The sun came up today in Cleveland. Well, not the sun, actually. It's gray and rainy in Ohio today. But for the nearly 3 million people who live in and around Cleveland (counting areas like Akron), life goes on the morning after Lebron James declared his intentions to play basketball not in Northeast Ohio but in South Florida. In the wake of James' decision--announced through a mediated spectacle that stretched just about every boundary of credibility--Miami's ecstasy is dwarfed by Cleveland's agony. After "witnessing" for seven years the reign of hometown hero (Akron) "King James," Ohioans must now accept an NBA roster that will be lucky to win 20 games. Once a beloved figure just about everywhere, James is now widely viewed as narcissistic and arrogant at best, a coward and traitor at worst: Cavaliers owner Dan Gilbert blasted his former superstar immediately after the announcement, calling James' departure a "cowardly betrayal"; many in the sports media have chastized him for abandoning a city that has well-documented socio-economic problems; ESPN's Bill Simmons wrote prior to the announcement, "Picking anyone other than Cleveland on this show would be the meanest thing any athlete has ever done to a city"; and now that James indeed picked someone other than Cleveland, local fans are utterly devastated, with some even resorting to burning their newly departed hero's jerseys (though let's face it, the same footage keeps showing up over and over again; it's hardly an epidemic).
I'm only a marginal professional basketball fan, so my interest here doesn't have much to do with the game itself. I tend to agree with analysts who think he would have been smarter to sign with Chicago, but if James thinks it'd be fun to play with his friends in Miami, who am I to argue. The backlash that "The King" now faces really isn't about the decision in and of itself, but rather, is about the manner in which he delivered the news. It's easy to criticize the ESPN production, "The Decision." Indeed, it was crass and shameless; in other words, perfect for ESPN. But calling out the Worldwide Leader is just too easy. In the end, as I listen to the laments of Clevelanders and the admonishments of the sports media, I'm more interested in the assumptions that are being made about the relationship between an athlete and a city.
In the contemporary era of free agency, there are notable examples of athletes who spent the entirety of their careers in one city: John Elway, Tony Gwynn, Cal Ripken, Jr., David Robinson. These are hall of fame athletes and they are absolutely beloved in Denver, San Diego, Baltimore, and San Antonio. Part of that adulation is a product of the loyalty that each man demonstrated in order to remain in his given community. And, consequently, they have become the standard-bearers of a relationship between fans and athletes that far too many believe should be the norm. In other words, there is an unspoken contract between fans and players that says they want the same things--i.e., fans want heroes who will bring glory to their city by winning a championship, and players want to become heroes by bringing glory to their fans by winning a championship. Listen to any victory celebration in the major sports and you'll hear declarations about how wonderful it is to win a title on behalf of Chicago, or Los Angeles, or New Orleans, all of which, of course, have "the best fans in the world."
All of this makes sense so long as everyone plays along. But if expectations are violated, then the unspoken contract has been broken. In his excellent analysis of the "Malice at the Palace" (the 2004 brawl between the Detroit Pistons and Indiana Pacers), Dan Grano argues that reactions to that incident were so dramatic because the unspoken rules of space--an invisible boundary separating players and fans in the arena--had been violated. That violation represented nothing short of a crisis of integrity for the league. Although Lebron James' departure from Cleveland is not a crisis for the NBA--it has been precisely the opposite, at least in the short run--it does reveal a similar disruption of unspoken expectations. This is why fans are so deeply hurt by James' alleged betrayal--he simply hasn't fulfilled his end of the bargain as they understand it.
The lesson here is not that Lebron James should have stayed in Cleveland. I do think it would have been nice if he had done so. But, rather, the lesson is that we might reconsider the expectations we have for our athletes and our sports. Too often, this story has been filtered through the lens of Cleveland-as-city-in-distress. Too often, Cleveland area residents have given in to this narrative--"Yeah, our town does kind of suck, doesn't it? C'mon, Lebron, you're all we've got!" Investing too much in a heroic narrative has set up Cavaliers fans for the colossal disappointment that they now face. So, while lashing out at James is a predictable response, it will do little to re-frame how Clevelanders see themselves or their city. Yes, James, his "team," and the sports media deserve some criticism. But, on this morning after, how might Cleveland fans understand this drama if they looked inward?
5 comments:
I have tried very hard to avoid the Lebron stuff as much as possible; however, I find it interesting how quickly people move to dismiss Jesse Jackson's critique of Dan Gilbert. I think that Jackson often suffers his messages by putting them in ways that tend to polarize a little more than they need to or that get at the issue a bit awkwardly ... and this of course is where, then, his detractors focus, completely ignoring or dismissing the substantive issue he is bringing up. Yet, for all the dismissals, his statements about Gilbert really do need to be recognized in connection with the kinds of critiques Harry Edwards, William Rhoden (and a shout out to Abe for his memorable piece on Rhoden's book at the Summit this year ...), and others offer.
Meanwhile, have you seen the spoof featuring Steve Carell and Paul Rudd from the ESPYs? I do not watch the ESPYs. It's way too self-congratulating of a pseudo-event by an organization (ESPN) that frankly could do with less self-congratulation. I happened to run across it this evening online, though. This is fascinating in a hyperreal pastiche of satire kind of way that really points out how the contemporary postmodern sensitivity can be hegemonically co-opted so easily by the capitalist apparatuses. (How was that sentence for channeling my inner Frederic Jameson?) ESPN creates the LeBron event, reports on it as news, and then airs a parody making fun of the ludricrousness of the event during its self-created show to award the "best" sports performances of the year. So, we might laugh with Carell and Rudd because we want to critique ESPN, but in doing so we've just bought back into ESPN ... Ahhh, the sweet smell of capitalism. (Kind of like the smell of blood after cutting myself with a knife ...) ... And, of course, doesn't this just feed back into a point that relates to the theories of Edwards, Rhoden, etc.? I've read a lot more giving flak to Lebron for doing this than to ESPN for doing it. In the process, the cult of individualism places the blame on the individual's unwise decision, never mind the corporations' role and gain in this whole endeavor. And, thus, to use Edwards term, Lebron personifies the gladiator--the focus of praise and blame for his exploits, while those pulling the strings sit in the background and reap the reward either way (praise or blame).
Sorry for all the deleted comments ... just trying to run up your count to prop up your site a bit ... No, seriously, there was an error when I clicked the "Publish Your Comment" button and in the process of getting back to the blog to make sure my comment posted, it got published four times. Sorry about that. :(
Post a Comment