How does the global game of cricket (re)produce the international political phenomenon of British...

CandidateNumber:65165,Unit:POLI31378,SeminarTutor:ProfessorJuttaWeldes,Wordcount:3497,ChosenQuestion:HowdoesthemodernglobalgameofcricketreproducetheinternationalpoliticalphenomenonofBritishcolonialism?

1

The international political phenomenon of British colonialism (hereafter‘colonialism’)isreproducedinthemodernglobalgameofcricket.Thisisbecauseglobal cricket, to a great extent, reproduces cricket’s conventional ‘colonialideology’. This ideology was popularised during colonialism, as it, with thepropagationofcricketinthecolonies,comprisedanimportantintellectualfacetof colonialisms’ civilising mission. However, in global cricket, reproduction ofconventional cricket ideology is not monolithic or complete. Incorporation ofcricket’sconventionalideologicalmeaningsintotheglobalgamefacesresistance.Colonialism’s reproduction is constantly contested. Continual counter-hegemonicresistancechallengesconventionalcricketideologyandrestrainstheextenttowhichconventional‘colonial’cricketideologyisreproducedwithintheglobalgame.However,despite thiscounter-hegemonicresistance,conventional‘colonial’ cricket ideology persists in the global game, albeit incompletely,imperfectly,andinastateofon-goingcontestation.I understand both colonial and modern global cricket’s ideologies to beconstructed, and as such, having ‘anti-essentialist ontology and … anti-foundationalistepistemology’ (Torfing,2005:13).Whileconventional ‘colonial’cricket ideologymaybe characterisedas a static setofnarratives in a roughlysynchronically delineated time period, global cricket’s ideology is maintainedthrough the real-world articulated narrative of cricket. This understanding ofcontemporary global cricket ideology is generated in an on-going iterativeprocess of ‘disarticulation-articulation’ (Mouffe, 1981) that fixes a temporarymeaning of ‘cricket ideology’ via a meaning-making process of cumulativeiteration (Derrida, 1978). Within this meaning-making process, global cricketarticulates a contested version of conventional cricket ideology, and thusreproducescolonialism,throughthis‘hegemonic’(Gramsci,1971)negotiation.Toillustratepreciselyhowglobalcricketreproducescolonialisminthispaper,Ioutline thecontestations toconventional cricket ideology thatarematerialisedinglobalcricket.Specifically,Idiscussthemaincounter-hegemonicchallengestoconventional cricket ideology, posed by: innovative cricket playing-styles,proliferationofgamesmanship,andtheexpansionofnewcricketformats.Beforedoing so, I set out global cricket as popular culture; assert cricket’s ‘colonial’conventional ideology;arguecricket’s critical role inpsychological colonialism;characterise cricket in relation to the concept of ‘hegemony’; and set out theadvantagesoftheEnglishcricketingestablishmentinthecontestationsIproceedtounderline.

PopularCultureModernglobalcricketisaformof‘popularculture’,asitisconsumedbyalargemassoftheglobalpopulation.The‘IndianPremierLeague’(hereafter‘IPL’)and‘BigBashLeague’cricketleaguescomprisetwoofthetenmostattendedsportsleaguesgloballybyaveragematchattendance(Barrett,2016).Cricketboaststhethirdmostwatchedsportingevent inhistory,withoverabillionviewers(BBC,2011). It ‘is played on five continents’ (Fletcher, 2011: 29) and is ‘diffused tomost but not all countries with close cultural ties to England’ (Kaufman andPatterson,2005:82).


2

Cricket’s‘colonial’ideologyConventional cricketing ideology has unique ‘values, norms and prejudices’(Hughson, 2009: 73) derived from the games’ ‘system of ethics and morals’(Odendaal, 1988: 196). This moral system of cricket is an ‘intrinsicschizophrenia’, originated in the colonial era, (Nandy, 2000: 97) between the‘quasi-legal provisions’ of ‘the laws of cricket’, and cricket’s ‘associatednormative expectations’, or the ‘spirit of cricket’ (Holden, 2008: 339).Conventionalvaluesareprimarilymanifestedinthegames’‘higherordernorms’(Nandy,2000:37)or ‘spirit’.This ‘spirit’ is ‘utterlyopposedtothe…pursuitofvictoryatallcosts’(Bourdieu,1978:825),andvalorises‘sportsmanship’(playingcricketthe ‘right’way).Cricket’sconventional ‘spirit’values ‘unsportingvictoryless than a sporting defeat … as if … success was not the goal of cricket,sportsmanship was’ (Nandy, 2000: 38). Conventionally, if an action is not inaccordancewith this ‘transcendent code of behaviour… [existing] beyond the[thescopeofthe]explicitlawsofthegame’(Marqusee,2005:74),colloquially,itis‘justnotcricket’.

