It’s Human Nature


I think anybody who saw France’s capitulation to Spain can agree that Florent Malouda, a footballer who is to footballing what Adam Mars-Jones and Philip Hensher are to novel-writing, should have made at least some effort to pick up Xabi Alonso as he burst forward to get on the end of Jordi Alba’s cross and score the first goal of the evening. ITV’s Jamie Carragher took very little time to highlight Malouda’s utter disinterest in shoring up his side’s flimsy defence during the half-time punditry, and – had I been born in Dijon rather than Darlington – I’d be pretty adamant that the Chelsea something-or-other should never pull on the bleu ever again. That said, I was astounded by Roy Keane’s contribution to the analysis. He began in typically Keanian spirit, saying somthing along the lines that any professional should have internalised the idea that tracking back when one’s team is in trouble is a fundamental part of the game. However, this swiftly turned into generalisation. ‘It’s human nature,’ he blurted, in his (arguably reasonable) concern to make sure that Adrian Chiles knew what he was talking about.

Is it ‘human nature’? There’s a Marxian approach to Darwin that says the wrong elements of Origin of Species were emphasised in Victorian Britain, as ‘competition’ was elevated above ‘mutual aid’ in an effort to naturalise certain basic principles of industrial capitalism. Certainly, evolutionary science might do well to play up the theory that we’re hard-wired to help each other out rather than to snipe, undermine, and generally look after our own ends. It might serve as a corrective to lunk-headed Mail blog commentary about ‘common sense’, at least, and we might begin to put to bed timewasting hair-splitters such as ‘altruism is really just another form of selfishness’. However, Keane – who I’m normally a big fan of – got under my skin tonight. The implication wasn’t that providing assistance to those in need of it is an inherent human trait, I think – it was that football-mindedness is something we’re all secretly given to. It was a claim for the game’s universality based in its alleged similarity to lived experience which, to me, demeans football’s particularity, cutting away the aspects that make it different from other team sports.

The claim that football is somehow a pure analogue of human experience in general doesn’t work for me. It might serve as a pathway into broader concerns, but its inital spark lies in its difference rather than in its similarity. By that, I mean that it produces a skewed image of what-we-do-the-rest-of-the-time which serves as a vantage point onto the everyday: that’s to say that modernist poetry or painting offer more valid points of comparison than realist fiction or drama. Every attempt to make football into a simile for day-to-day life falls short somehow, and I’d be willing to bet that we’d turn our backs on it pretty fast if a point-for-point metaphorical exchange was possible. Of course, social factors are huge influences on how football is played in a given location, but these are the starting points of tactical trajectories rather than objects of unimpeded mimesis.

By Joe Kennedy

You can follow Straight off the Beach on Twitter @S_ot_B and on Facebook.

About these ads
Tagged ,

5 thoughts on “It’s Human Nature

  1. Imij says:

    Not selfishness, but a positive experience for self resulting from doing good / helping others. As cited, Victorian/ industrialists/wealth creation against Marx/common good, interpretation is perhaps in the eye of the beneficiary? ( That’s the limit of my typing on phone keyboard for 2 very complex questions)

  2. Karl Whitney says:

    Or, to paraphrase what Eamon Dunphy said: ‘I think it’s Ribery who’s been causing the problems’. Presumably, based on some sort of after-six-pints phrenological reading of the winger’s head.

  3. SotB – so good that even my mum comments on it! My point was that many Victorians deliberately read Darwin against the grain in order to legitimise a kind of selfishness (you can find similar things happening in the States at the time), and that this gave rise to (what I think was) an unnecessary interrogation of altruism. What I mean is that I don’t think it does much good to question altruism as a concept, lest you begin to make people self-conscious about being altruistic. If you see what I mean.

  4. Karl – if it’s Ribéry *again*, I despair. Dunphy’s probably wrong though, right?

    Idea for reality TV show – football pundits must immerse themselves in a nineteenth-century (pseudo-) scientific discipline and apply it to all of their analysis. This week, some literally shocking fun as Richard Keys and Andy Gray study galvanism!

  5. Karl Whitney says:

    I think Dunphy may be wrong about this. He’s most likely employing a hybrid pseudo-scientific system known as ‘leopards don’t change their spots/I’m not going to do any research/where did I leave my pint?’

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 377 other followers

%d bloggers like this: