To sports fanatics, the emotional attachment formed to a
team is sometimes inexplicable and to outsiders it is often incomprehensible. In The Secret
Lives of Sports Fans, Darwin Slept Here
author Eric Simons changes focus from following the story of evolutionary
theorist Charles Darwin to a look into the lives of athletic obsessives.
Through entertaining fan stories and research, Simons sheds a new light on what
it means to be a true fan, from the thrills of victory to the agonies of
defeat. He joins us today on the Overlook blog to dig deeper into the science
of fandom.
OP: The game of golf
is often considered one of the most obsessive sports, both by those who play,
and those who are spectators. Are fans generally more obsessed about team
sports than individual sports, like golf or tennis?
ES: I'm not sure I'd say more obsessed -- everyone, not just
sports fans, has the ability to obsess in similar ways, and people can become just
as obsessed about golf or tennis as they can about football ... or opera, or
fishing, or gardening. But my guess is that team sports offer more
opportunities for obsession and so catch a wider variety of fans -- golfers and
tennis players stand pretty much for themselves, and obsessing over them is
usually obsessing over their technique and style, or occasionally their
nationality. (See Andy Murray.) A team like the San Antonio Spurs has so much
more symbolic value: they represent not just individual players with all of
their own importance, but a region, a distinctive philosophy of basketball, a
color scheme, a mascot... I mean, look, I love ice hockey and I'm from the Bay
Area, but I've had a lifelong obsession with carnivorous marine life that makes
the name and mascot of the Bay Area's professional hockey team one of those
cosmic destiny sort of things for me. (Did you know that for Sharks games,
before the game they project video of real sharks swimming around on the ice?
They'll never do THAT at Wimbledon.)
OP: Describe the
“warrior sports fan.”
ES: There's this idea in evolutionary psychology called the
"male warrior hypothesis" that says evolution has really set men up
to find allies, join up in groups, and go beat the crap out of each other. It
suggests conflict is such a fundamental shaper of who we are that men have
evolved to excel at it, and that this explains a lot of the ways we behave
today. Which of course brings us to sports fans, those "mobs of little
haters" in the words of the muckracking journalist Upton Sinclair. I'm on
the fence about our evolutionary psychology, but I will say: I went to watch a
game once in the Bombonera stadium in Buenos Aires, where they apparently have
some male warrior concerns because they separate the home and visiting fans
with a four-foot high cement wall topped with another four feet of plexiglass
topped with what looked like concertina wire. So the home team was winning, by
a lot, and with every goal the home fans would go pouring into the wall, raining
abuse on the visiting fans, who would hop and jeer and gesture back. And about
the fourth or fifth goal they scored I remember this kid, probably 16 or 18
years old, just screaming by me, veins bulging on an arm raised in a warrior
pose, teeth bared, exhorting the visiting fans to acknowledge the greatness and
beauty of his universe, and when I think back on that many years later I just
kind of think, yeah, OK, maybe those warrior male researchers have a point.
OP: What is the
science behind the “fair-weathered fan;” fans who stop rooting for a team once
they start playing badly and jump back on the bandwagon once they start playing
well?
ES: The fair-weather fan quite frankly makes a lot of sense
from a psychological perspective. I mean, the question is really why WOULDN'T
you do this? What's wrong with us that we stick with a team that's losing
instead of doing the nice, apparently rational thing and enjoying them when
they're winning and not caring when they're losing? So I think the science here
is much more about the psychology that makes us so amazingly interested in
identifying potential freeriders and shunning them -- in the non-hierarchical
societies in which our minds evolved, those are some of the most powerful tools
we have for compelling others to behave. It's an investment joining the Raider
Nation -- of time, of money, of energy, of self-esteem (depending on your
perspective, of dignity). We are very, very keen on protecting that investment
by rooting out the people among us who are getting the benefits without putting
in the work.
OP: The growth of
sports clothing and merchandising has exploded in the last decade. What are the
primary factors that compel fans to buy and wear sports-themed products?
ES: There's pretty good suggestion that on a very literal
level your brain starts to merge your identity with the team's identity. I'd
say merchandise is mostly about people announcing their own identity, which we
all have to do somehow, anyway, whether we're wearing our Patriots TEBOW jersey
or, like I'm doing today, a T-shirt with a picture of a fish driving a tank. I
think the very public demonstrations of team loyalty -- like I don't just wear
the hat, I dress up Monday-Friday in a dog suit and bark at passerby in
Cleveland -- that's probably more a public signaling device to other people
that you're committed to the group, that again, you're sacrificing for the team
and no freeriders here, no sir.
OP: What about the
sports media? Can their levels of sports addiction ever be understood?
ES: They're addicted to sports in the same way US Weekly is
addicted to celebrity, which is to say that they make a ton of money on it and
as soon as the money goes away they'll find they weren't really that interested
to begin with.
OP: Are there any
countries, or even US geographical regions, where there doesn’t seem to be much
loyalty, obsession, or even interest, in sports?
No comments:
Post a Comment