The first, and least interesting reason is good old-fashioned hypocrisy. For whatever reason we (i.e. the viewing public and, by extension, the media) are not satisfied if great athletes are just that. No, we also want them to be role models, all-around great people who we'd like our children to emulate. Role models have to avoid saying (and doing) anything controversial--and that's one reason that, when interviewed, they so often choose to simply not say anything at all (sure, words are coming out of their mouths, but those words have no meaning). Why is this hypocritical? Because there's very little overlap between the sets "great athletes" and "great role models." Successful athletes are overly competitive. Overly competitive people are much more likely than the general public to be raging a******s. You can't have your cake and eat it too; if you want your sports to be played by the best athletes available, you simply have to accept the fact that most of your sports heroes will be people who do things like this. Or much worse.
It isn't the case that athletes say uninteresting and unintelligent things because they are less intelligent and interesting than average (sure, some of them are, but I think it's a small minority). They say them because, for reasons I don't quite understand, that is exactly what we want to hear. I know this because whenever a sports star says things that are honest and/or insightful, they are invariably punished for saying them by the media. Here's an example. In the 2007 U.S. Open, Serena Williams was visibly out of form. Playing rather poorly, she was trounced in the quarterfinal by Justine Henin. Famous players hold press conferences after big games, be they wins or losses, and there are certain well-defined things that the media expect them to say. If you lost, you're supposed to compliment your opponent, saying that "she just outplayed you today" or some such, as well as give some half-baked reasons as to why you think you lost ("I made too many unforced errors" or "My drop shot was off today" or "I'm still not quite back from my injury" or whatever). Now in the press conference she held after her loss to Henin, Serena Williams said nothing of the sort. Instead, she appeared to give answers that were honest. (Watching it, it seemed that the reason for it was that she was too embittered by her loss to care about playing the usual media games.) She said she didn't really know why she lost. She refused to credit Henin for her win; she said it was her losing the game rather than Henin winning it. When some journalist, frustrated by everyone's inability to coax Serena into saying the usual things, asked her why she was even there, she answered that she was there because absence would earn her a fine, and as long as she kept losing games she couldn't afford to pay fines. I remember the amusingly sanctimonious indignation of the media after that press conference. Sports journalists were outraged at Serena for being "ungraceful," "disrespectful" and a "sore loser." But anyone who watched that press conference had to know that she was truthful. So it looks as though we want athletes to say very specific things, and punish them for saying anything else, even though we all know perfectly well that the things we want them to say are lies. Why is that? Maybe it's just me, but I think this is a very interesting question.
A basic tenet to any game is some level of fairness. Players and fans want it because it solidifies their positions. There could be no win (and no loss) without fair competition--that is, to buy into the game, to allow oneself to become individually associated with a team, you have to match your loyalty with the knowledge that your team wins or loses because of your teams intrinsic ability. So, speaking after a game does a few things that maintains this fairness. First, it keeps things relatively objective about the past game. It also maintains that future games will be neutral (at least on the surface). Second, there's a need for many to provide a clear story-line to the game, to provide justification, that is, to the end result. Finally, keeping the exterior neutral sets up the mental buy-in for the next game--that it too will be played accordingly. IOW, to reveal a hostile, emotional, or distraught side is to minimize the differences between teams, or competitors, to say that there is no reason for the outcome of the game, and we, the consumers, don't like it (and won't pay for it).
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure, but do think that people desperately hope it is true (i.e. that meritocracy exists).
ReplyDeleteNo, that usual lip service doesn't really do it for me, I admit. But then again, there's a reason we watch sports, and part of it is to fill the spaces that don't add up in everyday life. One could make the case that the entire industry is based solely on taking viewers' money (or time), which provides nary a compelling narrative to follow along. But give people a dividing line to believe in, and you interject something fairly precious that we want: a sense of belonging. We want that more than we are rationally prone to divest such a belief given some easy words by the actual athletes, who, we all know, aren't the smartest bunch in the first place (wink).
ReplyDeleteIt's my fault that we're getting stuck on sports, because I only used one example to illustrate my question; but my post wasn't really about sports. My question is generally about situations in which there is a social norm for people to say certain things, and even though almost everyone knows that the prescribed things to say aren't true, violators are punished. I see no plausible reason why such norms would evolve, yet they are very common in many types of social interactions (sports, politics, romantic relationships, workplace relations, bar fights... I think I should write a post with more examples). At any rate, the answer can't be specific to sports.
ReplyDeleteAt first blush, then, my instinct is to say that we're really unsure about the speaker's relation to our position--are they hostile, friendly, something in between?--so we've developed standard key words to relay information until both parties relax enough to say more precise or authentic statements. I'll think about it more though, and please do post some examples when you have a moment.
ReplyDelete