[mundizzle]

i always found Chomsky's take on sports to be quite interesting...

"Take, say, sports -- that's another crucial example of the indoctrination system, in my view. For one thing because it -- you know, it offers people something to pay attention to that's of no importance. [audience laughs] That keeps them from worrying about -- [applause] keeps them from worrying about things that matter to their lives that they might have some idea of doing something about. And in fact it's striking to see the intelligence that's used by ordinary people in [discussions of] sports [as opposed to political and social issues]. I mean, you listen to radio stations where people call in -- they have the most exotic information [more laughter] and understanding about all kind of arcane issues. And the press undoubtedly does a lot with this.

You know, I remember in high school, already I was pretty old. I suddenly asked myself at one point, why do I care if my high school team wins the football game? [laughter] I mean, I don't know anybody on the team, you know? [audience roars] I mean, they have nothing to do with me, I mean, why I am cheering for my team? It doesn't mean any -- it doesn't make sense. But the point is, it does make sense: it's a way of building up irrational attitudes of submission to authority, and group cohesion behind leadership elements -- in fact, it's training in irrational jingoism. That's also a feature of competitive sports. I think if you look closely at these things, I think, typically, they do have functions, and that's why energy is devoted to supporting them and creating a basis for them and advertisers are willing to pay for them and so on."

http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/1992----02.htm

[m_d]

Here is another quote from Chomsky. It makes a lot of the same points, but it is much less hostile towards sports fans:

"Well, let me give an example. When I'm driving, I sometimes turn on the radio and I find very often that what I'm listening to is a discussion of sports. These are telephone conversations. People call in and have long and intricate discussions, and it's plain that quite a high degree of thought and analysis is going into that. People know a tremendous amount. They know all sorts of complicated details and enter into far-reaching discussion about whether the coach made the right decision yesterday and so on. These are ordinary people, not professionals, who are applying their intelligence and analytic skills in these areas and accumulating quite a lot of knowledge and, for all I know, understanding. On the other hand, when I hear people talk about, say, international affairs or domestic problems, it's at a level of superficiality that's beyond belief.

In part, this reaction may be due to my own areas of interest, but I think it's quite accurate, basically. And I think that this concentration on such topics as sports makes a certain degree of sense. The way the system is set up, there is virtually nothing people can do anyway, without a degree of organization that's far beyond anything that exists now, to influence the real world. They might as well live in a fantasy world, and that's in fact what they do. I'm sure they are using their common sense and intellectual skills, but in an area which has no meaning and probably thrives because it has no meaning, as a displacement from the serious problems which one cannot influence and affect because the power happens to lie elsewhere."

Basically, sports fans aren't stupid, they just don't think they can have any effect on anything more important (ex: politics).

http://www.alternet.org/noam-chomsky-why-americans-know-so-m...

[oofabz]

This position taken by Chomsky is exactly what the article is denouncing, and I think Chomsky comes off as a smug jerk here.

If Chomsky believes cheering for your classmates is stupid, then he must believe that we should be perfectly objective and treat everyone exactly the same. If you're a judge or President, you have an obligation to the public to act that way. But me, I'm glad I have the luxury of showing preference to my friends and family. I care about my neighbors more than people on the other side of the world. And yes, I will root for my home team and cheer when they win.

I don't believe it's irrational or wrong to play favorites this way. And even if it were, it's so fundamental to being human that we could not be any other way. Perhaps we are a jingoistic species.

[jamesmcq24]

I agree that it's completely rational to care more about your neighbours or family than people far away from you, but I don't think that this completely transfers to sports. You might feel good for a short time if your "home team" wins a game, but it really doesn't matter in any sort of concrete way. It won't have any lasting effect on your life.

Your neighbours or family or country succeeding could very well make a real difference in your life. I think those that dislike sports do so not because they reject preference or a sort of tribalism, but because beyond some short-lived feeling of vicarious success, sports are completely meaningless.

Mind you, so is a huge majority of entertainment...

[robg]

We are a tribal species. Teams (and schools) are modern tribes.

[nerfhammer]

I find this view to be highly overly teleological. The idea that there's really a secret nefarious purpose is one of those extraordinary claims that needs extraordinary evidence

[grandalf]

Your criticism is valid, but something does not need to have been deliberate for those in power to take advantage of it. Sports serve much the same purpose in secular society as rituals do in religion.