Cricket’s‘colonial’ideologyandthecolonial‘civilisingmission’Despite itscurrentmassfollowing,cricketwasnotalwayspopularculture.Thegameandits’‘spirit’originatedwithgentlemenplayersbeforecricketdescendedthe‘culturalescalator’(Hall,2009:514),as‘membershipinleadingcricketclubs’became less exclusive (Scalmer, 2007: 433). Cricket was only popularisedgloballywhenimperialistsadopteditasa ‘gospelofathleticism’(Horton,2001:106), and its conventional ideological values were used for their ‘civilisingmission’.Thecivilisingmissionwaslaunchedtoimpose‘culturalcontrol’(Scalmer,2007:435)overthecolonised.Conventionalcricketideologywasafundamentalfingeron the ‘velvet glove of cultural imperialism’ (Hughson, 2009: 72). LordHarris,Governor of Bombay, hailed cricket as ‘not merely a game, but ... a greateducationalmedium’(Allen,2009:465).Cricket’sideology,inthisera,contained‘values, norms and prejudices’ that when instilled in the colonised to renderthem‘conduciveto…rule’(Hughson,2009:73).Thesecolonialcricketingvalueswere: obedience to the imposed rules (Fletcher, 2011: 21), restraint (James,1963: 50), and unquestioning deference to arbitrary authority or ‘bad luck’(Holden, 2008: 350). In colonialism, cricketing ideology was thus partiallyaccountable for psychological colonialism,which ‘disfigure[d]’ ‘the past of theoppressed people’ (Fanon, 2001:169). This colonial creation of psychologicaldependenceon the colonisers,helped to sustain the colonised ‘marginal to theWest’ (Saïd, 1980: 189). Cricket, as a dominant cultural purveyor of themoralprinciples of colonialism, constituted part of the political ‘superstructure’(Brohm, 1989: 47–48) of colonised societies. As such, it not only disfiguredincumbent moral values but proliferated a certain form of ‘common-sense'(Parry,1984:75)conducivetocolonialism’smaintenance. It fulfilledthe ‘socialfunction of legitimating social differences’ (Bourdieu, 1984: 5). Accordingly itlegitimated the inequitable relations of colonialism’s unbalanced capitalistmodesofproductionandtradingaffairs.


3

On-goinghegemonicincorporationHowever,duringcolonialism,cricket ideologywasnot ‘merelyhandeddown…and compliantly absorbedby the local inhabitants of Empire’ (Hughson, 2009:72). Analogous, I argue that conventional ‘colonial’ cricket ideology is notmonolithically incorporated into the current cricketing ideology of those whoengagewith cricket globally. Accordingly it does not constitute current cricketideology’s complete meaning. I draw modestly from Gramsci’s argument ofhegemony in my understanding of howmodern cricket ideology’s meaning isgenerated in its on-going process of its societal incorporation, and thus inunderstanding how ‘colonialism’ is reproduced through negotiation. Gramsci’sconceptofhegemonyis‘notthedisappearanceordestructionofdifference…[inagiven incorporationofa societal ideology,but] thearticulationofdifferenceswhichdonotdisappear’(Hall,1991:58).Theconceptofhegemonyiscongruentwith theovertcontestationsof the ideologyofcricketweobservebetweentheEnglish cricketing establishment and ex-colonial countries. These overtcontestationsarewheretheEnglishcricketingestablishmentseekstomaintain‘common consent’ to the conventional colonial cricket of ideals through a‘process of (admittedly uneven) [hegemonic] negotiation’ (Rowe, 2004: 102-103).

