Monday, February 8, 2010

No cause for applause

If you were at Murrayfield at the weekend you would have been part of the minute's silence observed in memory of Bill McLaren, a man who did so much to preserve the spirit of Rugby Union in his popular TV commentaries.

When McLaren was at the microphone it was a commentary, not a conversation between commentator and pundit interspersed with pitch-side analysis and interviews. As spectators we indulged in our own analysis and argument. Today all that is done for us.

If, on the other hand, you, like me, were part of the crowd watching England play Wales at Twickenham on Saturday, you would have been invited by the DJ-style announcer who is so in love with his own voice, to show your appreciation of McLaren with applause. I did not applaud. I applaud a great sporting moment, a fine singer a funny comedian, a great speech, but I do not applaud in death.

Come Remembrance Day when the clock strikes eleven I do not feel the urge to applaud in memory of the millions who died in wartime. I would not want to stand in the street in Wootton Bassett and applaud the funeral corteges for fallen servicemen and women in Afghanistan. In fact sometimes people don't applaud and sometimes they do. In this clip people maintain silence until (3.15 minutes on the clip) a big chap with a white shirt, black tie and tattooed arms begins clapping robustly and others follow.

The problem is that as a society we no longer know how to handle death. Respect has become an issue and we are angered by those who fail to show it: a minority in football crowds, for example. One way of drowning out the disrespectful minority is to applaud. Applause is an example of flocking behaviour that can be set off by a single individual - the same one, perhaps, who would start a Mexican wave.

This may be a feature of soccer crowds; but it does not, or at least did not, affect rugby crowds. Rugby crowds are still capable of observing a minute's silence - just. I say "just" because the rugby union crowd is changing, manipulated by commercialism.

Rugby matches used to be great singing occasions, as did football cup finals. I can remember when the Twickenham crowd sang Jerusalem during the game. Today they manage a few lines of Swing Low, Sweet Chariot. On the way to the England v Wales match, the England fans would sing a song, then call on the Welsh who never failed to do likewise. Not any more. As we made our way to the match on Saturday the only response from a Welshman came from one of our own group who sang a fine and and faultlessly delivered Land of My Fathers in his native tongue.

On Saturday a big choir came out on to the Twickenham pitch and sang Jerusalem before the game. But the crowd didn't sing along much. Perhaps some do not know the words but these could be displayed on the big screens.

Singing, sadly, seems to be on a decline on great sporting occasions - as opposed to abusive chanting which is something else. Some football fans may think it is amusing to compile a verse on the latest sexual adventures of John Terry, the captain of Chelsea. That is a reflection of the cruelty of people who don't know how to behave towards would-be role models who also don't know how to behave.

When England scored their last try that sealed victory in a closely fought match, a few of the crowd near me started up the mocking football chant: "You're not singing any more." That didn't use to happen. Traditionally there has been banter between fans at rugby matches but, for the most part, it is harmless stuff, not underpinned with the kind of tribalism you get in football.

Another thing - and I guess this is fairly harmless - there seems to be a growing fondness for declaring group identity at these matches in fancy dress. On Saturday I saw blokes dressed as bunnies, some in Elvis wigs and some with flame hair wigs. This trend seems to have been imported from cricket crowds. This eagerness to suppress our individuality behind such themed uniformity betrays a deep psychological need to belong (says this armchair psychologist).

More rugby old fart blogs on remarkably similar lines (I forget from match to match) can be found here, here, here and here.

Labels: , , , , ,

Saturday, March 1, 2008

The common prince

The footage of Prince Harry in Afghanistan last week gave us an insight in to the Royal dilemma. On the one hand, he said, he appreciated the opportunities that came the way of he and his brother William because of their Royal birth. At the same time other doors - those to a normal existence - were closed.

Extraordinarily this means that fighting in Afghanistan's Helmand province has probably been one of the most authentic experiences of his life. He didn't miss anything back home, he said, and we nodded because we knew he meant it. Here he was doing the job of his choice with people who had made the same choices.

This was not champagne Harry tripping between nightclubs with wealthy friends, but a young man who had found a sense of purpose, who was respected for his skills rather than for his background.

Last night I read Alan Bennett's short book, The Uncommon Reader, a fanciful story that imagines the Queen gripped by a reading fetish so strong that it begins to impinge on her Royal duties.

At one stage a young kitchen worker, who has become her reading adviser, is levered out of his job by those around her. So protected is the Queen that he is unable to contact her and she him, not knowing his whereabouts or, indeed anything about the circumstance in which he was removed.

Bennett's fictional scenario and the reality of Prince Harry's situation reminds us just how stifling and restricting it is to be Royal. You can't stop being Royal just like that. Edward VIII achieved it, but at what a price? Neither can you step off the plate and get back on when it seems convenient. You are, for better or worse, an instrument of the state.

The problem is, as Bennett illustrates, that the state has no great imagination in the way it utilises this instrument. Why should our Queen spend interminable hours opening shopping centres and science parks? That sort of thing has become an anachronism.

Funnily enough Prince Charles has avoided much of this meaningless stuff by immersing himself in issues that have real significance in all our lives.

The price of Harry's service will be security fears that the so-called "bullet-magnet" will become more of a bomb-magnet once back in London. Was it sensible to allow footage of the prince firing a machine gun at the Taliban when their sympathisers include some in our own country who might be described as the enemy within?

The Army and that amorphous body of flunkies we call "the palace," however, will be delighted at the impact of "the story" on Royal approval ratings and armed forces recruitment. An unpopular war has just become sexy.

Labels: , , , , , , , ,

SFL - improve performance through the implementation of an authentic and measurable leadership culture