Some of you may have heard about the Becky Hammon situation. For those who haven’t, Becky Hammon is a star player in the WNBA—the women’s version of the National Basketball Association. She was left off the American Olympic team over the summer; there have been varying reasons given, but the impression I have gathered from the reading I have done is that there is personal tension between Ms. Hammon and the coach of the American national team, Anne Donovan. Fairly or unfairly, Becky Hammon was left off the team. (As a side note, Ms. Hammon also comes off as quite charasmatic, as fawning and apologetic story after story appear to prove. See: Yahoo sports columnist).
Ms. Hammon, being 31, felt that this would be her last chance to participate in an Olympics. Similarly, she believed that her time for earning money as a professional athlete was running out. So, in what has been rumored to be a package deal, she was given a contract by a Russian team to play women’s basketball in a Russian league that worked out to about $1 million a year, became a naturalized citizen of Russia, and joined the Russian team. She is now in Beijing competing for an Olympic medal; I think the Russian team made the medal round and may actually play the U.S. today or tomorrow.
Her coach has accused her of being un-American, as have a couple of Team USA players (most notably, Lisa Leslie). Her coach actually called her a “traitor.” Ms. Hammon insists that it is just about basketball, that she’s a true American patriot.
I have vacillated on this issue a bit. One the one hand, I feel outrage that someone can so casually take on another country’s citizenship purely for convenience—and personal gain. Such a step seems to me to disrespect our country. The Olympics, as I understand them, are not about the best athletes coming together from around the world to compete, but the best athletes from the various nations around the world coming together to compete. If it were solely about the best athletes, we would have probably 5 American basketball teams and 5 non-American basketball teams going for the gold. Professional leagues are where the actual best athletes in a pure sense compete. To make an end-run around this concept by taking on another nationality seems cynical. It also smacks really strongly of sour grapes.
I am betting that the founders of the Olympics never thought this would happen.
On the other hand, perhaps it is a good thing that nationality does not matter much to some people nowadays. The fact that some feel that one place is just as good as another is not such a bad thing—it shows a level of optimism about the future of world. And there have certainly been enough conflicts that have arisen from a sense of “us” versus “them.”
It seems to me, however, that the age of nations (and nationalism) is still alive and well. Perhaps-- as the old Coca-cola commercial and song went-- if the whole world sang in peace and harmony, it would not matter a hill of beans what country you represent. But right now, it does mean something. And it means a heck of a lot more when you choose your citizenship and whom you are representing, as opposed to simply being a citizen by virtue of your birth.
In the backdrop of the Georgian conflict, would you choose to be a citizen of Russia, to proudly represent Russia around the world? How proud can Ms. Hammon really feel when “her” country of Russia is responsible for the invasion and destruction of Georgia? (And to forestall Iraq comparisons, folks, Georgia has a democratically elected government that is not terrorizing and torturing its people). Of course, to her, it’s not about citizenship or values, it’s about basketball.
That attitude makes her a mercenary. History does not treat mercenaries kindly for good reason: they show no moral conscience. In my opinion, this decision is a moral one. Even if Ms. Hammon fails to recognize or frame it as such, this is not a case where not recognizing the issue excuses moral culpability. By failing to understand the amoral decision she has made, she effectively elects it. It is a complex issue, but this was the wrong decision. She deserves criticism for it.
Posts
6 comments:
You know, I'm trying to care about this issue so as to post a comment, but I really cannot.
The interests of nationalism and global capitalism often interact, producing odd formations of political alliance and commerce such as the one the media is marking out here. I am reminded of Buy America advertising campaigns for American cars back in the '80s, and of how clever the Isuzu counter-campaign was, with the devilish dealer seducing you with a great car at a great price, albeit an evil Japanese one.
I find it a bit comical to see people struggle when the ideologies of capitalism with its apotheosis of the global "free" market conflicts with that of nationalism with its insistence on punctilious loyalty to whatever code of behavior maintains the current ruling elites. It's as if cases like these give people a disconcerting glimpse of how incoherently patched together their moral ideologies really are, and so they then absurdly wrestle with them to bring some sort of temporary relief to the cognitive dissonance.
It's one power with its ideology versus another, and who cares which one happens to prevail in this case? Neither represents any humane or moral position with regard to the vast mass of people in the world.
Perhaps the slogan "Buy American" might resolve the issue, after all?
Invisible Hand:
Interesting comments. I agree that there is an inherent disconnect between nationalism, which, obviously, is tied to a nation or region and inward-looking, and capitalism, which respects no internaional boundary. I also think it is kind of funny to hear people champion free trade and then also, for example, take an extreme hardline position on immigration (the labor market result of capitalism). Let's privatize our utilities! But let's build a fence between us and Mexico!
The issue I was pointing out, however, was not one that derives from that conflict, at least as I see it. Justice is not determined by capitalism-- and decisions are not made in a vacuum. If you decide to forego representing your country for another, you make a choice. Here, Becky Hammon made a choice to accede Russian citizenship to pursue a specific goal that she feels is important to her basketball career: participating and possibly winning her sport in the Olympics. In her mind, that decision was worth making even though she was aware of certain-- let us just say "moral failings"-- posed by the current Russian regime. Also, as I pointed out, this was different from a Russian athlete competing as a Russian in the Olympics; this was a choice. Choices derive from judgment; judgment derives from morality. My argument is simply that this is an amoral decision at best, and, as such, is worthy of disdain. She exercised bad judgment. Shame on her. Period.