Theestablishment’sadvantagesThis is ‘a continuingwork-in-progress’, inwhich theEnglishestablishmenthas‘manyadvantages’ butdoes ‘cedeground to… [counter-hegemonic] resistance’(Rowe, 2004: 103). The English cricketing establishment has quasi-legislativeauthorityoverthe‘lawsofthecricket’viatheMaryleboneCricketClub,whohavebeen self-appointed ‘guardians’ (Holden, 2008: 359) of the game since thecolonialera(Holden,2008:360).ThisallowstheEnglishcricketestablishmenttoassert legislative authority over the ‘laws’ of how cricket may be played, andthus, to someextent, influence the scope for counter-hegemonicnegotiationofcrickets’coreideology.TheInternationalCricketCouncil(hereafter ‘ICC’) istheregulatorybodytaskedwithpracticallyenforcing theserules.TheEnglandandWales cricket board (hereafter ‘ECB’) are one of the ICC’s ‘Big Three’, havingevenpossessed‘vetopower’onallICCmotionstill1992.TheregulatoryroleoftheICCisthemainchannelthroughwhichtheEnglishcricketingestablishmentmaterialise their legislative,andalso their regulatoryand financialadvantages,to respond to counter-hegemonic resistance against conventional cricketideology.

Despite these advantages held by the English, the dominant conventionalideological meaning of cricket is readily challenged, by instrumental use ofcricket as counter-hegemonic resistance, chiefly by ‘theWest Indies and India’(Holden,2008:339).Thisisbecause‘peoplearenotculturaldopes’(Hall,1991:58). Ex-colonies’ participation in cricket is not equivalent to possessing falseconsciousness (Marx, 1976) or blind ‘ideological conformism’ (Lazarus, 1999:164).

‘Playing-style’counter-hegemonicresistanceIarguethatex-coloniesdeploythe‘culturalpracticeofthedominantgroup…asasiteof…[counter-hegemonic]resistance’(MalcolmandGemmell,2015:113),


4

byarticulatingan‘ironicmimicry’(Bhabha,1994)ofconventional‘idealcricket’.The‘resistanceinvolvedin…[this]ironiccricket’(MalcolmandGemmell,2015:114) is a playing-style of ex-colonial cricket that flouts conventional crickets’accentuatedimportanceonbattingwitha‘perpendicularbat[,hitting]alongthelineoftheball’(MalcolmandGemmell,2015:114).Ex-colonisednations’crickethasestablishedanewbatting-styleof ‘hittingacrosstheline’.Indoingso,WestIndianbatsmenplaywithdistinct‘flamboyance’(Burton,1998:97),andIndianbatsmenhavedeviatedsomuch fromcolonial ‘idealcricket’ that theyarguablystylisticallylook‘moreIndianthanEnglish’(SandifordandStoddart,1998:117).Although itmaynotbe ‘recognisedby the [ex-]colonisers’ (Bhabha,1994), thisresistance, ‘oppositional to that of the oppressor’s style … is ultimately anti-hegemonic’ (Hughson, 2009: 73). These new playing-styles have ‘changed thegame’(Scalmer,2007:438).Newpracticessuchas‘hittingacrosstheline’,whichdo not preclude competitive success, are a fundamental deviation fromconventional ‘colonial’ playing-styles that have previously been asserted ascompulsoryforvictory.Inadoptingthesealternativeplaying-stylesnationshaveenjoyed‘thecompensatorypleasureofdefeatingtheirbiggerbrothers’(Hedetoft2003:71–2),butaspartofan‘effectivereplytocolonialexploitation’(Rumford,2007:204).Importantly forthenegotiatedmeaningofcricket ideology,beating ‘themasterathisowngame’(Tiffin,1998:365),usinganewplayingorthodoxy,challengescricket’s value system. A system that is built upon the avowed necessity ofemulating the dominant playing orthodoxies of conventional, colonially-originated,‘idealcricket’.Thisisbecauseachangeinnatureofhowglobalcricketisplayedconsequentlychanges the ideology itarticulates.Theseplaying-styleschallenge what ‘is cricket’. Employment of these alternative approaches tocricketarticulatealternativevaluestothoseofconventional‘idealcricket’,theseinclude: creativity, aggression, strength, and cunning. This articulationrepresents ‘new confidence andwill for cultural [re]construction’ (Pennycook,1994: 67) of conventional cricket ideology by the ex-colonies, and thus achallengetotheextentthatcolonialismisreproducedinglobalcricket.

