The current refugee crisis in Europe has been dominating the news cycle in recent weeks, and I could not help but notice the role that organizations have been taking in attempting to be as hospitable as possible to these refugees. In line with constructivist thought, and countering the realist school of thought, these organizations are taking a very active role in the well being and safety of the refugees. Considering the near religious following of soccer in my life, the role that individual clubs and UEFA (Union of European Football Associations) have taken are truly extraordinary. This approach is miles better than what the U.S. is currently struggling with regarding our southern border. The different approaches between the U.S. and Europe reflects the battle between realism and constructivism quite well.
After watching the entirety of the Republican Debate this past Thursday, many of the candidates supported a mass deportation or even the construction of a wall. I see this approach as one a realist would support. The U.S. should only worry about the national interest and our security, while ignoring the suffering of those who are not Americans. Realists often associate human nature with politics, and in this case the “natural” thing to do would be to take care of those who are part of your state. However, the constructivist idea that our identity helps guide decisions is a major reason of why Europe’s major soccer clubs are helping these refugees.
Soccer clubs are an incredibly large part of many peoples lives. These clubs are using their influence over people’s thoughts to help sway belief to help the refugees. While in the past, immigrants have been met with disdain in Europe, most notably France with the large influx of Islamic immigrants that were entering the country. However, very similarly to the constructivist idea that history is not a guaranteed predictor of what the future will be like, these clubs have taken it upon themselves to take an active role in ensuring that the refugees will be met with open arms. The multi nationality of a majority of these teams help create their identity. While a leader of this movement, Bayern Munich, are a very German team with a very German identity, they also involve a multitude of cultures both within their squad as well as their fanbase. So they have their German base, but expand into many other cultures. The donations from Bayern are going towards food and German language classes, showing that while they are very willing to help these refugees, they also want to help them integrate into German culture. More than monetary support is coming from these actions though. The fans of these clubs get behind these ideas and bring that support outside the stadium to the refugees.
With the immigrant crisis that the U.S. is facing, professional sports teams have not made a stand like this. While European soccer clubs are full of a multitude of cultures and nationalities, a majority of American sport is defined by them being American. I see this major difference as reflecting the constructivist vs. realist argument incredibly well. The attempt to not let history define the outcome of the current crisis as well as these clubs acting as institutions that have a real effect on the outcome of the crisis.
link-http://www.theguardian.com/football/2015/sep/09/champions-league-europa-donate-ticket-refugees-porto-bayern-munich
This is a very interesting comparison. I would never have thought to apply IR theories to immigration. It makes a lot of sense in the manner you described; a state must decide its position in the international system when dealing with immigrants. It sounds like you believe in the stability brought about by forging bonds in a social construct. A similar view is held by some environmentalists, who believe that a common resource is best managed when consumers have a respectful relationship. This ties into the idea of reputations that construtivists advocate. The idea of sports clubs being international actors is strange, but very valid. I think it may take a long time before American sports take political action on an international scale. As you said, many American sports clubs center around the fact that they are American. It's like the sports in the U.S. still follow an isolationist policy.
ReplyDeleteFrank,
ReplyDeleteYou seem to be in the line of Constructivist thought that identity helps fuel our decisions. I like the way you explain that European soccer teams are more diverse and have more culturally diverse fan bases, therefore making their cultural identity more partial to helping the refugees. I agree with you on this point, but there is one thing missing in your argument: Although the US soccer teams are not very diverse (nor do they have diverse fan followings), so their identity is not playing a role in the refugee process, they are still contributing to the crisis, and have offered to take in thousands of refugees every year. In my opinion, this is due to the Constructivist idea of norms and discourse. It is the norm of the US to help other countries in need, dating back to US intervention in the Afghan war, Libyan civil war, and many more.
I agree with your theories Frank and I think that you bring up another criticism of the Realist theory without directly stating it. That criticism being the lack of thought given NGOs in the Realist theory. This is directly related to what you said about the importance of the soccer teams in dealing with the international refugee crisis. As a Realist, there would not be much emphasis given to the efforts of these teams to support the new refugees. Based on the Realist theory this is not an issue that a government would want to concern themselves with however, without the efforts of the UEFA the economical situation in the EU would be much worse which would effect the ability of many countries to keep up their security, the most important part of the Realist theory.
ReplyDelete