubt me on that, close your eyes and try to picture fandom without these. This intensity of passion over the admittedly trivial, the arbitrary, and the banal, strikes me as plainly irrational.

Reynolds mentions music as analogous to sports fandom. His point, I take it, is that since nobody complains about all the passion we feel for music, why be uptight about sports? Well, because nobody cares who wins the symphony. Nor do the violins cheer when the cello breaks a string.

Imagine the Green Bay Symphony playing Lambeau Field to a wildly cheering crowd. Violinists of color would break racial stereotypes. Conversations in the parking lot over beer and peanuts, or perhaps wine and cheese, would yield friendships across class and other boundaries. The aging cellist whose fingers are giving out would play her final concert to thankful admirers who give her a tearful standing ovation after the encore. Etcetera. All the benefits of pro-sports would accrue, but without the hard-to-defend focus on competitive outcome.

(Parenthetically, I also think it would be difficult to make a case that what the Green Bay Symphony does is trivial, arbitrary and banal to the same extent as what, say, the Packers do. But I will leave that point unargued for the time being.)

OK, so caring who wins may be hard to defend. But what’s the danger in that? Here nuance is important. No, I do not equate wearing the Packer Cheesehead with wearing a Klan hood. My claim is far more modest than that. Here it is stated succinctly.

All things being equal, social movements that focus on defeating out-groups are less conducive to cultivating values that promote social harmony than groups that do not have such a competitive focus.

I find the above position intuitively plausible, though it is an empirical question that I’m not prepared to advance with any evidentiary vigor. Still, it’s worth pondering. Let’s go back to Lambeau Field. Which group of 81,441 fans is going to get along better, the one comprised of people unified around their love of music and for this orchestra, each hoping for the best experience for all in attendance, or the one comprised of two groups focused on subjecting the other to defeat?

Let us take this now into life outside the stadium. Which population is more prone to hostility towards out-groups, the one that has cultivated cooperative values with a win-win focus (like art, music, and various non-competitive sports like those once popular amongst Australian), or the one that seeks and rejoices in the defeat of opponents?

I remain convinced that ours will be a better world when the Green Bay Symphony plays to a packed stadium while the Green Bay Packers host a bake sale to raise funds to mend the jerseys before the next season starts. And I remain troubled that our society has things so extremely the other way around.

Finally, speaking of the benefits of non-competitive endeavors, I very much appreciate the value that Reynolds places on the dialectic. Regardless of what one concludes about, or from, this discussion I have benefited very much from being forced to think more deeply about this issue. I am grateful for the opportunity to have this back-and-forth with such an able thinker as Reynolds.

Well, the big game is probably over so I will stop now. I don’t give a hoot who won, but I hope there was lots of merriment on both sides.

Culture

Previous Post



October 26, 2019

A Political Update: Nobody Still Knows

Next Post



October 28, 2019 In Mild Praise of Professional Sports Fandom (A Summation)


Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Apologetics Art Culture Education On Books On Education Philosophy Politics Pop Culture Spiritual Reflections Uncategorized

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 July 2025 June 2025 September 2024 July 2024 June 2024 December 2023 June 2023 September 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012


Follow Us!

Follow Us on Facebook



TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

In Revelation, how many elders sit on thrones around God's throne?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Twelve Seven Twenty-four Seventy

Books by This Author John Mark Reynolds

See All Titles »

Related posts from Eidos

Evangelical

Yet I Love Her: History and the Church

Eidos

Evangelical

Vain Repetition

Eidos

Evangelical

The Iceberg is There: Verbosity Cannot Defeat Reality

Eidos

Evangelical

Silence and Jollification

Eidos

TRENDING AT PATHEOS Evangelical

The REST of Your Life: A Creative Wrestles...

This week I had a conversation with a good friend from church....

How the author of the world's best hymn...

I've been working with John Newton for a while now. This makes...

Psalm 130 | Lectio Divina

Long before this Lectio Divina, Psalm 130 - the song - started...

What About the Trees? Another Living Parable

After I finished writing the last article about falling leaves as a...

Why Classical Education Is a Conversation, Not a...

Come and Read: Joy in Classical Education When I was a little...

What Happened at Cornell?

Cornell University has received a great deal of negative publicity and intense...

view all Evangelical blogs

Patheos on Facebook Patheos on YouTube

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Copyright 2008-2026, Patheos. All rights reserved.

Subscription Support Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In

Follow Patheos Patheos on Facebook Patheos on YouTube