Firstreactionaryreassertionofhegemonic‘colonial’cricketingideologyHowever, theconventionalvaluesoforthodoxyof ‘idealcricket’arepowerfullyreassertedbytheEnglishcricketingestablishment,throughasuppressionofthearticulated resistance represented by these counter-hegemonic playing styles.Themost fundamental way that this occurs is the prevention of expansion ofmajorcricketcompetitionstomorenationalteams,sothatminimalnationsmayarticulate alternative values to those of conventional ‘ideal cricket’, byshowcasingbespokenationalcricketingorthodoxiesonawidelyobservedstage.Thissuppression isevidencedby the ICC’s failure to implement thesuggestionthat ‘ICC events [be made] open to all, based on a fair qualification system’(Woolf, 2012: 11). For example, currently only ten nations are permitted toformally partake in international test cricket and there is no qualificationarrangement for new teams. Due to this, the counter-hegemonic resistanceexpressedbyalternativeplaying-stylesisprecludedforallbutasmallminorityofnations.


5

Furthermore,eventheresistancewhichexistsisdynamicallystifled.Thisoccursas the sum of the actualised ‘iterative, phenomenological–hermeneutic sense-making’ (Schwartz-Shea and Yanow, 2012: 91)made by all ex-colonial cricketfans’observationsofcounter-hegemonicplaying-styles,islimitedbytheEnglishestablishment.Thisoccursvia theestablishment’s influenceover ICCdecisionsregarding the coverage of national cricket events. This limitation ensues in aprocesswherebyprospective‘readers’oftheseresistantstylesare‘blackedout’from‘consumptionoftheir[nationalist]culturalevent[s]’(Beckles,1999a:261).The ICC, ledbyECB,has ‘blackedout’ these readers fromeventsby restrictingaccess to the physical sporting events and also their mediated representationthrough TV. Physical access to events has been restricted by privilegedavailabilityofticketsto livematchesforex-colonisingnations’ fans.Ticketsaresold ahead of matches to corporate clients in the ex-colonial global financial‘core’, and those that remain are oftenprohibitively expensivelypriced for ex-colonial fans (Beckles, 1999b: 38). TV access has been constrained by theprohibitivelyexpensivepricingofofficialcricketTVsubscriptions.Forexample,NewsCorporation havepreviously enforced this sort of licensing, after buyingtheTVrightsforthe2003and2007ICCWorldCupsfromtheICC.Moreover, although not directly implemented by the ECB or ICC, the counter-hegemonic resistance posed by alternative playing-styles is suppressed as aresult of the financial incentives available in private trans-national cricketingleagues.International-levelcricketersare‘luredaway[fromtheirnations]tothecore states’, in a ‘trade of sports talent from ‘peripheral’ countries to ‘core’countries’ (Maguire, 1999: 19). ‘National loyalty’ is ‘bypassed’ ‘in the name ofmediaentertainmentand fasteconomicbenefits forplayers’ (Appadurai,2005:16). One such example of cricketers acting as ‘apolitical, transnational, globalprofessional[s]’ (Scalmer, 2007: 440) is the Bangladeshi cricket side, who in2008werealmostdisbandedwhen ‘12of its internationalplayers’departed toplay in a private league (Malcolm and Gemmell, 2015: 267), subordinating‘nationalist concerns’ (Appadurai 2005: 108). Due to this transfer of players,articulationsof‘playing-style’counter-hegemonicresistancearelesscoherentasthey are less frequently expressed uniformly, and thus unambiguously, withinconsistentnationalteams.

‘Gamesmanship’counter-hegemonicresistance‘Gamesmanship’ represents another counter-hegemonic form of resistance todominant ‘colonial cricket’ ideology. Conventional ‘colonial’ cricket ideologicaldoctrine valorises ‘sportsmanship’ over even the instrumental purpose ofvictory. Contrary to this, ex-colonies’ national teams resistantly articulategamesmanship,a‘winatallcosts’mentality,intheircricket(O’BrienThompson,1998:177).Thisiswherecricketersare‘notpreparedtogobeyondtherules…[butare]prepared toexploit therules to their fullestextent in the interestsofwinning … [and win] at any reasonable cost’ (Kingwell, 1995, 366), whileobeying‘theletterofthelaw’(Lazarus,1999:174).This instrumental purpose is incentivised by the motivation to beat the ex-colonialmaster but also due to ‘unprecedented pecuniary reward[s]’ (Midgett


