Oliver Micklewright
Guest
|
Post by Oliver Micklewright on May 18, 2016 22:39:41 GMT
I thought that the two readings, “The Everyday Psychology of Nationalism” and “The Psychology of War” tie is nicely with each other seeing that nationalism can be and is one of the reasons people go to war.
I found it Interesting that sport was described as a “moral equivalent” of war – an activity which satisfies similar psychological needs to war, and has a similar invigorating and socially-binding effect. Do you think its possible that the vast increase in the popularity of sport has reduced the likelihood of war? I don’t know if sport can act as a substitute to war but I can find it believable that some people naturally need conflict and this need for conflict might be satisfied through conflict in the form of sports matches. So much money is spent on sports that there must be some basic human psychology behind this trend. What part of human nature do you think drives the popularity of sports?
I also found the psychology of nationalism very interesting and I agree that the need to belong is a fundamental human motivation. While reading the article I was drawing a lot of comparisons to the fraternity and sorority community here. I think the way some people get so attached to their sororities and fraternities is very similar to nationalism. Nonetheless I think the need to belong can also be related to family – why do you think people grow so attached to their families? Do you think these are the same emotions and reasons people develop nationalism?
|
|
|
|
Post by rebeccah on May 19, 2016 0:19:41 GMT
I definitely see the connection between war and sports. People innately have this need for competition and it's sometimes expressed with war, but a healthier, more beneficial solution is sports. Sports allows humans to feed their need for competition in a much more productive and less destructive way than if they used war.
On the topic of family and nationalism, I think they are both related because people grow attached to what they are familiar with and feel a part of. They grow up part of a family and similarly a country, so they feel this special connection to it, giving way to a strong sense of pride.
|
|
|
|
Post by rebeccah on May 19, 2016 0:47:13 GMT
I also personally feel a connection between sports and a type of nationalism. I'm from St. Louis, MO and while it's more than just farms as people think, the biggest event in our city is baseball. This is the main thing we are known for and take pride in. I recently went to a Dodgers game against the Cardinals and definitely felt a strong sense of pride in my city and it was a good way to illustrate the need for competition. However, this competitiveness can get out of hand. For instance, when players, or even fans get so emotionally invested, this competition can lead to violence, which is on a much smaller scale replicating war. Not only does violence sometimes occur, it is many times encouraged. The most exciting time in a hockey game is when there is a fight, or when a baseball player gets ejected. (I'll admit I'm guilty of having this excitement too, even though I know it's harmful).
|
|
Oliver Micklewright
Guest
|
Post by Oliver Micklewright on May 19, 2016 15:49:13 GMT
I agree that sports in themselves can actually lead to an elementary form of war. I don't know if you've seen the film "Green Street Hooligans" but this is essentially a dramatised version of what you are talking about. The film in set in the UK and is about the violent side of football (soccer) hooliganism between the two London clubs West Ham and Millwall. The two clubs are basically at war against each other and the supporters have such a great sense of nationalism to their teams that they are willing to die for them. This side of football hooliganism is often seen in the English Premier League.
|
|
Oliver Micklewright
Guest
|
Post by Oliver Micklewright on May 19, 2016 15:55:20 GMT
I also agree with the point you made about family and how people become attached to what they are familiar with and feel a part of. Nonetheless I think this is a little bit upsetting because I think it takes away from the sincereness and genuinity of a family unit - seeing as we are only close to our family because we have become so familiar to them and we have a basic human motivation to be accepted. I like to think that there is maybe something else, maybe of a little more substance, that attaches a person to their family.
Do you think a relationship with a girlfriend/boyfriend or just a friend has the same dynamic?
|
|
|
|
Post by lilyzhuo on May 19, 2016 21:10:00 GMT
I agree with rebeccah that people have an innate need for competition. As "The Everyday Psychology of Nationalism" article said, we seem to have an innate need to feel like we belong with a group, something to identify with, and this creates the "us v. them" mentality, which easily promotes comparing ourselves to them, because if our collective group is doing better, by association, I, the individual, will also be doing better. Thus, I think sports are a healthy alternative to war, although they are fundamentally different in their goals, as sports are for entertainment and national pride (nowadays), but war is for power, ideology, or because of cultural differences. It seems like people are becoming very attached to their sports teams, whereas back when baseball culture was highly prevalent (a few decades ago), it seems that people truly enjoyed the sport and the bonding experience of going to a ballgame. Now, it seems all about winning, and things can actually get dangerous when a team doesn't win. Being from Seattle, I remember the aftermath of Superbowl XLIX, when the Patriots won, and how people kept saying it wasn't safe to go out onto the streets because of local riots and fights. The pride we take in sports teams very much mimics the national pride we have that sometimes creates wars, though perhaps that pride we take in sports teams is actually the pride we take in our cities, in which case, it is even more similar to nationalism.
|
|
|
|
Post by Alexandre Denuit on May 19, 2016 22:52:17 GMT
Personally, I do think that sports has reduced the likelihood of war. Sports is a great way for nations to "fight each other" in a more peaceful way, with established rules and by avoiding casualties. For example, the olympic games are a great example of a competition where countries can go at it. It is also very interesting to notice that countries with the best athletes are also countries the better armies. Usually, the US, China, France, the UK, Russia... usually do well at sporting events, and are also very capable militarily. Why is there such correlation?
I think the movie Rocky IV is a great example of how sports can be a form of war. The boxing matches between Rocky and Drago are more than entertainment, they represent the struggle and frustration of the cold war.
|
|
Oliver Micklewright
Guest
|
Post by Oliver Micklewright on May 26, 2016 18:54:55 GMT
Thanks for your input Alex and for fifa yesterday evening. I think the correlation between the best athletes and best armies is too do with the level of development in the country rather than something to do with the psychology of nationalism.
A country with a high GDP and GDP per capita does not only have more $ to spend on national defence but a wealthier population is more likely to have the opportunity to engage and send $ on athletics. I think this is where the correlation stems from!
|
|
