The Hermeneutic Circle and the Background Stories of Soccer
Ed. Note: This essay is by Culture of Soccer reader Jason Murphy, who is a PhD student in philosophy at St. Louis University. I thank Jason for his contribution. If you would like to contribute an essay to be considered for publication here at Culture of Soccer, please write me at david [at] cultureofsoccer [dot] com.
I think back to August 2007, when England hosted Germany in a “friendly” match that had “no meaning” as is often said. Christian Eichler of the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, a paper of record in Germany, wrote at the time about Wembley Stadium, where the game would be played:
In times of globalization, not only of markets but also of experiences and memories, there are few places that remain non-interchangeable. Places like Wembley. That place is uniquely English and at the same time: a German place.
Germany train at Wembley before their match against England (photo: AP/FAZ)
The article recounts important German wins at Wembley and the idea of playing in the land where the game was born. Articles in the English and German press show that many people, players and fans, cared very much about this match, despite the fact that it was only a “friendly.”
Of course the biggest event is the World Cup Final of 1966. In Germany, the term “Wembley Goal” signifies a goal that hits the top of the crossbar, lands in the goal, and then bounces out of it. The term refers to all such goals and the one that Germans believe lost them the 1966 World Cup Final against England, played at Wembley.
Why do events like this mean something? I will refer to something in philosophy called the “hermeneutic circle.”This circle consists of the background or “big story” that is understood by the interpreter encountering something new. Often, this background is implicit, also consisting of habits of interpretation. When we interpret something, we encounter a new “little story” and hold it up against the background, which also often changes as a result. The circle loops from the interpreter’s background to her new experience, which reshapes the background, and so on…National teams represent their countries and so their matches are inevitably held up against the big stories about those countries. For instance, when the US plays Cuba this year in the World Cup Qualifiers, the political relationship between these two countries will be thematized as the match is anticipated and discussed.
Germany’s World Cup win in 1954 represented a new state of affairs, in which Germany could again participate in the world scene in a normal way. Had they lost, another symbol might have been found but the “miracle at Bern” signaled that there is a way to be German and still participate in global affairs. Virtues are often cited in describing the team that won, including persistence, tactical intelligence, cooperation, and fitness. These enter the background in future attempts to deal with problems, many outside of soccer.
On the other side of this example: the Dutch have made every match with Germany about WWII. Representing the occupied Netherlands has proven to be a way to expunge the collaborationist parts of their history. Frank Rijkaard spitting on Rudi Völler wasn’t about Völler at all – great Dutch writers cite the occupation when they recall these matches (see Simon Kuper’s book Ajax, the Dutch, the War for more on this). There is a limit to how “normal” the interaction between Germany and the rest of the world can ever be.
(A side note: England’s football background is rather sad, really. The dominant themes are “we can’t get a break” and “those over-paid fat gits.” I can’t figure out if this is really part of England’s background in the larger scheme or not. There seems to be a sense that a country that ought to be the best isn’t. Having the fifth-best World Cup record and recently reaching the quarter-finals makes them the envy of most of he world but fans treat this as the result of forty years of bad luck or bad training or bad leadership. The win in 1966 somehow isn’t enough to turn around this diagnosis. Would another World Cup win achieve this? Why didn’t the Rugby win do the same thing?)It is hard to know how the interaction between a background and sporting events will happen. Germany’s “Wembley Goal” did not change the background in Germany. Second place in 1966 counted as a confirmation of the virtues they cited in 1954 and in other wins. The 2006 World Cup was hailed as a national “Summer’s Dream” and reaching third place launched massive street parties. Support for the national team launched a widespread discussion about how the country should present itself. There have never been so many Federal Republic flags flown and some people worried about how it would affect Germany’s behavior and image. The question that arises is whether it is appropriate for Germans to be proud of being German. Sporting events do not dictate interpretive outcomes because those are the products of the decisions made by the interpreters, given the options they are offered.
German fans fly their flag at the 2006 World Cup (photo: Orange.co.uk)
What makes Wembley a German place? The stories that were developed there. As Eichler puts it, “Ten German games there, five of them unforgettable.”Do sports events change things? Yes, thousands of people are doing something when they follow a game. For one thing, they are interpreting the world they live in. This is why measures to punish racist chants and unsportsmanlike conduct are important and need to be backed up with serious consequences.
I used national teams as my example but club identification can be explained (at least in part) with the same circle of interpretation. Later, I hope to illustrate that the great clubs all have a story. Many descriptions of clubs found in this blog have offered rich examples of this.
Note: The first notes for this article were written during the England/Germany friendly match. Germany won 2-1 and the match was declared a “typically English” one by the Guardian’s Tom Lutz. No meaning, indeed.
Brought to you by sportsmedia.org
If you want to stay in shape during the soccer offseason you will need great exercise equipment and some commitment! Although having a home gym can help you keep in shape sometime it takes more than equipment to get better. Be sure to where the best soccer equipment during the game!
January 23rd, 2008 07:33
[...] and guile (there’s also the wee matter of the Falklands / Malvinas that provides the political backstory to such matches). But how did teams come to play they way they do? The answers offered to this [...]
October 23rd, 2008 04:16
> I can’t figure out if this is really part of England’s background in the larger scheme or not.
Items to consider:
- post-imperial malaise – a mix of nostalgia, self-esteem issues and residual (but still utterly pervasive) sense of entitlement resulting from lost “greatness”.
- post-war malaise – being on the winning side in WW2 meant we *survived* rather than *triumphed*. There are two outcomes: 1) a siege mentality (this may actually predate the war) and 2) where’s our bloody prize?
- national achievement vs club-level achievement. Apart from a hiatus resulting from the European ban in the late 1980s, English clubs have done exceedingly well in European competitions. The Premiership is the richest, and possibly the best, league in the world. What possible excuse can there be for the national team consistently struggling?
- being an island race, Britain is extremely jingoistic, almost xenophobic. Britiain is *not* European: Britain stands alone. The fact that it’s 1,000 years since we were last successfully invaded probably also contributes to our failure to process national shortcomings. See also siege mentality above.
- under-performance against expectation: apart from two very notable exceptions – Italia 90 and Euro 96 – every England team since 1970 has failed to live up to potential, frequently as a result of self-sabotage: missing penalties; unnecessary sendings off; forgetting to pass to players on the same side; unbelievable team / squad selection (e.g. WC2006, where our “manager” selected 4 strikers: two were injured, and one has never played a senior game in the top division (he wasn’t used)). In the two exceptions I mentioned (1990, 1996), there was great support and jubilation. However, it was swiftly followed by a resumption of normal service, which resulted in a reversion to sullen, morose and pessimistic type by supporters
- British values: doggedness in the face of adversity, humility, standing up to bullies, admitting to mistakes, self-containment, self-deprecation, putting the team before the self. Demonstrated by the England set up, from FA Chairman to players, by, er, no-one
- The British press. You’d be hard pushed to find a serious football fan who believed we were going to win the 2006 world cup, for example. But the papers said we would. The casual fans believed it. We failed to do so. Serious fans said “Yup, as expected”. The press said “We were robbed” or “we were rubbish”. Casual fans were confused and bemused
> Would another World Cup win achieve this?
To an extent. But only if followed by some reasonably consistent football. Not winning everything – just decent performances.
> Why didn’t the Rugby win do the same thing?
Rugby is not a populist sport in England (it *is* popular, but is not populist). A triumph in basketball, an international spelling bee, or world cup knitting would also not address the problem. The nearest analogy would be winning the Ashes in cricket – but again, if this is immediately followed by crumbling under the next available pressure, it seems like self-defeatism.