6

2003, 254), such as the $20million prize-money of the Stanford Super Series.Thisgamesmanshipexploitsthe‘spirit’ofthegame,goingascloseaspossibleto,without breaking, cricket’s formal laws against: intimidatory play, ‘chucking’,‘ball-tampering’,and‘time-wasting’(Rumford,2007:213).For example, during the ‘West Indian post-1974 dominance of world cricket’(Malcolm, 2001: 271), the team used a brand of aggressive fast bowling thatabusedthescopeofthe‘spirit’ofthegame,inrelationtointimidatoryplayandtime-wasting. They used ‘bouncers’, a form of bowling designed ‘to beintimidating,but[not]…to[actually]tryandhurtpeople’(BBC,2014).Atacticthat fell just shortofbreaking the contemporaneous ‘intimidatoryplay’ formalcricketinglaw.Theyalsofieldedfourimmenselyexuberant‘allout’fastbowlerswho, to enable their bowling style, exploited the maximum bowling-timepermitted by the contemporaneous cricketing law regarding ‘timewasting’. Inusing these professional instrumentalist tactics, and dominating games as aresult, the West Indies articulated oppositional ‘ideal’ cricket tactics to theconventionalsetofidealtactics,whichinformallyrespectthe‘spirit’ofthegame.Gamesmanship, as such, poses counter-hegemonic resistance to modernmaintenance of conventional ideology cricket ideology in the global game, byflouting convention successfully. Accordingly, this threat posed to conventionalso challenges the extent of colonialisms’ reproduction, instantiated inconventionalcricketideology.

Secondreactionaryreassertionofhegemonic‘colonial’cricketingideologyThisresistancethroughcontraventionofconventionalcricket’s‘unspokencodes’ofsportsmanship(Holden,2009:645)hasgivenrisetoretaliatoryactionbytheEnglish cricketing establishment. In their privileged legislative role, enactedthrough the ICC, they have invoked changes to the laws of cricket. Some ofcricket’s ‘conventions’havebeendisplaced‘byrigidrules’(Lazarus,1999:174)for the purpose of outlawing the most pervasive gamesmanship tactics thatenablevictorybyfloutingcricket’scolonial‘spirit’.For example, introduced laws restricting the West Indies’ bowling styleconcluded the teams’ dominance. These were the 1992 ICC ‘Minor over rateoffence2.5.2’ thatprecludedthe lowrateofbowlingnecessary for ‘allout’ fastbowling, and the 1991 ‘one bouncer per over per batsman rule’ that virtuallydisqualifieduseof‘bouncers’.Thesechangeswerejustifiedonthebasisthattheywouldmakecricket‘moreexciting’again,throughpreventionofcontinuationoftheWest Indies’ effective gamesmanship (Malcolm, 2001: 271). Sandiford andStoddart(1998:132)claimthatthelawswere‘designedtodeprive…[theWestIndies] of power and influence’. In the case of the West Indies, the Englishestablishment have used legislative authority to prevent continuation of new,alternative, ‘ideal’ cricket tactics that challenge conventional ‘cricket ideology’.Through this procedure, as new gamesmanship tactics’ authorship continues,conventionalcricketideologyisreasserted.

‘Newformats’’counter-hegemonicresistanceThepenultimateformofcounter-hegemonicresistanceIunderlineismanifestedinthenewlypopularisedshorter-lengthcricketformatsof‘T20’and‘ODI’.These


