The myth-making of American 'plastic' soccer

Thought I'd continue with the theme of football as we are approaching the start of the World Cup!

Media is filled with rankings, speculations and analysis these days. Who will win? Who's the biggest profile? Which team has the nicest outfits? As I reported yesterday almost half of North Americans, naively, believe that the US will stand as champions in about a month. In a non-scientific poll 12,5 percent of Swedes believe that England will capture the gold-medals, almost as naive as the Americans if you ask me. A more serious poll was also conducted to see which nation Swedes would support in lack of Sweden's participation. Hardly surprising Denmark received the largest support with 17 percent of the votes, followed by England and Spain. Big football nations such as the Netherlands, Brazil and Argentina also gathered some sympathies. Equally non-surprising was that not a single out of the thousand polled persons voted for the US. Most, I believe, it has to do with the fact that the US historically has not been a big football-nation, regarding trophies and public interest, although the country has participated in the World Cup since the start. There is a resistance towards football being established in the US, the US holding the World Cup, or the national side reaching far in international tournaments among a, albeit small, segment of the Swedish and West European public. As an anonymous commentator on of Sweden's largest football blogs put it: "the eventual football-boom of the US can be a bit 'dangerous' as they will then start to export their plastic franchise-football one way or another". Of course this type of comments follows a general trend of fear against American influence, in Sweden for instance that it will mean too much of commercialism and capitalism. The fear of American soccer meaning turning world football into "plastic" and "fake" also follows a long tradition of views on the American nation, people and culture as not really "real", a different kind of reality, and one not as good. It should be noted however that slightly more positive than negative comments about American soccer culture have been posted in the last couple of weeks, so there is no general coalescing anti-Americanism going on among Swedish (and West European broadly) football fans and pundits.

It is further shown in an international poll which has been undertaken in the last couple of weeks, which shows that Italy is "the most hated team" in this years World Cup, with 20 percent of the votes. The US is number ten with three percent of the votes as the team people don't want to see as champions (interestingly with the same percentage as North Korea). More "feared" or "hated" are larger football-nations Germany, France, Brazil and Argentina, probably as they get votes from nations regarded as competitors for the gold. Here, the US is little to fear, as they shouldn't be feared to turn world football into plastic commercialism.

The US enters the Swedish election

It rarely happens, but this year it has. The United States plays a role in the Swedish election race. The red-green coalition of the Left, the Greens and the Social Democrats writes in their program on Sweden's relation with the outside world that "a red-green government will demand that the US discontinue their nuclear weapons and military bases outside of the country's borders". The center-to-right-coalition Alliansen (currently in power) did not hesitate to jump on it, and criticized the policy heavily. The minister of foreign affairs, Carl Bildt, believed it would threaten Sweden's relationship with the US and give Sweden a minuscule role in world politics. Further, he claimed that this was an "apparent display of anti-Americanism". Right wing media has interpreted this as a show that the Left has gotten to much of a say as the party "remains in the isolationist world view of the 1970s where the US and Israel make up the axis of evil".

I am very much interested in the discourse of anti-Americanism, and to say that this policy bears the markings of it is an overstatement. Anti-Americanism is usually (although contested) defined as something close to "sharp criticism towards America with signs of hatred and despise towards the entire nation". This policy is more colored by a general criticism and, most important, skepticism among the Swedish Left towards the United States. The Right has in modern times usually been more positive towards American influence and American policies, in Sweden or in the world. During the Cold War the Left (then with the appendix "Communists") was closely aligned with Moscow, which has of course shaped their view on the US and how Sweden should relate to it. It has lead the Left to very critical of U.S. involvement in the world, almost regardless in which shape and form it has taken, and much of the view is a general skepticism towards American intentions. I will come back to the view of American among the different parties as the election comes closer (to be decided in September).

So the Swedish relationship with the United States has gotten a place in the election debate. Is it likely to affect much of the outcome? Highly unlikely. The sad state of Swedish foreign policy very rarely decide anything in elections, and I would be very surprised if this debate moves more than a handful voters between the blocs. Especially in meager and dire economic times domestic issues completely dominate the debate, sadly.

Americanization of Swedish weddings?

Sweden has been plagued with a debate regarding this year's largest event, if you are to believe the tabloids; the royal wedding. The discussion has been over whether the crown princess Victoria should be led down the aisle by her father, the King, and "handed over" to her fiancé to be, Daniel. This is quite uncommon in Swedish wedding traditions, where the bride and groom walk down the aisle together. Now America has been drawn into this debate, with the editorializing of Helle Klein, in Sweden's largest tabloid, Social Democratic "Aftonbladet". She writes: “The American wedding movies of the 1990s have affected the image of a dream wedding. But Julia Roberts and Hollywood have nothing to do with a royal wedding in Storkyrkan". Klein continues: “If Victoria lets herself get led down the aisle of Storkyrkan, the Americanization of our wedding ceremonies has become a fact. That would be deeply unfortunate”. The journalist now wants Anders Wejryd, the archbishop leading the ceremony, to intervene in order to "prevent that the Hollywood idea of the wedding becomes the expression of the Church of Sweden. Say no for the sake of women, the church and the Swedish culture!"

