FIFA World Cup and Glocalizing Identities

The World Cup season is always a good time to revisit a classic debate in politics: the discourse on national identity vis--vis a globalizing environment. Andrew Heywood, in Global Politics (2011), describes the phenomenon of globalization as the emergence of a complex web of interconnectedness that means that our lives are increasingly shaped by events that occur, and decisions that are made, at a great distance from us. As a consequence, globalization tends to flatten out cultural differences between nations, regions and individuals. This phenomenon is aided by progress in the information and communications technology which facilitates greater mobility of culture and knowledge. All of this supposedly contributes towards forging a more global outlook among persons, which transcend the limits of their national culture. The World Cup is an apt representation of the tensions inherent between the global and the national. The FIFA theme song for this season is We Are One. Although highly applicable in the case of Brazil wherein you find a plurality of cultures unified by, among other things, their love for football, the song is obviously meant to emphasize global unity: its your world, my world, our world today. The mere fact of loving the same game and having that willingness to engage in healthy competition with others points to the existence of something common among diverse cultures. On the other hand, alongside the emphasis on global unity, the song also encourages persons to put your flags up in the sky. On one hand, the World Cup serves as venue for global interaction; on the other hand, the game also provides an arena for the reawakening of racial stereotypes and racist sentiments. Take, for instance, the racist attacks received by Juan Camilo Zuniga from Brazilians after Neymars accident. Another example would be the rise of neo-Nazi sentiments in the World Cup. Some weeks ago, in the game between Germany and Ghana, one man ran across the field with Nazi slogans written on his bare torso. In the recent match between Brazil and Germany, it is interesting to note how naturally people characterize Germanys victory as a blitzkrieg, which resonates with the Nazi military strategy during World War II.Such is the paradox of globalization. Despite the seeming fluidity and mobility of borders, cultures and persons, the notion of a national identity still asserts itself, possibly even more explicitly. In the presence of the Other, one feels a greater need to affirm ones individuality. This co-existence between the universal and the particular is encapsulated in the idea of glocalization, a concept popularized by Roland Robertson.The World Cup is a good example of this. Precisely because of its nature as a venue for the meeting and interaction of cultures, the distinct identities of each of the nation-states assert themselves more palpably. In such a global event, the national takes on a more prominent role, frequently to the detriment of the other. This brings us to the question of whether nationalism is a value to be forged, or a category which creates divisions and hostilities among persons. In times of war, for instance, traditional thought hails as heroes those soldiers who fight for their countries against a common enemy, say, Germany or France. But what is Germany? What is France? In times of war, the enemy is seen as an overarching abstracted concept, yet people fail to realize that in fighting against Germany or France, they are actually fighting against human beings like themselves, who have their own social, family concerns just like everyone else. This raises a disturbing question that is worth pondering on: Why is fighting for the abstract Nation a heroic feat, when in the process, real, human lives are lost? Why is killing another person at war justifiable in the name of defendingto borrow a term from Benedict Andersonthat imagined community called the Nation?On the other hand, one cannot overlook the real necessity of inculcating a deep love for ones political community among citizens. Nation-building is still a buzz word in todays context, particularly when tribalism remains to be a strong feature of many newly independent countries. Integration among persons within particular territories is seen as a prerequisite towards creating politically stable nation-states. In the Philippines, in particular, the process of inculcating a real sense of national identity is seen as a challenge given the fragmented nature of its geography and culture. The question of Filipino identity is still in the process of being answered. Maybe it does not even have a definite answer. It can be argued that generally speaking, the Filipino sense of community has not yet transcended the confines of the region, or maybe not even the confines of ones family backyard. The absence of authentic Filipino nationalism is often seen as a reason why political apathy is widespread among citizens. The absence of a real love for the nationand as a consequence for this, the absence of that psychological motivation to work well for the sake of the countryis seen as the main hindrance to political progress.The World Cup signifies the inevitability of the category of the national despite all that talk on the end of the nation-state. In fact, it is only through the category of the national that we can speak of the international. Moreover, the need to associate ones identity with the polis appears to be inherent in the very nature of the person as a social being. No human person can live outside the polis; if he does, he is either a beast or a god, as Aristotle would put it. Who knows, maybe in the future the notion of the polis can extend towards a universal scope to include the entire world? But this isnt happening soon. It wont happen unless a strong international state apparatus is developed, because a political community as an integrated unit presupposes governability. One simply cant govern Earth in its entirety. In the process of strengthening that collective sense of self among citizens of particular nations, the World Cup contributes to the erosion of the idea of global citizenship. In the World Cup, ones national team is seen as an extension of the Self, and this conception of a Self is always understood in opposition to the Other. Is this a healthy way of fostering global solidarity? Yes and no. Yes, in the sense that its a good alternative to war, a much safer venue for venting out sentiments of national pride. On the other hand, its competitive nature naturally heightens national and cultural distinctions instead of highlighting the existence of a common humanity.