7

formatsare ‘moreapayingentertainmentthanagame’(Nandy,2000:41),andhave been derided by some as ‘pyjama cricket’ (Malcolm and Gemmell, 2015:265).Theyembodyan ‘unashamedcommercialism’ that isentirely ‘antitheticalto what’ may be taken conventionally ‘to be cricket’ (Marqusee, 2005: 15). Inthese formats, cricket is ‘moulded and packaged for [profit-making in]broadcast’, and ‘oldVictoriancivilities…associatedwithcricket’ areunheeded(Scalmer,2007:440).Duringcolonialism,cricketwas‘shieldedfromthemarketby aristocratic and imperial privileges’ (Marqusee, 2005: 256), with thepopularisationoftheseformats,thisisevidentlynolongerwhollythecase.Themarkets’enactmentofthesecommercialformatshascausedneglectfortheconventional colonial cricketing values of stoicism, restraint, and compliance.The market demands cricket to be ‘more obviously thrilling, combative anddecisive’(Nandy,2000:3)duetothe‘scaleoftheearningstobemadefrom…theinternational game’ (Woolf, 2012: 4) that are reliant on the game being view-friendly.Theaforementionedconventionalvaluesarenotenshrinedwithinthesenewlycreatedformatsbecausetheformatsare‘arbitrary…[andaredefined]byspur-of-the-momentmistakesandaccidentsratherthanthelongmaturationofacomplexbalanceofcollectivestrengthsandweaknesses’(Marqusee,2005:149),that initially articulated and gave rise to conventional cricketing ideologies’associative values. The market’s pressure is applied by the TV and gamblingindustries.TheIPLis‘cricket’sbiggestmoney-spinnerofalltime’(MalcolmandGemmell,2015:265)havingearnedaround ‘$1bn inbroadcastingrevenues’ inits first year (Mustafa, 2013: 77). Potential profits like these incentiviseproliferation of T20 and ODI, which meet ‘the requirements of television’(Williams,2003:105). Indeed, theUS$360billiongambling industry reliesonahighfrequencyof‘matchevents’,andbinarywins/lossesforcustomerstobeton.Themorefrequentoccurrenceofthese‘events’inT20andODIhasledtobettingcompanies sponsoring these formats’ proliferation, as opposed to test cricket,whereadrawis‘themostlikelyoutcome’(Malcolm,Gemmell,andMehta,2009:436)andmatch‘events’areinfrequent.

Thirdreactionaryreassertionofhegemonic‘colonial’cricketingideologyThe recent trend, particularly amongst ‘Indian capitalists’, to ‘aggressive[ly]’seize‘thepotentialofcricketforcommercialpurposes’(Appadurai,2005:16)bypopularising new cricketing formats, has inflicted considerable harm onconventional understandings of what constitutes ‘cricket’. Subsequently it hasimpaired articulation of conventional cricketing ideology, and if unfettered,potentially further injury. Nonetheless, the English cricketing establishmentcurrently predominantly rebuts this resistance posed by new commercialisedcricket formats (Scalmer, 2007: 440). They refuse to fully endorse and thuspartiallyboycott the formats.TheECBwastheonlynationalboardnottohaveallowed players to join international T20 leagues by 2008 (Malcolm andGemmell,2015:268). Indeed, in2016theECBcontinuetodeliberatelypreventfullparticipationofEnglishcountyplayersintheIPLbyschedulingsomeoftheEnglishdomestic cricket seasonduring the IPL season (MalcolmandGemmell,2015:268).Thishasmeant thatEnglishplayershaven’tbeenable to ‘take theformattooseriously’(MalcolmandGemmell,2015:267)ifseekinginternationaltest cricket careers. Participation in the domestic county championship is a


8

necessaryprecursorforinternationalselection.

ConclusionTo conclude, the current ideology in the global game of cricket is dominantlyarticulated as conventional ‘colonial’ cricket ideology, but counter-hegemonicresistance challenges this ideology’s ascendancy. As such, the modern globalgameofcricketreproducescolonialismthroughaprocessofon-goinghegemoniccontestation. This resistance is manifested in alternative cricket styles,gamesmanship, and new cricket formats. However, the ‘unwillingness of theEnglishestablishment…to‘cedetheirdominanceoverthegame’(Mustafa,2013:67)andtheirabilitytolargelyrefusetodoso,duetotheirincumbentlegislative,regulatory and commercial privileges, has meant this resistance ispredominantlycountered.Althoughconventionalcolonial ‘ideologicalprotocolsof cricket … [are] rebelled against and’ are to some extent ‘refashioned’ bycontemporary counter-hegemonic resistance, they are ‘not overthrown’(Lazarus,1999:163).ColonialismisthusmeaningfullyreproducedbytheglobalgameofcricketthroughthecontestednegotiationIhaveoutlined.