So Klein, herself a priest, is very indignated, so much so that she believes this will threaten the liberty of every Swedish woman and the sanctity of Swedish traditions! I will not dwell at length on the idiotic statement, but merely say that I doubt very much that it is a tradition that will spread to the broader segments of Swedish society and culture. It hasn't so far, although the wedding movies of the 1990's that Klein so despises are 15-20 years away. Klein also follows a long and strong tradition of fearing American influence over Sweden. Americanization here meaning unwanted conservative ideals, threatening the liberty and equality of Swedish women, and our way of doing things. The very notion of invoking "Americanization" when trying to make a point about negative influences we want to avoid is not an uncommon trick in Western Europe. To the Swedish left, traditionally, the very term Americanization means negative undesired influence, without having to explain how and why. Swedish liberals and right-winged have had fewer problems with American influence, which is also shown in this case when the editorial page of Liberal tabloid "Expressen" rebuked Klein's claims and accused her of wanting to remove the traditional wedding kiss as well, "a custom that has also reached Swedish wedding culture in recent years, through the Hollywood movies that Helle Klein is so horrified with".

Playing the Americanization-card is often an easy and fast way of trying to make people understand that it is influence that we don't desire in Sweden. Sometimes it is done for good reason, for instance when wanting to keep political TV-commercials and negative campaigning out of Swedish elections, but when it is done where the logic and cause and effect are anything but clear, it is just crude and dumb. Americanization is just negative, the natural order of the word, we don't even need to explain how and why.

Martin Gelin's America, part I

Esteemed Swedish journalist Martin Gelin recently released his story on the arrival and success of Barack Obama. Det Amerikanska Löftet (The American Promise) documents his two years of traveling across the United States, portraying Barack Obama, the people who supported him, and the sense of new hope in America.

So far I have read the first two chapters and it is a pretty good read. Gelin is a good descriptor of social environments and has great knowledge of American history and politics, making sure that his story is not just one of Barack Obama but also of American society in general. In my reviewing and analyzing of Gelin's book I will try not to have Obama as a person as the main focus, but his views on America from a Swedish perspective.
He begins by noting, and comes back to several times already in the first 60 pages, that there is a great divide between America's high and big ideals and its actual reality. He denotes, as many America-descriptors before him, a sort of disappoint that the US does not live up to the ideological standards it claims. But Gelin also sees this "gorge" between ideal and reality as what makes American politics and society interesting:

"it is in the dynamics between ideals and reality that the unique story of the US always drew its power from, and it is there that this motley, huge, impossible country has found its unison direction further, toward something better".

It is in this dynamic, the will to live up its high standards and ideals of democracy, possibility, liberty, and "justice for all", that the campaign of Barack Obama could thrive, according to Gelin. It really did, according to the author, give people (especially the young, and African-Americans) hope, that change was possible. He notes that something had gone lost in the years of Bush and Cheney; "something basic in the American idea, the American values and the American optimism about the future, had begun to be questioned". Gelin continues by saying that "the US as a nation has always been obsessed with the myth about itself", but that after the Bush-years it was like "that very myth itself was about to die". Gelin brings up increasing disappoint with the Iraq-war, tax-breaks for the wealthy, the poor handling of the Katrina-disaster, as examples of peoples' lost faith in the American ideals, or the American myth. It is an important note, which has been done before though, that a new presidency if often a reaction to the previous. George W. Bush named his foreign policy "ABC" (Anything But Clinton), and the reason why Obama could speak so much about hope and change, was the Americans' increasing disillusionment and disappointment with their political leadership.

To talk something about Gelin's views on America as a foreigner looking in from the outside, we can say that he follows a long tradition. Many before him have expressed disappointment that America does not live up to its ideals, and some scholars have claimed that is in that disappointment that make up much of the starting ground for (at least Western) anti-Americanism. Others have also, like the Swedish journalist, talked about the Americans ideals as "high and mighty", to denote them as being somewhat "ridiculous" or too "high-flying" (my wording). Coming from Sweden, this might be a natural reaction as we have a much smaller sense of what, idea-wise, is "Swedish" and we rarely speak of the "Swedish way of life" or Swedish ideals. Often we can not agree on what it really is to be Swedish, whereas it is often quite clear what it means to be American (patriotic and individualistic, for instance).

I will continue to review and analyze Gelin's autopsy of American society as I read more and more of it. As one of the largest volumes written recently on America from a Swede, it is definitely worth talking about.

What's It All About?

Why write yet another blog about the United States? It's been done, we've heard it, we've read it. No, you haven't.

There are special reasons for writing the story of American influences and presence in Sweden, and Sweden's existence and impact on America, as well as the special relationship between the two countries.

In relative terms, Sweden had the third highest immigration rate to the United States from the middle of the 19th century up until World War II, only surpassed by Ireland and Norway. The gives Sweden a special place in the creation of American life and society, and it puts America close in the "mental map" of many Swedes as personal and biological ties are created between the two countries by immigration. I would argue that the US are closer to Swedes than are many European countries. American influences are also heavily present in Swedish society and everyday life, perhaps mostly in the form of popular culture such as TV-series, movies, music, and clothing.
On the other hand Sweden and the United States are in many characteristics very different nations; our history of political and societal ideas vary vastly in certain aspects. Today it is perhaps most visible in the differentiated views on religion, welfare and taxes, and our relationship with the rest of the world.

The US and what goes on "over there" interests us and attracts significant media attention, not only in the field of politics but also sports, culture, media, religion, and "everyday life". These days Swedish mainstream media are occupied with the oil disaster that might come to threaten wildlife and nature on the Southeast coast of the US.

All these subjects and more will be explored and analyzed on this site. So stay tuned.