East-West Dialogue: Cross-Cultural Perceptions and Representations

Although studies on sports and nationalism are plentiful, studying nationalism through sports is a suitable answer to this critique because it shows exactly how common people assign meaning to their respective countries in light of an everyday phenomenon.

Introduction

Sports offer an opportunity to see how individual, national, and global factors together affect national identities (Skey 2013), studies of sports and nationalism are important because sports are everywhere in late modern societies and very often involve nationalist dimensions; these are apparent during international sports events such as the Olympics and World Cup, but are also found in domestic sports. Furthermore, since sports seem so important for many people, and so many resources are devoted to them, it is timely to question how they might have political and democratic importance. Sports being of consequence for national identity is one possible way to approach this question. Even though a huge literature on nationalism exists, a common critique has been the “failure to see the everyday nationalism that organizes people’s sense of belonging” (Billig 1995; Calhoun 2007: 27; Edensor 2006; Skey 2013). Although studies on sports and nationalism are plentiful, studying nationalism through sports is a suitable answer to this critique because it shows exactly how common people assign meaning to their respective countries in light of an everyday phenomenon.

Theoretical Perspectives

In general, it seems reasonable to presume that sport nationalism has two sources. On the one hand, sport nationalism might align itself with nationalism: individuals with strong national sentiments are also those proud when national athletes succeed. On the other hand, sport nationalism might also depend on affection for sports: those interested in sports may feel nationally proud of their athletes despite not otherwise expressing strong national feelings. Based on these two sources, both individual and national factors are presented below, and then how these individual and national factors might combine in random effects and interactions is discussed. The point is to indicate how these factors might play a role in the processes of generating national pride from sports.

As Calhoun (2007) and Smith (2009) pointed out, national identities are often based in deep cultural layers, and among these, “the links between religion and national consciousness can be very close” (Hobsbawm 1992: 67). Religion could be expected to further nationalism, because it is, like sports, often linked to rituals, places. Furthermore, in the context of comparative survey research, culture is often linked to cognitive skills (Bollen and Medrano 1998; Inglehart 1990); the idea is that more educated people have a better understanding of otherness, more easily imagine themselves as a part of larger social groups, and thereby end up being more cosmopolitan (Beck 2009). In addition to culture, one should expect material resources to matter in terms of nationalism. The point of such arguments is that people with secure finances feel less threatened by others than those with insecure finances. This implies that people with high incomes should be less nationalistic than those who earn lower salaries.

Studies indicate that the effects of gender depend on the form of nationalism under study (Kunovich 2009). As such, it is not obvious how gender might affect sport nationalism, but if it does, it could be reasonable to assume that because men are often more dedicated to sports than women, they have a stronger tendency for sport nationalism. Next, studies seem to show that older people in general are more nationalistic than younger people. This effect is probably due to younger generations’ more cosmopolitan attitudes, but could also result from experiences specific to different generations and cohorts in various countries, related both to sports events and non-sports events associated with wars and politics.

Cultural globalization measures the spread of ideas, information, and people, and is assumed to have an effect parallel to education at the individual level; that is, more globalized countries have more cosmopolitan citizens, which in turn means they are less nationalistic. One central theme in the literature on nationalism is the distinction between a civic/democratic and primordial/ethnic nationalism, often linked to an east–west divide (Björklund 2006; Jayet 2012; Smith 2009). The east–west context could also impact sport nationalism, although it is difficult to get at this divide except in the case of the countries in the study having (more or less) geographically clear east-west positions. Furthermore, there are obvious differences — urban/rural, industrial/postindustrial, particular sports traditions, national cultures of various types—linked both to nationalism and sports. For some of the variables, the expectations of the effects are unclear or there are reasons to expect that these effects will vary between countries. This is true for age, the effect of which could depend on specific national events, sports-related or otherwise. Gender roles vary drastically, and women in countries with more liberal gender regimes might be more interested in sports and thereby more easily made proud by the achievements of athletes. The effects of both material (income) and cultural (education) resources are dependent upon establishing a type of boundary between “us” and “them.” These boundaries form the basis for comparisons with others, and the result is supposed to give rise to different levels of nationalism. This makes it reasonable to assume that the effects of these two variables at the individual level might depend upon parallel characteristics at the national level; the way cultural and material boundaries develop at the individual level depends on the cultural and material resources at the collective level. For countries with poor economic resources and a less globalized culture, it is assumed that the effect of income and education will be more weakly negative than in more prosperous and globalized countries.

Conclusion

Sport nationalism is, generally, a widespread phenomenon; many people feel very proud when their national athletes do well. Nevertheless, differences in levels of sport nationalism between countries are also considerable. A first finding is that West European countries are prominent among the countries with low levels of sport nationalism, yet in other “western” countries such as Australia, New Zealand, and the United States, the level is higher than the world average. Second, the East European countries are mostly above average, though there are substantive differences between them. For example, the Czechs are below average while Poland is among the most sport nationalist countries. Three less-developed countries—the Dominican Republic, South Africa, and the Philippines—are the most sport-nationalist countries, whereas three Latin American countries—Chile, Mexico, and Uruguay—are close to the average. Of the Asian countries, South Korea is rather sport-nationalist, while Japan and Israel are below average.

Given the pervasiveness of sports in late modern societies and the many evident links to nationalism, it comes as no surprise that sport-related national identities—being proud when national athletes succeed—are relatively strong and widespread. Even though, at first glance, a high level of sport nationalism makes countries appear more similar than different, there are also strong and systematic differences between countries’ sport nationalism. The countries/regions with low levels of sport nationalism are all West European (Switzerland, Finland, Norway, Flanders, and France), whereas most of Eastern Europe (Poland, Croatia, Russia, Latvia, and Slovenia) have higher than average values. This could indicate that nationalism, as it is found in relation to sports, reflects some type of familiar east–west difference in nationalism.

There are, however, two precautions to this conclusion. First, the Czech Republic, despite being an East European country, is low on sport nationalism, and several Western countries—Australia, New Zealand, and the United States—are above the world average of sport nationalism. Second, the east–west nationalism distinction mostly comes with an idea of substantive differences (ethnic versus civil) in nationalism. Furthermore, in many cases it seems that differences in sport nationalism are related to economic and cultural resources, and as has been determined, variations at the national level suggest national differences other than east–west. In general, countries with low GDPs and low levels of democracy and cultural globalization are clearly more sport nationalistic than other countries. This indicates that nationalism (as related to sports) might play different roles in various countries; it points beyond the classic east–west distinction and reveals the need for empirical and theoretical refinements.