9

Bibliography:Allen,D.(2009)SouthAfricancricketandBritishimperialism1870-1910.SportinSociety,12(4),pp.464–481.Appadurai,A.(2005)Modernityatlarge:culturaldimensionsofglobalization.NewDelhi:OxfordUniversityPress.Barrett,C.(2016)Bigbashleaguejumpsintotop10ofmostattendedsportsleaguesintheworld.Availableat:www.smh.com.au/sport/cricket/big-bash-league-jumps-into-top-10-of-most-attended-sports-leagues-in-the-world-20160110-gm2w8z.html#ixzz48TWb2sGI[Accessed:16May2016].BBC.(2011)CupsemigripsIndiaandPakistan.Availableat:www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-12903246[Accessed:16May2016].BBC.(2014)PhillipHughesdeath:Australia’sSeanAbbott‘holdingupwell’.Availableat:www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/30228827[Accessed:16May2016].Beckles,H.(1997)WestIndianNationhoodandCricketinthe21stCentury.TheIntegrationistCaribbean.Availableat:www.theintegrationistcaribbean.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Hilary-Beckles-West-Indian-Nationhood-and-Cricket.pdf[Accessed:16May2016].Beckles,H.(1999a)Whosegameisitanyway?WestIndiescricketandpost-colonialculturalglobalism.InSkelton,T.andAllen,T.(eds)CultureandGlobalChange.Routledge,London.pp.251-259.Beckles,H.(1999b)ThedevelopmentofWestIndiescricketvolumetwo:Theageofnationalism.UnitedKingdom:PlutoPress.Bhabha,H.K.(1994)Thelocationofculture.NewYork:TaylorandFrancis.Bourdieu,P.(1978)Sportandsocialclass.SocialScienceInformation,17,pp.819-840.Bourdieu,P.(1984)Distinction:Asocialcritiqueofthejudgmentoftaste.Cambridge:HarvardUniversityPress.Brohm,J-M.(1989)Sport:aprisonofmeasuredtime.UnitedKingdom:PlutoPress.Burton,R.DE.(1995)Chapter5:Cricket,carnivalandstreetcultureintheCaribbean.InBeckles,H.andStoddart,B.(eds)Liberationcricket:WestIndiescricketculture.UnitedKingdom:ManchesterUniversityPress.pp.89-106.Derrida,J.(1978)Writinganddifference.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.Fanon,F.(2001)TheWretchedoftheEarth(PenguinModernClassics).UnitedKingdom:PenguinBooksLtd.Fletcher,T.(2011)ThemakingofEnglishcricketcultures:empire,globalizationand(post)colonialism.SportinSociety,14(1),pp.17–36.Gramsci,A.(1971)SelectionsfromthePrisonNotebooksofAntonioGramsci.NewYork:InternationalPublishers.Hall,S.(1991)Oldandnewethnicities.InSmith,A.(eds)Culture,globalizationandtheworld-system.London:Macmillan.Hall,S.(2009)Therediscoveryofideology:thereturnoftherepressedinmediastudies.InStorey,J.(eds)CulturalTheoryandPopularCulture:AReader.Harlow:PearsonEducation.Hedetoft,U.(2003)Theglobalturn:nationalencounterswiththeworld.Aalborg:AalborgUniversityPress.Holden,G.(2008)Worldcricketasapostcolonialinternationalsociety:IRmeetsthehistoryofsport.GlobalSociety,22(3),pp.337–368.


