My love-hate affair with the Olympic Games continues as I watch the magnificent display that is rhythmic gymnastics. Without question this is an activity that requires tremendous athletic ability, gymnastic acumen, coordination, body control, grace, flexibility, skill, etc. The dedication of these athletes cannot be questioned, nor their excellence, nor the pride they should feel for representing their countries in the Olympic Games.
Still, despite how vulnerable I am to Olympic spirit, I struggle to fend off the impression that this is an activity that does not belong in this competition. Or at least this is an activity that ought not to be framed as a competition at all.
In truth I'm reluctant to make definitive or sweeping pronouncements along these lines one way or the other; but it seems to me that rhythmic gymnastics crosses a boundary into the realm of performance rather than sport. Even plain old gymnastics, diving, figure skating, and other 'judged' competitions would seem more performative than competitive, with 'artistic' components that, unlike the relative beauty or awkwardness of a runner's form as s/he approaches the finish line, can actually determine who wins the event.
To be sure, all sport has strong performative elements (else we wouldn't be flocking to stars like Cristiano Ronaldo and Chad Ochocinco), and all performance has strong competitive aspects (else we wouldn't have films like Darren Aronofsky's Black Swan). There is no inherent or clear-cut line between sport and performance.
On the other hand, when we construct events around the concept of friendly and sanctioned athletic competition (i.e. the Olympics), perhaps we should pay better attention to the boundaries (or lack thereof) we're implying. To suggest that maybe rhythmic gymnastics is the sort of activity that doesn't belong in the Olympics is not necessarily to slight rhythmic gymnastics, but actually to argue for the fact that reducing it to gold, silver, and bronze judgments is itself a slight.
There is a broader context for these kinds of assessment mismatches. This is time in which awkward assessment protocols are brought to bear on a laughable breadth of activities: not just costumed, choreographed gymnastics performances scored as competition between performers (I use 'performers' here for effect, but as I suggested an athlete can be a performer and a performer can be an athlete), but humanities scholarship evaluated by the standards of 'impact' constructed for science and engineering projects, or visual art installments judged by their surrounding political import, or politicians judged for their construction of narrative.
Ultimately it's a messy world, a world in which evaluative frameworks are regularly misapplied. When watching the range of sports that today fall under the banner of the Olympic Games, I'm reminded that it's of great value to study and evaluate evaluative frameworks themselves.
Thursday, August 9, 2012
Wednesday, August 1, 2012
Notes On Chick-fil-a
Chick-fil-a (hereafter CFA) is a company that makes delicious chicken sandwiches, but they are also run by people who have expressed bigoted views on homosexuality. As a consequence we've seen lots of backlash against the company. People who don't like the views expressed by the company's ownership have organized boycotts and protests, and people who think it's awesome to hold bigoted views on homosexuality (and perhaps also like their chicken) have been patronizing the company as a gesture of political solidarity. This is all business as usual. That said, however, lots of people seem confused about the freedom issues and legal issues that this scenario raises. I'm here to clear that up for you in an uncharacteristically concise manner.
1) Full disclosure: I support marriage equality and gay rights, and I'm disgusted by the remarks of the CFA owners. But I also like their products. And if I stopped buying the stuff of every company whose politics I abhor, I'd be making my own clothing and soap, providing my own energy with a foot-pedaled generator, and firing homemade arrows at pigeons and neighborhood pets for food. Which is why I tend to fight my political battles with my words and actions and not my wallet.
2) No individual or private activist group is violating CFA's free speech by boycotting them or denouncing them. Despite the claims being made by conservatives who have stolen the self-victimization tactic from the left (only without a history of oppression felt by women and minorities to accompany it), there is no First Amendment violation going on here. To say there is suggests a serious misunderstanding of free speech, which is the right to speak your mind, but not to be shielded from criticism and other legal consequences of your speech. The only way this becomes a free speech issue is if city mayors (like Boston's) actually block the company from fair access to zoning licenses; but even there the law suggests that the prospect of having a bigoted company in the neighborhood risks lowering properly value, harming the local economy, etc., such that mayors can actually get away with that kind of thing. The case law allows room for such judgments, though I'm not a big fan of too much leeway here. Nevertheless, the Boston mayor (and others) are well within their rights to speak out against CFA, and this speech in mo way violates CFA owners' own free speech protections.
3) Much of 2 applies regarding freedom of religion as well. CFA is going to get criticized for anti-gay comments, but no one is infringing upon their freedom of religion in making such criticisms. Likewise individuals have the freedom of their own consciences to boycott the company because they don't tolerate bigoted views, religiously based or otherwise. However, if governments do discriminate based on zoning laws, as with the First Amendment discussion above, there may be a freedom of religion case. And there may not. Because...
4) What is actually illegal in many places is discrimination based on sexual orientation. If CFA turns out to discriminate in its hiring policies or it's treatment of employees, then the legal issue becomes a fraught one: not a question of freedom of religion, but of freedom from anti-gay discrimination. And a city most certainly doesn't have to grant zoning licenses to bigoted companies that violate discrimination laws. Mind you, CFA is a a fast food chicken restaurant, not a church or religious organization.
1) Full disclosure: I support marriage equality and gay rights, and I'm disgusted by the remarks of the CFA owners. But I also like their products. And if I stopped buying the stuff of every company whose politics I abhor, I'd be making my own clothing and soap, providing my own energy with a foot-pedaled generator, and firing homemade arrows at pigeons and neighborhood pets for food. Which is why I tend to fight my political battles with my words and actions and not my wallet.
2) No individual or private activist group is violating CFA's free speech by boycotting them or denouncing them. Despite the claims being made by conservatives who have stolen the self-victimization tactic from the left (only without a history of oppression felt by women and minorities to accompany it), there is no First Amendment violation going on here. To say there is suggests a serious misunderstanding of free speech, which is the right to speak your mind, but not to be shielded from criticism and other legal consequences of your speech. The only way this becomes a free speech issue is if city mayors (like Boston's) actually block the company from fair access to zoning licenses; but even there the law suggests that the prospect of having a bigoted company in the neighborhood risks lowering properly value, harming the local economy, etc., such that mayors can actually get away with that kind of thing. The case law allows room for such judgments, though I'm not a big fan of too much leeway here. Nevertheless, the Boston mayor (and others) are well within their rights to speak out against CFA, and this speech in mo way violates CFA owners' own free speech protections.
3) Much of 2 applies regarding freedom of religion as well. CFA is going to get criticized for anti-gay comments, but no one is infringing upon their freedom of religion in making such criticisms. Likewise individuals have the freedom of their own consciences to boycott the company because they don't tolerate bigoted views, religiously based or otherwise. However, if governments do discriminate based on zoning laws, as with the First Amendment discussion above, there may be a freedom of religion case. And there may not. Because...
4) What is actually illegal in many places is discrimination based on sexual orientation. If CFA turns out to discriminate in its hiring policies or it's treatment of employees, then the legal issue becomes a fraught one: not a question of freedom of religion, but of freedom from anti-gay discrimination. And a city most certainly doesn't have to grant zoning licenses to bigoted companies that violate discrimination laws. Mind you, CFA is a a fast food chicken restaurant, not a church or religious organization.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)