Project Self: Lessons from the Colosseum

So I'm thinking about how sports permeates our society. I have a conversation with CJ about how so many networking situations are lubricated not only with alcohol, but also with sports. While I certainly believe that a cold glass of Sam Adams gives people a common bond, I think that conversation about sports does even more. In evolutionary terms, we look for belonging in groups that will keep us in an advantageous position against other groups. While this may seem to be a very good argument against, say, being a Cubs fan, the act of belonging is where I'm headed with this. We'll delve into the implications of an actual affiliation choice later.

I think that if you take a quick stab at the reasons for following sports, you find yourself back to something very primal. You place yourself in the safety net of the group so that you have something to belong to. We aren't very easily able to demonstrate our physical alpha-ness very easily in modern society. To some extent, our affiliation with a group allows us to have a proxy for that. Our affiliation becomes some sort of indirect proof of our worth. That's one of the reasons for group affiliation, once you get past the obvious things (division of labor, strength in numbers, etc.).

And we've seen this throughout the history of man. We tend to thrive in groups. Some of this is simply because well-organized groups can be brutally efficient (if you're interested in this sort of stuff, take a peek at Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond). Those who go alone are, at worst, killed and eaten, and at best, simply forgotten (for those of you who are curious of the implications of legacy, you can do some reading on Mortality Salience Theory - a relatively new psychological theory on why we do things in certain ways when we're primed with death). So, we like to be a part of something. Well, duh.

So, in modern times, in an American culture where can we really find this affiliation? Well, the first thought seems to be religion. Historically, that's one very easy way to affiliate yourself with a group. But in this society, there has been a backlash against people who define themselves by their religion. We see it when we roll our eyes at Jehova's Witnesses who come knocking at the door or the Hare Krishnas at the airport in their robes. We see it when we get angry against Muslim fanatics in the news. We see it when we ridicule the Mormons for their "happy cult." We see it when we take a step back from Christians who share faith a little too personally, a little too easily, and altogether awkwardly. We see religion as sort of quaint. But generally left to the simple minded. And we tend to respect more the folks who keep their religious beliefs private, but rather show their religious beliefs through their actions. This isn't exactly the model that we use to draw a fanatic fan base.

The next institution with which we can align ourselves is family. But again, this country has generally been more about egalitarian values than royal ones. We don't do royalty here. And in fact, we tend to mock strong families (see the Brady Bunch movie from a few years back). Sure, we have had the Rockerfellers, the Carnegies, the Kennedy's, and the Roosevelts. But those have been the exception. Most of our images of family clans looks more like the Hatfields and McCoys. One take on why this is: you can go a little further into the egalitarian values and say that we are an individualistic society. It would then follow that our collective needs would likely be met somewhere where there is less at stake than with family. I'm not saying that family is bad. I'm just saying that our response to it is more like what we think when we hear, "O'Doyle Rules!" It's more of a mocking thing where we sort of laugh at/pity those poor suckers from the backwater who have nothing else to define themselves.

Of course, we still have our work. Traditionally, our trade has often defined who we are. Back in the master/apprentice way of doing things, it was a big deal. We devoted our lives to our craft. In fact, how often do we see our last names influenced by our vocations? Smith, anyone? But today? We are in a continual state of flux when it comes to our work. What's the average number of times that a student changes their major? How often do people find new jobs? How many people in this generation are defined by what they do? I would say that this becomes less and less true as you go down the prestige of your work. I could see doctors or professors being content with saying that their work is one of the top 5 things that defines them. I don't see that happening as much with a cook at McDonald's.

You go down the list, and you see fewer and fewer real outlets for our group needs. I would suggest that's why we see such a high level of instant bonding in things as seemingly trivial as the Greek system, intramural sports, or barcrawls with people in your program. We want to belong to something, and we have relatively few outlets to really satisfy that. And these things are rather restrictive to a small group. Where you see sports fill this role is when you have a uniting force for larger populations.

How many Cubs fans are there? If I had to guess, probably somewhere around 5 million. Are they all hard core? Do they all know baseball? Do they know a slider from a splitter? Nah. But you've got a ton of casual fans out there. Why do we have so many Cubs fans? Is it because they're a great team? Well, not so much. Is it for their storied history? Even less. Is it because it's what people around them talk about, and they want to feel like a part of the rest of society? I think so. This group is open membership. Anyone with ten bucks to buy a Cubs hat can be a fan. All of the working knowledge you need to stay up to date is public domain. Everyone can do it. Who actually knows anything about anything? Not many of them. Heck, I think that I know more about the Cubs than 95% of Cubs fans. And I hate the Cubs. So why is it so appealing? Because everyone else is doing it. There's not statement of right or wrong on an absolute level. It's simply relative, situational ethics at work.

We've all heard stories of how brutal the Roman Colosseum was. And we've seen Gladiator, with the blood thirsty crowds. But my question is, were the people there actually brutal, violent individuals? Probably not. My guess is that they were there because it was the place to be. It's what everyone else was doing, so it must be right. It was the ultimate form of social proof. And more and more, I am seeing that social proof has become more vital to our daily successes and failures than any more systematic, absolute forms of proof.

So what does all this mean? Beats me. But when we become a part of something larger, we feel at home. We want it to be easy entry. We want it to be comfortable. We want it to feel like it's what is right because everyone else is doing it. Sports lets this happen. Where this is interesting is that this is a very "thin slice" way of meeting people. Obviously, this is a great entry point into more serious discussions. But with many people, this is the single, best way to get to know someone at first. Are there problems if this it the only depth to which people can go? Certainly. Lots of sports geeks out there.

I've heard it from multiple places where guys are nervous about meeting other guys in networking situations, and they hope that the guys that they meet know sports, otherwise they would have no idea what to talk about. In my life, that was a common bond between myself and most of my natural friendships. We played street ball against each other (any type of ball - pigskin, hardball, basketball) and then we watched the pros play over at someone's house. We'd play sports video games with each other, we'd trade sports cards, and we made sure that we had some form of affiliation made evident with our clothing. But for me the friendships where we actually played sports were different.

These relationships always carry a finer edge that my non-sports relationships. Which is what I find particularly interesting. Why is it that by having played sports with and against someone, our relationships are deepened. I think that it's the tradeoff between working together and then working against each other in a relatively high short-term stakes, yet ultimately low long-term stakes setting. We learn strengths and weaknesses awfully quickly. We figure out how to work together (otherwise you lose). You figure out how to keep your opponents from working together. A handful of 11-year olds can develop a pretty complex strategy pretty quickly if they want to stop losing. Sports is the arena where ego is triumphed (in the long term) over the good of the group. Eventually, you stop worrying about the name of the person, and focus on the abilities and likelihood of success that that person brings. It's egalitarianism in it's rawest form. And that's where sports carries through.

As for those of us who grew up without sports? Beats me.

-Chairman