10

Holden,R.(2009)Internationalcricket:thehegemonyofcommerce,thedeclineofgovernmentinterestandtheendofmorality?.SportinSociety,12(4-5),pp.643–656.Horton,P.A.(2001)Complexcreolization:theevolutionofmodernsportinSingapore.InMangan,J.A.(eds)Europe,SportWorld.ShapingGlobalSocieties.London:FrankCass,2001.pp.77-104.Hughson,J.(2009)Themiddleclass,colonialismandthemakingofsport.SportinSociety,12(1),pp.69-84.James,C.L.R.(1963)Beyondaboundary.UnitedKingdom:Hutchinson.Kaufman,J.andPatterson,O.(2005)Cross-nationalculturaldiffusion:theglobalspreadofcricket.AmericanSociologicalReview,70(1),pp.82–110.Kingwell,M.(1995)Keepingastraightbat:cricket,civility,andpost-colonialism.InCudjoe,S.andCain,W.E.(eds)C.L.R.James:hisintellectuallegacies.Amherst:UniversityofMassachusettsPress.pp.359-87.Lazarus,N.(1999)Nationalismandculturalpracticeinthepostcolonialworld.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.Maguire,J.A.(1999)Globalsport:identities,societies,civilizations.Cambridge:PolityPress.Malcolm,D.andGemmell,J.(2015)Thechangingfaceofcricket:fromimperialtoglobalgame.UnitedKingdom:Routledge.Malcolm,D.(2001)‘ItsnotCricket’:coloniallegaciesandcontemporaryinequalities.TheJournalofHistoricalSociology,14(3),pp.253–275.Malcolm,D.,Gemmell,J.,andMehta,N.(2009)Cricketandmodernity:internationalandinterdisciplinaryperspectivesonthestudyoftheImperialGame.SportinSociety,12(4-5),pp.431–446.Marqusee,M.(2005)AnyonebutEngland:anoutsiderlooksatEnglishcricket.UnitedKingdom:AurumPress.Marx,K.(1976)Contributiontothecritiqueofpoliticaleconomy.Peking:ForeignLanguagesPress.Midgett,D.(2003)Cricketandcalypso:culturalrepresentationandsocialhistoryintheWestIndies.Culture,Sport,Society,6(2-3),pp.239-268.Mouffe,C.(1981)HegemonyandideologyinGramsci.InBennett,T.,Mercer,C.,andWoolacott,J.(eds)Culture,IdeologyandSocialProcess.MiltonKeynes:OpenUniversityPressMustafa,F.(2013)Cricketandglobalization:globalprocessesandtheimperialgame.JournalofGlobalHistory:LondonSchoolofEconomicsandPoliticalScience,8(8),pp.318–341.Nandy,A.(2000)Thetaoofcricket.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.O’Brien Thompson, L. (1995) Chapter 10:How cricket isWest Indian cricket?Class,racial,andcolorconflict.InBeckles,H.andStoddart,B.Liberationcricket:West Indies cricket culture. UnitedKingdom:ManchesterUniversity Press. pp.165–178.Odendaal,A.(1988)SouthAfrica’sblackVictorians:sportandsocietyinSouthAfricainthenineteenthcentury.InMangan,J.A.(eds)Pleasure,profit,proselytism:Britishcultureandsportathomeandabroad1700–1914.London:FrankCass.pp.193–214.Parry,S.J.(1984)HegemonyandSport.JournalofthePhilosophyofSport,10,pp.71-83.Pennycook,A.(1994)TheculturalpoliticsofEnglishasaninternational


11

language.NewYork:LongmanPublishingGroup.Rowe,D.(2004)AntonioGramsci:sport,hegemonyandthenational-popular.InGiulianotti,R.(eds)Sportandmodernsocialtheorists.London:Macmillan.pp.97–110.Rumford,C.(2007)Morethanagame:globalizationandthepost-westernizationofworldcricket.GlobalNetworks,7(2),pp.202–214.Saïd, E. W. (1980) Orientalism: western concepts of the orient. New York:RoutledgeandKeganPaul.Sandiford,K.A.P.andStoddart,B.S.(1998)Theimperialgame:cricket,cultureandsociety.Manchester:StMartin’sPress.Scalmer,S.(2007)Cricket,imperialism,andclassdomination.WorkingUSA,10(4),pp.431–442.Schwartz-Shea,P.andYanow,D.(2012)Interpretiveresearchdesign:Conceptsandprocesses.UnitedKingdom:Routledge.Tiffin,H.(1995)Chapter21:cricket,literatureandthepoliticsofde-colonisation:thecaseofC.L.R.James.InBeckles,H.andStoddart,B.Liberationcricket:WestIndies cricket culture. United Kingdom:Manchester University Press. pp. 356-369.Torfing, J. (2005)Discoursetheory:achievements,arguments,andchallenges. InHowarth,D.andTorfing,J.(eds)DiscoursetheoryinEuropeanpolitics:identity,policyandgovernance.Basingstoke:Palgrave.pp.1-32.Williams, J. (2003) “Paki cheats!" postcolonial tensions in England—Pakistancricket. InBale, J.andCronin,M.(eds)Sportandpostcolonialism.Oxford:Berg.pp.91-105.Woolf,H.(2012)AnindependentgovernancereviewoftheinternationalcricketcouncilanindependentgovernancereviewoftheInternationalCricketCouncil.PlayTheGame.Availableat:www.playthegame.org/fileadmin/documents/Good_governance_reports/DOC_6E43A6280C922ABC51A9C6AB55AA58E1_1328155148580_481.pdf[Accessed:16May2016].

How does the global game of cricket (re)produce the international political phenomenon of British...

Documents

Transcript of How does the global game of cricket (re)produce the international political phenomenon of British...