Also, the sport calendar can be used to time communications, particularly those w/ a populist message. Natural events are used this way fortuitously all the time (storms, natural disasters, 9/11, etc.)

[eric_cc]

I don't know that he necessarily means that sports were designed with these purposes in mind. Sports/games in general have always been diversions and that's why they're popular.

[dinkumthinkum]

Be careful, you are making too much sense! No, but this overly conspiratorial stuff is common among non-philosophers when discussing such matters. It's all about what one can conflate with anything with some mildly plausible excuse.

[guelo]

I totally agree with Chomsky. It is indoctrination. I always found the routine military displays especially troubling. The American version of the communist dictator's military parade.

And then there's the weird government/corporate partnership on stadiums. And the protected monopoly status.

[disbelief]

I think you're equating all sports with American Football. Which, granted, is more or less what the original article did as well. I totally agree about the military displays, the nationalism and religious overtones that get mixed in with Football in the US. But that's one sport. There are many others, and aside from probably Nascar, none of them come close to Football in those terms.

[Avshalom]

>> I suddenly asked myself at one point, why do I care if my high school team wins the football game? [laughter] I mean, I don't know anybody on the team, you know? [audience roars] I mean, they have nothing to do with me, I mean, why I am cheering for my team? It doesn't mean any -- it doesn't make sense.

The thing is though that applies to Odysseus, Hamlet, Charles Foster Kane... Narrative in general. Our investment in any form of entertainment is equally nonsensical.

[serve_yay]

I think the situation is worse -- people want to look away, they want to be distracted. It's not foisted on them. (I include myself here, for what it's worth)

[dinkumthinkum]

Training for jingoism? You know, I think part of being an intellectual is not only to learn things and develop thinking skills but also deeper thinking skills. I think this is sort overly indulgent scifi novel hyperbole. But it's not just you, this sort of thinking is kind of shockingly common among, I guess, programming minds. I just think the world is more complicated than that.

[Ar-Curunir]

And he conveniently ignores the uniting factor that supporting a club or team provides. It united a community and gives people a feeling of belonging.

It doesn't have to be one (rational and critical thinking) or the other (supporting a team). I don't understand why so many people on this thread can't see that.

[logicalmind]

In my opinion, most people want to be part of their "team". Where the definition of team is highly dependent on the context. When you're a teenager, you're team is typically your high school. But you can abstract this "team" concept upwards. If two states (in the US) were competing, then you'd support your state. If it was your country competing against another country, you'd support your country. Hypothetically, if aliens attacked earth, it would be quite interesting to watch the earthly team spirit arise and would likely change the perspective of many people and countries. In this hypothetical scenario would Chomsky still not support his "team"? Being part of team high school is bad? But being part of team earth is good?

[j-kidd]

Chomsky and Superbowl Party: http://www.thebrushback.com/Archives/noamchomsky_full.htm

Perfect article for those on HN who follow pro sports ;)

[robg]

Funny how Chomskyan approaches to Linguistics and Syntax require their own indoctrination and belief system and "the most exotic information and understanding about all kind of arcane issues".

Meanwhile, statistical approaches continue to win in the real world.

[zep15]

I think there's some truth to what you say about Chomskyan linguistics being dogmatic. But linguists aren't really playing the same game as the people in (e.g.) statistical machine translation, so it's hard to say the latter are "winning". Chomskyan linguistics is also just one of the various competing traditions in linguistics.

[conformal]

predictably well put from mr chomsky.

to effect a classic double flashback, fight club style, here's a dose of bread and circus from juvenal from CE 100:

"'It is scarcely possible that the eyes of contemporaries should discover in the public felicity the latent causes of decay and corruption. This long peace, and the uniform government of the Romans, introduced a slow and secret poison into the vitals of the empire. The minds of men were gradually reduced to the same level, the fire of genius was extinguished, and even the military spirit evaporated.' Now that no one buys our votes, the public has long since cast off its cares; the people that once bestowed commands, consulships, legions and all else, now meddles no more and longs eagerly for just two things----Bread and Games!"

http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/juvenal_satires_10.htm