of Full Text rests with the original

copynght owner and, except as pennitted under the

Copyright Act 1968, copying this copyright material
is prohibited without the pennission of the owner or
its exclusive licensee or agent or by way of a licence
from Copyright Agency Limited. For information
about such licences contact Copyright Agency
Limited on (02) 93947600 (ph) or (02) 93947601
(fax)

as if to war
Angela Mitropoulos
I
N ONE SENSE - a conspicuous
sense - the paradox of sports
rhetoric is this: it is perfectly
acceptable to applaud
sports people in terms such as
'elite athletes' while, at the
same time, designating those
who do not applaud as 'elitists'.
Of course, there are slightly
different (though not unrelated)
meanings for {elite' here: the
first indicates Ithe best at
something'; the second suggests"
'a"ristocratic' or 'exclusive'. But
what the association of the two
_makes .possible are the self-
-denials which link sport to
populism, where
outcomes, whether as sporting
victories or as social power, are
habitually accounted for as the
result of something rather
mystical called 'merit'. In both
cases, the theory of 'the level
playing field' - that there is
indeed such a thing - becomes
the condition of applauding the
ranking: .
What therefore seems at first
glance to be a paradox is instead
the means to admit hierarchy
while prOViding explanations for
it that place it beyond reproach,
or beyond the realm of social
relationships and therefore
beyond change. In sport, money
is not classified as a perform-
ance-enhancing substance. It is
as if the money which goes to
financing coaChes, training,
92 overland.lbb.2002
proper nutrition, the Australian
Institute of Sports, and so on is
irrelevant to results, careers, the
fate of particular Sports, or even
whether or not a particular
activity is considered to be a
proper sport by being included
in-the schedules of the Olym-
pics. No matter how much
obvious effort is put into
obtaining money - as well as
the disbursement of money by
corporate sponsors - the denial
of its role remains central to the
presentation of sports and the
character of the applause. Merit,
in sports, is supposed to inhere
in the body, 'drug-free' and au
naturel. At times, there are
references to inheritance, in the
form o.f parental decisions and/
or an imputed predestination.
But such things are at best
occasional remarks set to
underscore narratives of lifelong
commitment. In any case,
populists, far from subscribing
to an egalitarian vision of the
world, believe any existent'
social hierarchy is merely the
distilled essence - the creme de
la creme - of Ithe people', which
is in turn construed as a biologi-
cal entity, a family. HaVing lost
any meaningful basis as a
critique of the aristocracy,
populism becomes restated
principally as a doctrine of
identity and belonging, where
the mechanisms of exclusion
and inclusion which constitute
'the people' are deemed to be
natural, or rather bodily.
It is no coincidence, then,
that when sport meets politics
on Australia Day, it is by way of
re-asserting these relationships
between hierarchy, biology and
'the people'. In a more emphatic
sense, it is about reinserting
actual bodies within fictional
terrain of 'the national body' - I
will come back to this. Indeed,
what could be more politically
pressing than to re-assemble
these connections as a benign,
indeed sporty affair at a time
when not only is there an
increasing recognition of a
simple but embarrassing histori-
cal fact (that this event cel-
ebrates the day the English
Crown declared its ownership
of this continent), but when
there are hunger strikes in the
internment camps? No coinci-
dence either that the journalistic
cliches run to the familial and
therefore biological: UPat Rafter
is everyone's favourite son",
uthe quintessential Australian
boy".' Debate around naming
Patrick Rafter as Australian of
the Year turned, not at all
surprisingly, around whether or
not someone who did not live in
Australia could be granted the
award, or not he
should be married to have a
child, and whether or not he
still called Australia home. What
was put into question here was
less the question of Rafter's tax
arrangements, than of the
extent and propriety of his
national and familial (and
distinctly biological) commit-
