It is a basic tenet of systems theory that for a system to be optimized, its subsystems must be sub-optimized (their agency must be brought within the communal embrace of the higher holonic level of the system as a whole). When we look at the evolutionary system that is the spiral of development in consciousness and culture, we can see that for the overall health and evolutionary fecundity of this system, the subsystems (consisting of the “first tier” stages of consciousness) must be sub-optimized — that is, transcended and included.

Recently, amid all of the World Cup craziness, conservative advocate, Ann Coulter, felt the need to write a blog post discussing her feelings on soccer and morality. According to Coulter, “Any growing interest in soccer can only be a sign of the nation’s moral decay.”

Initially, I wasn’t surprised by this type of comment from Coulter, who’s job it is to be professionally provocative and inflammatory, and I usually ignore this kind of thing. But being that I am also not a huge fan of soccer (or sports in general), I was interested enough to actually read her blog post myself to see what the extent of her soccer criticisms were. Surprisingly, after reading the post, I found myself agreeing with some of her soccer criticisms, and actually laughing (she’s a funny writer, and is obviously being cynical and sarcastic through most of the piece…I hope). Of course, after reading the first few lines, I realized that her anger toward the sport did not come from a place of respectful, subjective differing of opinion or taste, but from a deep seeded fear of identity loss.

One of Coulter’s main arguments for soccer being morally corrosive is that it is perhaps the ultimate team sport, or in her words:

“Individual achievement is not a big factor in soccer.”

She goes on to list other sports, like baseball, where there is more individual glory, and individual blame. She claims that, in soccer, “the blame is dispersed and almost no one scores anyway. There are no heroes, no losers, no accountability, and no child’s fragile self-esteem is bruised.”

Another gripe Coulter lists in her post is soccer’s propensity for games to end in scoreless ties. She writes:

“If Michael Jackson had treated his chronic insomnia with a tape of Argentina vs. Brazil instead of Propofol, he’d still be alive, although bored.”

Pretty funny.

It’s really interesting to me, though, that Coulter points these things out. I mean, I think she’s actually right about these particular aspects of soccer. Soccer is much more of a team sport than other sports in that individual achievement is indeed not as big a factor. This is, perhaps, some would argue, part of it’s beauty, though. Also, it doesn’t seem to deter soccer fans that many games end in 0-0 ties.

So is soccer the postmodern sport of choice?

I’d say so. Coulter is right that soccer is indeed more team oriented than other sports, and it could be said that it is inclusive and pluralistic (especially if you look how beloved it is throughout the world). But in my mind, the biggest indication that soccer appeals to postmoderns is how the sport embraces ambiguity. Coulter’s right again that soccer, for the most part, doesn’t need to make strong distinctions or have crisp clear outcomes: winner and loser. Soccer is fine with leaving things at 0-0.

So, it’s completely understandable that someone with a traditional or modernist worldview, like Coulter, would feel really threatened by soccer becoming more, and more popular. As Steve McIntosh points out when discussing stages of human consciousness, “Each stage is driven to defend its orthodoxies by the failure of the other stages to adequately recognize that particular stage’s enduring contributions to the spiral of development as a whole.” In other words, soccer’s (postmodernism’s) insistence on team work over individual glory (collectivism over individualism) and blamelessness over accountability (moral relativism vs. moral objectivism), threatens some of modernism’s core values: comparative excellence and objective moral virtue.

Obviously this soccer metaphor breaks down pretty easily, but the point remains, there is an unmistakable polarizing tension in our culture between those with varying worldviews. I think what integral folks like McIntosh and his friends at ICE are trying to do is pretty great: integrate the good while pruning away the pathological. All worldviews have good values that have to be built upon, and which cannot be done away with. For instance, embracing comparative excellence doesn’t have to be a bad thing. Competition can be good, and healthy sometimes. Also, recognizing the individual as special and unique is essential, but the need to recognize the collective aspects of reality (cultural and social/systemic) is also vital. Further, we absolutely need to recognize that morality is indeed relative and location specific, but that does not mean we don’t put stakes in the ground. As the integral creed goes, we must “transcend and include.” McIntosh again:

It is a basic tenet of systems theory that for a system to be optimized, its subsystems must be sub-optimized (their agency must be brought within the communal embrace of the higher holonic level of the system as a whole). When we look at the evolutionary system that is the spiral of development in consciousness and culture, we can see that for the overall health and evolutionary fecundity of this system, the subsystems (consisting of the “fist tier” stages of consciousness) must be sub-optimized — that is, transcended and included.

Soccer is definitely boring, but it’s growing popularity is not a sign of the nation’s moral decay, it’s a sign–Steve McIntosh would say–of evolutionary development.

Tags:Ann CoulterevolutionmoralitypoliticssoccerSteve McIntosh