The Postmodernisation of Rugby Union in Australia

[RugbyFuture]

found this inthe depths of the net, think it lacks a conclusion, but interesting read nonetheless

 

[Langthorne]

I didn't read anything particularly revolutionary in that article. I'm a little surprised that the situation in schools and club rugby isn't addressed - the article seems to regard rugby in Australia to consist of Super rugby and internationals. I would argue that grassroots rugby is still very much run with an amateur ethos. A more interesting discussion would be how the professional and amateur elements in the game interact, and maybe a blueprint for managing that relationship.

 

[Scarfman]

Fairly unnecessary use of the term "postmodern." They observe the commercialisation of rugby within a postmodern society. Same as everything else.

 

[Groucho]

I wouldn't even agree that we live in a postmodern society, by any philosophical definition. 21st century culture displays all the characteristics of modernity, no matter what advertising agencies say.

 

[Langthorne]

Society isn't really a homogeneous group anymore (if it ever was), so I think it is possible to find examples of modernity and post modernity...but deep down I think I agree that society is basically modern.

 

[Scarfman]

There's the alternative take on it which is that modernity was actually postmodernity in its development.

But actually, I think there are good reasons to believe that certain shifts have taken place. Principally, that certain ideals of the Enlightenment (science, rationality, human progress) have been colonised by capitalism. And that market forces have a strange flattening effect, where all things become the same, no matter how eclectic.

There's also the view that World War II marked the loss of faith in progress through science and reason. The Holocaust marks an excess of reason, and Hiroshima an excess of technology. Since then, it has been hard to believe in the idea that humanity will continuously improve towards a grand rational future.

 

[cyclopath]

There's the alternative take on it which is that modernity was actually postmodernity in its development.

But actually, I think there are good reasons to believe that certain shifts have taken place. Principally, that certain ideals of the Enlightenment (science, rationality, human progress) have been colonised by capitalism. And that market forces have a strange flattening effect, where all things become the same, no matter how eclectic.

There's also the view that World War II marked the loss of faith in progress through science and reason. The Holocaust marks an excess of reason, and Hiroshima an excess of technology. Since then, it has been hard to believe in the idea that humanity will continuously improve towards a grand rational future.

And I thought the Laws of Rugby were overly complicated?

 

[fatprop]

Good reminder of why I should not go back to Uni.

I hate reading uni papers

 

[Bruce Ross]

The Holocaust marks an excess of reason,

I've spent a couple of decades apologising for being an economist. Now I don't feel so defensive. It seems that other disciplines are infested with even greater nonsense.

 

[Lance Free]

Fuck, wasn't that a load of old pretentious shit?

 

[Scarfman]

I've spent a couple of decades apologising for being an economist. Now I don't feel so defensive. It seems that other disciplines are infested with even greater nonsense.

I assume you mean that you don't understand how the Holocaust could be considered an excess of reason. Or maybe you feel that reason is the kind of thing you can't have too much of? I think economics has a word for that kind of "good". Either way, keep apologising for being part of the dismal science.

 

[cyclopath]

I'm not even sure I know what an excess of reason is? Certainly not something we see on various fora too often. I must be too concrete in my thinking.

 

[Scarfman]

Really? An excess of reason seems an obvious idea to me, but maybe that's because my wife keeps telling me to stop being so rational all the time.

If anyone can be bothered, something like this discusses it: http://books.google.com.au/books?id...onepage&q=holocaust reason postmodern&f=false

The first paragraph of page 10 explains it totally clearly to me. But you would need to understand that academic language has jargon just like any other small field of experts. What it says is that whilst Habermas sees fascism as a reaction against modernity, we actually see the Holocaust (particularly, the Final Solution) as a kind of high rationality, an exact and mechanical execution of logic.

