Square heads, oval balls, tiny shorts, missing teeth and vacant expressions. Such is the stereotype of rugby from those among us who scoff and yawn at our national sport.
The culture of rugby is so incredibly intense in Aotearoa (to the point of being called ‘New Zealand’s religion’) that a strong, unorganised counter-culture is only natural. I find this especially so in circles which place more emphasis on art and high-culture, and perhaps see rugby culture as insensitive, hyper-masculine and out of touch with our nations developing identity. But is this perspective perhaps no more than a knee-jerk reaction to the stranglehold rugby has over New Zealand?
I, for one, have been a soldier on both sides of the war. I grew up in a fairly standard household which placed importance on both sport and art, and therefore was a neutral fan of the All Blacks and (especially) the Wellington teams who I had passionate loyalty for. Yet, I have been put off the game in recent years due to consequently diminished quality from numerous rule changes. But also because of the resurgence of sport focused lad-culture, which seemed to me an archaic flashback to the traditional ‘masculinities’ of the mid twentieth century.
Tonight, I watched an All Black game for the first time in what seems an age, and I really, really enjoyed it. My return to the sport with fresh eyes and lack of expectations resulted in an experience allowing me to view rugby not as a culture, religion, or even sport; but as a game.
Ideas on culture are socially constructed. New friends are often exceedingly surprised when they learn of my interest and enjoyment of rugby, and even more-so when I discuss rugby with passion and opinion. But why should this be so? Why should we stereotype young rugby supporters as people who seemingly and actively stereotype themselves? It is after all a game involving a ball and an objective... and we all enjoy games.
Sometimes, I think high culture can go fuck itself.
The culture of rugby is so incredibly intense in Aotearoa (to the point of being called ‘New Zealand’s religion’) that a strong, unorganised counter-culture is only natural. I find this especially so in circles which place more emphasis on art and high-culture, and perhaps see rugby culture as insensitive, hyper-masculine and out of touch with our nations developing identity. But is this perspective perhaps no more than a knee-jerk reaction to the stranglehold rugby has over New Zealand?
I, for one, have been a soldier on both sides of the war. I grew up in a fairly standard household which placed importance on both sport and art, and therefore was a neutral fan of the All Blacks and (especially) the Wellington teams who I had passionate loyalty for. Yet, I have been put off the game in recent years due to consequently diminished quality from numerous rule changes. But also because of the resurgence of sport focused lad-culture, which seemed to me an archaic flashback to the traditional ‘masculinities’ of the mid twentieth century.
Tonight, I watched an All Black game for the first time in what seems an age, and I really, really enjoyed it. My return to the sport with fresh eyes and lack of expectations resulted in an experience allowing me to view rugby not as a culture, religion, or even sport; but as a game.
Ideas on culture are socially constructed. New friends are often exceedingly surprised when they learn of my interest and enjoyment of rugby, and even more-so when I discuss rugby with passion and opinion. But why should this be so? Why should we stereotype young rugby supporters as people who seemingly and actively stereotype themselves? It is after all a game involving a ball and an objective... and we all enjoy games.
Sometimes, I think high culture can go fuck itself.
No comments:
Post a Comment