ments.
What does this mean for not
::-----"onlyhowwe-conceive of our
bodies, but also what we are
prepared to do to them in
!espect _of fictional body of
'the-natio'n? Sport has a very
particular set of codes about
proper and improper violence.
Moreover, violence in sport,
when it is deemed to be
improper is dealt with by
various tribunals rather than the
couns - much like the military.
But sport, unlike soldiering it
might be objected, is done for
enjoyment, or play.
Nevertheless, someone might
play sport, but sport is rarely
play. The increasing importance
and extent of sport does not
indicate any increase in play. On
the contrary, it points to the
increasing significance of leisure
in the context of a shift in the
sense and intensity of work.
Leisure recalls play, to be sure;
but leisure unlike play remains
coupled to work. This
relationship'to work can be
immediate, as it is for those Wl:lO
work in the sports industry. For
professional athletes, the extent
of managerial control over their
lives outside of their actual
work time is without parallel,
bar one: soldiers. On the other
hand
l
as it is for most of us, it is
entertainment, leisure. For
whatever else sport does for me
when I watch tennis or soccer, it
is principally as rest and
relaxation. T? put it more
bluntly: it is, like all leisure, the
consumption of a more or less
enjoyment as a trade-
off to laborious or joyless work.
However, what interests me
above all is the nature of this
enjoyment, which still recalls
the classical relationship of
sport to war, and thereby of the
complex relations between
sport, leisure, work and war.
One could easily point to the -
sometimes anything but
symbolic - exuberant warring
between national fans. As for
sport itself, the terms can be
quite explicit. As McKay notes,
"During the 1996 Australian
Open journalists constantly
referred to him [Mark
Philippousis] in militaristic ways
(e.g., 'firepower', 'major
weapon', 'sinking his target',
'blown away')."2
But, right along with an
idiom that transforms sport into
war and sportspeople into war
. machinery comes the warlike -
and often distinctly passionate -
injunction to perform one's
national duty. What transforms
'the Scud' into 'the Poo' other
than the implication that
Philippousis is feigning injury so
as to shirk working/warring for
the nation in the Davis Cup?
What transforms Cathy
Freeman from an exceptional
runner into an icon for
'reconciliation' other than the
suggestion, made with pride
rather than embarrassment by
some commentators, that she
proved to 'us' that not all
Aborigines are 'lazy'. For both
Freeman and Philippousis, it is
not simply that they are accused
of being lazy or that anyone is
surprised that they are not.
Rather, it is that at the of
belonging, the point at which
proof is required, what becomes
explicit is that the stereoty'pes in
play are related not to sport per
se, but to work. Here, work is
no longer just work, however
enjoyable or tedious. It is work
as a national duty; work for the
good of something called 'the
national economy'. And so, the
narrative that sport delivers to
populism is that by 'working
hard' you might belong, you
might even get rich. Merit can
be rewarded. This is why it has
become common for populists
to defend-actual social elites
against criticism by accusing the
critics of being 'elitist'. To be
'elitist' in this sense is to refute
the notion of merit as an
explanation for social power
and wealth, to disturb the
fantasy that one just might, if
one 'works hard', become
powerful and wealthy also. You
won't necessarily, but you just
might .. '. In the meantime, do
your national duty. Go to work
as if to war.
ENDNOTES
1. Weekend Australian, 26-27
January 2002.
2. J. McKay, 'Men, the media and
sporting heroes', XY: men, sex.
poliocs, 6(2), Winter 1996.
Angela Mitropoulos is nonetheless prep-
ping for the soccer match ot Woomera
2002.
London Letter
Katherine Gallagher
T
HE POETRY of sport.
Whenever Australia hits
the news here, there's an 80 per
cent chance it's something to do
with sport. Cricket, tennis,
rugby, swimming, athletics,
darts. Mostly as played by the
guys. Well there was Cathy
Freeman. And the Australian
hockey girls and swimmers get a
fair bit of notice. But sport as a
feminist issue?
The main Aussie news
2002.1oo.overland