By Paul Beston on 12.28.07 @ 12:08AM
The Mitchell Report was foreshadowed in the work of Christopher Lasch.
Baseball's Mitchell Report on performance-enhancing drugs has
already provoked a blizzard of commentary ranging from whom to
blame, what to do, and musings about what has gone wrong with
professional sports. Rather than adding my two cents, and being
always more disposed to looking back than forward, I find myself
thinking less about George Mitchell than about Christopher
Lasch.
Lasch is best-known for his 1979 book The Culture of Narcissism, which achieved
further notoriety when Jimmy Carter called on the author to advise
him for his infamous "crisis of confidence" speech that year.
Though he tended to look at life in America with the dialectical
skepticism of a Marxist, Lasch's insights into how daily life had
been degraded and trivialized, so that individuals were only
capable of a crippling self-regard, still have value. The book has
a chapter on how this diminishment has affected the sports world as
well. Though written nearly 30 years ago, it is a penetrating
examination of the traits that have gradually eroded sport's once
uplifting qualities -- and which eventually may have helped give
rise to a full-fledged doping culture.
Lasch differed with critics such as Michael Novak, whose own
sports study had appeared a few years earlier, and who felt that
sport's decline had to do with its becoming too mixed up in the
affairs of the world, indistinguishable from business and politics.
That critique is familiar to us today, with stories of athletes and
their agents, stadium deals, and "collective bargaining agreements"
between management and players' unions that represent a work force
earning many multiples of the average American's wages. Alex
Rodriguez, in signing a contract extension with the New York
Yankees worth hundreds of millions of dollars, spoke of his desire
to win a World Series -- and noted that this was an achievement
that he had not yet added to his "resume." Try to imagine Lou
Gehrig or, closer to our own time, Pete Rose, talking that way.
BUT AS CORRUPTING an influence as money has been, Lasch argued that
what was really ailing sports wasn't that they had become wrapped
up in the world of commerce but that they had been, on the
contrary, sectioned off from the rest of the culture, fetishized
into a fantasy world of entertainment and spectacle, thereby
severing the ties they once had to our common lives. "It is only
when games and sports come to be valued purely as a form of
escape," he wrote, "that they lose the capacity to provide this
escape." This was a complex and seemingly self-contradictory point:
that the more sports focused on entertainment, the less of it they
actually provided.
Yet consider the empire that is 24/7 sports channels and talk
radio, merchandising, and the incessant and ever-proliferating
chatter about the games themselves. The impression, as New York
Post columnist Phil Mushnick and others have noted, is that
the audience is not satisfied with mere sports -- that not an
athletic contest, but "entertainment," is required. And as sports,
for Lasch, became more of an escapist fantasy from the grind of
bureaucratic work, another manufactured commodity, they also became
less playful, more cynical and self conscious -- and here, perhaps,
is the link to our own time. "Prudence, caution, and calculation,"
Lasch wrote, "so prominent in everyday life but so inimical to the
spirit of games, [came] to shape sports as they shape[d] everything
else."
This generation of baseball players from what is finally, and
justifiably, being called baseball's "steroids era," gave Lasch's
"prudence, caution, and calculation" a much darker spin, tampering
with the very standard we use to judge athletic success -- their
own bodies. In the process, they laid waste to baseball's record
book, a century-old trove of statistics linking generations of
players who otherwise had little basis for being compared to one
another. Among all such records, the holy of holies was surely the
career home-run record that Barry Bonds broke this summer. Owned by
Babe Ruth for many decades and then by Hank Aaron for almost as
long, the record was like the dim peak of the most distant mountain
range. Yet Bonds made his assault on the summit as if he had a
helicopter, and he did -- performance-enhancing drugs. As Bonds
approached the record, baseball's commissioner, Bud Selig, who
should have resigned years ago, enacted a self-serving drama about
whether to attend the record-setting game, ultimately deciding to
stay away. The unsavory work of congratulating Bonds was left to
Aaron himself, who must view the home-run record by now as
something like a baseball version of Ham's curse.
The new record, of course -- like the statistics compiled by
others implicated in the Mitchell Report -- can only be viewed with
suspicion. The owner of the ball that Bonds hit to break the record
even pledges to brand it with an asterisk before sending it to the
Baseball Hall of Fame in Cooperstown -- a perfect illustration of
how conflicted we are. We enshrine the ball, because it represents
an achievement that we recognize; yet we vandalize it, too, to
indicate that we don't quite believe the achievement is on the
level. It's either postmodern or Talmudic, I can't decide.
By and large, fans seem to have greeted the Mitchell Report with
an angry sense of having been cheated. Such reaction to corruption
or greed in sports, Lasch wrote in 1979, "indicates the persistence
of a need to believe that sport represents something more than
entertainment, something that, though neither life nor death in
itself, retains some lingering capacity to dramatize and clarify
those experiences." We continue to be offended when rot is revealed
in sports, in a way that we are not when it is revealed, say, in
the business world. We get angry about scandals like Enron, to be
sure -- because we have suffered in our pocketbooks, or because, as
did the unfortunate employees of that company, we've lost our life
savings. We get angry about sports scandals, on the other hand, for
much more idealistic reasons -- in good part, I'd guess, because we
played these games when we were kids, we remember them as something
pure, and we wish to teach them to our own kids. And so long as
such sentiments survive, all is not lost for sports.
In contrast to the general public, some in the media dismiss the
Mitchell Report's findings. They remind us, with the jaded
sophistication of an adolescent, that nothing is on the level,
anyway. Even so superb a baseball analyst as Tim Marchman declares
that the only integrity that matters in baseball is that gamblers not
control it: "Integrity, in the normal everyday sense of the
word, means very little in sports, except as it relates to the
integrity of money," he writes.
I suppose adopting this stance, and recognizing that idealism is
for fools, protects people from ever being fooled -- always the
worst of fates in a culture where detachment is a survival skill.
But the cost of such detachment is an imaginative life with all the
grandeur of a urine test. We get spiteful home run chases,
melancholy coronations, and -- soon enough -- dreary congressional
hearings. Even the ball is branded with a smirk.
topics:
Business, Sports, Books, Unions