Do you mean to say that she made an immoral decision? (If her decision was amoral, then why would we blame her for acting in her self-interest?)
I'm not really sure where the morality of her decision comes into play, anyway: is she being unpatriotic? (But perhaps she disagrees with US policies, or doesn't care about politics.) Or does she disrespect the Olympic creed? (But is it about anything but money now, and possibly sheer athletic excellence? Are those medal counts about peace between nations? Do the modern Olympics do any political good?) Or is it because you think Russia's recent clash with Georgia is immoral of Russia, and by playing for Russia she endorses that action? (Does anyone really think she is endorsing anything but money and basketball here? And BTW Georgia's bellicose president started it, and I suspect that the US encouraged him to do so. It looks to me like another of Bush&Co's foreign policy blunders, miscalculating Russia's response so badly. But anyway does anyone really think she knows or cares at all about any of that?)
I dispute the suggestion that acting in one's own economic self-interest defies criticism. Or that capitalism defines morality, as I have noted before. That's a topic for another time-- there is a strain of thought which has found its way into American popular culture that morality dervies from capitalism-- nothing could be further from the truth! (There's actually a Christian denomination that basically worships capitalism-- the Prosperity Gospel; or at least, the material rewards "prove" that one is being faithful as I understand it). As I see it, morality must constrain capitalism.
My point is not one about patriotism, although I recognize that it is difficult for one to see beyond the knee-jerk patriotism argument here. The argument is along these lines: nations still matter and governments and governmental action is different depending on the country. We are not at a stage in world history where all governments are created equal in a rightness sense. The U.S. has lots of flaws and problems, but we do stand for certain things, at least our Constitution does. Russia stands for other things. Separate and apart from a person's own economic self-interest is understanding being a part of, representing, supporting (impliedly or expressly) causes, decisions, and governments. Supporting Russia-- choosing to support Russia and Russia's government, which is what Becky Hammon has done, whether she thinks about it that way or not (and I'm sure she doesn't because it's unsavory)-- endorses its actions. In my judgment, that is wrong, clear and simple.
Perhaps I should have said it was "immoral" but I think her actions show more indifference than anything else. So, I will continue to characterize her decision as amoral. That doesn't mean it's "right" or good, though.
I did not suggest the absurd position that acting in self-interest is a tonic for an otherwise unethical act. I meant only to point out the awkward semantics of describing an amoral action as one we should censure, when "amoral" means neither moral nor immoral, such as when you brush your teeth, or watch TV. Such acts are not right or good, but neither are they wrong or bad. I think you meant "immoral," and that Hammon's action in this case was immoral because by playing for Russia, she endorses or appears to endorse Russia's policies. (Not sure I agree, but like I said, I don't really care.) There is a corrupted secondary meaning for "amoral" which is a synonym for "immoral," but as a philosopher I despise such corruptions.
I think this confusion itself is rather interesting, as perhaps it reflects the power the ideology of capitalism has over language. I submit that you may find the word "amoral" coming more readily to mind as you write about Hammon's case because people typically do things that fall into a morally ambiguous area and then justify them through specious or noxious arguments about the economic efficiency of the "free" market, or the Invisible Hand. To describe immoral actions or actions that seem somewhat immoral as amoral when they fall in line with the capitalist ideology of the free market, I submit, may be a result of that ideology's influence.
If Nike exploits children in Indonesia to make sneakers, and someone buys one of those sneakers in full knowledge that an Indonesian child made it on the cheap, then that action is immoral, despite the prevailing ideology of capitalism, which would have us describe such actions as amoral or simply inevitable consequences of the market, blah blah blah. The fact that it is practically speaking extremely inconvenient or expensive or both for a person living in an advanced capitalistic economy to avoid acting immorally in such cases does not convert the act from an immoral one to an amoral one. (I concede that such immoral acts are not as egregious as the more traditional crimes, but nonetheless, "immoral" is the proper descriptor.)
And BTW, to make such an argument about how the ideology of capitalism or any other social system may structure particular moral ideas and language in the minds of those it dominates is not to argue that morality is itself structured in that way, or to make any claim about the subjectivity/objectivity of ethics. Just the opposite, in fact, as critics of capitalism (like humanitarian Young Marx) are typically making a (communist) moral argument against the corrupted morality of capitalism.
Joining the post a little late... but Ms. Hammon will realize the foolishness of her actions when she tries to get a visa to the US as a Russian citizen...
And to address a comment regarding the invasion of Georgia by Russia - Georgia's President did - in a manner of speaking - start the latest round in the conflict. However, South Ossetia is still within the recognized international boundaries of the Republic of Georgia. The Russians have been taunting Georgia for several years, seeking to get the Georgians to do exactly what they did in order to punish them for daring to move towards the West. Unfortunately, the Georgians are a romantic, "hot-blooded" people who revel in a national history celebrating futile endeavors.
This had nothing to do with "Bush and Co." Not everything in the world is all about America, regardless of what we think. The Georgians would have reacted in this manner at some point, and Vladimir Putin knew it.
Post a Comment