[As we get
closer to what some
are predicting will be another rough winter, a series AmericanStudying
significant winter events from our history. Leading up to a special weekend
post on Pearl Harbor!]
On the symbolic
role of sports in society, and the line between history and story.
For a solid
five-year period in the early 1980s, the sports world and the Cold War felt
inextricably linked. Beginning with the February
1980 Olympic hockey semifinal between the U.S. and Soviet Union teams (on
which a lot more momentarily), continuing through the two prominent Olympic
boycotts (the US boycott of the 1980
Summer Olympics in Moscow, and the retaliatory Soviet boycott of the
1984 Summer Olympics in Los Angeles), and culminating, of course, with 1985’s Rocky IV and its climactic, Cold War-ending boxing match
between American underdog Rocky Balboa and Soviet machine (literally
and figuratively) Ivan Drago, the stories and images of international
sports in the period mirrored quite strikingly the political
and cultural clashes between the two superpowers.
One of those
four sports events is not like the others, of course—the fight between Rocky
and Drago, compelling as it undoubtedly was, took place only in the realms of
film and fiction, unlike the actual historical events surrounding the 80 and 84
Olympics.Yet I don’t believe that the line between those categories of events
is nearly as clear as it might seem. While the Olympic boycotts of course had
very tangible
and often desctructive effects, not only for the athletes and teams but for
the respective host cities and countries, they were, first and foremost, about
the manipulation of and contests over images and narratives. And while the 1980
hockey semifinal was not scripted by a team of Hollywood screenwriters, however
much it might have felt that way (and the subsequent TV and Hollywood films
notwithstanding), the narrative of the “Miracle on Ice,” which was developed quite literally in
the moment and has become the defining image of that game, represents
image-making at its most potent and enduring.
The question,
though, is even more complicated than whether the phrase “Miracle on Ice”
represents an image rather than the event itself (it certainly does). I would
ask, instead, whether we collectively remember the event not only through but
also because of the image; because, that is, of how the event was turned into a
story that can have cultural and symbolic resonance far beyond even the most
striking individual historical moment. Whether the image and story are accurate
to the history is a separate (and important) question, and in this case I would
say that they largely are (the US team was a huge underdog to the powerful
Soviet squad, and the victory thus one of the more
unexpected in sports history); but to my mind, the question of accuracy can
blur the importance of the process of image-making, can make it seem as if “miracle”
refers to the game rather than to the narrative that was and has been developed
in response to it. A great deal of the Cold War was defined by such image- and
myth-making, never more so than during
the Reagan Administration; to recognize the way in which sports can be
folded into such narratives is thus a historical analysis, as well as one with contemporary and ongoing
implications.
Last
AmericanWinter tomorrow,
Ben
PS. What do you
think? Other winter events you’d highlight?
No comments:
Post a Comment