If you've got time to read a whole book, then this would seem to be the one: http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/oso/public/content/literature/9780199265930/toc.html

From Wikipedia:

Bauman's most famous book, Modernity and the Holocaust, is an attempt to give a full account of the dangers of these kinds of fears. Drawing upon Hannah Arendt and Theodor Adorno's books on totalitarianism and the Enlightenment, Bauman developed the argument that the Holocaust should not simply be considered to be an event in Jewish history, nor a regression to pre-modern barbarism. Rather, he argued, the Holocaust should be seen as deeply connected to modernity and its order-making efforts. Procedural rationality, the division of labour into smaller and smaller tasks, the taxonomic categorisation of different species, and the tendency to view rule-following as morally good all played their role in the Holocaust coming to pass. And he argued that for this reason modern societies have not fully taken on board the lessons of the Holocaust; it is generally viewed - to use Bauman's metaphor - like a picture hanging on a wall, offering few lessons. In Bauman's analysis the Jews became 'strangers' par excellence in Europe[9]; the Final Solution was pictured by him as an extreme example of the attempts made by societies to excise the uncomfortable and indeterminate elements existing within them. Bauman, like the philosopher Giorgio Agamben, contended that the same processes of exclusion that were at work in the Holocaust could, and to an extent do, still come into play today.

An excess of rationality appears in at least two ways: (1) The Jews didn't fit into the German idealised image of itself, and so the state needed to exclude the messiness of the existence of Jews, so to restore the neat order of Aryan purity. This is an excercise is neatness, orderliness, rationality. (2) The Jewish problem demanded a perfect solution, and was executed with mechanical precision. Only an excess of rationality could produce something like mechanised execution as a solution to the Jewish problem.

But if anyone wants to ask any serious questions about modernity and postmodernity, I'd be happy to have a crack at explaining it without jargon.

 

[cyclopath]

Really? An excess of reason seems an obvious idea to me, but maybe that's because my wife keeps telling me to stop being so rational all the time.

If anyone can be bothered, something like this discusses it: http://books.google.com.au/books?id...onepage&q=holocaust reason postmodern&f=false

The first paragraph of page 10 explains it totally clearly to me. But you would need to understand that academic language has jargon just like any other small field of experts. What it says is that whilst Habermas sees fascism as a reaction against modernity, we actually see the Holocaust (particularly, the Final Solution) as a kind of high rationality, an exact and mechanical execution of logic.

If you've got time to read a whole book, then this would seem to be the one: http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/oso/public/content/literature/9780199265930/toc.html

From Wikipedia: Bauman's most famous book, Modernity and the Holocaust, is an attempt to give a full account of the dangers of these kinds of fears. Drawing upon Hannah Arendt and Theodor Adorno's books on totalitarianism and the Enlightenment, Bauman developed the argument that the Holocaust should not simply be considered to be an event in Jewish history, nor a regression to pre-modern barbarism. Rather, he argued, the Holocaust should be seen as deeply connected to modernity and its order-making efforts. Procedural rationality, the division of labour into smaller and smaller tasks, the taxonomic categorisation of different species, and the tendency to view rule-following as morally good all played their role in the Holocaust coming to pass. And he argued that for this reason modern societies have not fully taken on board the lessons of the Holocaust; it is generally viewed - to use Bauman's metaphor - like a picture hanging on a wall, offering few lessons. In Bauman's analysis the Jews became 'strangers' par excellence in Europe[9]; the Final Solution was pictured by him as an extreme example of the attempts made by societies to excise the uncomfortable and indeterminate elements existing within them. Bauman, like the philosopher Giorgio Agamben, contended that the same processes of exclusion that were at work in the Holocaust could, and to an extent do, still come into play today.

Thank you Scarfy. I mean it. I have learned more on this Xmas eve than I ever have.
Being a fairly irreligious person, I often find Christmas a bit of a chore, so I am happy to be enlightened just a little bit.

 

[Lindommer]

My head hurts.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

Thanks Scarfy, that makes a twisted sort of sense.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

In reading the article, I appreciated both the descriptions of rugby's history, as well as that of modernism and post-modernism. The problem is, when describing the so-called post-modernisation of rugby, it seems to contradict what the authors define as post-modernism to begin with. I would argue that if we are to see contemporary sport as a primarily commercial venture (even rugby union), then surely that is far more in the domain of the modernism? Commercialism in many ways implies capitalism as we know it in present day society, so would that not mean that rugby is inherently modern?

I have to say that I enjoyed the wonderfully wanky philosopher speak employed in the article. It's nice to see that every academic pursuit has its own brand of incomprehensible psycho-babble.

 

[Groucho]

Fuck, wasn't that a load of old pretentious shit?

Well, we're not all bogans here.

 

[cyclopath]

Speak for yourself.

 

[Scarfman]

La flama blanca!