One thing I’d like to clarify here is: I’m not perfect. Making a moral act does not suggest I claim to be. I have made and continue to make many mistakes that hurt people both directly and indirectly. And there are many other aspects of my modern, western, consumptive life that could be examined more closely. I will continue to do so.
Earlier this year, I decided to abstain from watching the World Cup. Plenty of outlets have and hopefully will continue to cover the human rights abuses that have and continue to take place for the World Cup to be hosted by Qatar. For those who may be out of the loop, the World Cup taking place during the winter in the nation of Qatar is just one of the many egregious acts about this iteration of the world’s most popular competition.
This general outline by NPR is a good place to start:
https://www.npr.org/2022/11/18/1137204271/qatar-world-cup-controversies
Namely, what people have implicitly understood since Qatar was announced as a host nation is; it’s a sham. FIFA, barely credible in its purported interest to govern the game in a way that’s beneficial for player and fan alike, took whatever individual or general bribes that existed and agreed to allow Qatar, a nation smaller than Connecticut primarily powered by a modern slave force, woefully underprepared to host a world cup, but nonetheless seeking to use the clout the tournament provides for the sake of washing their less than ideal image in the sanctified waters of consumption.
Perhaps I’m cutting to the chase all too quickly, but a good, thoughtful, philosophically considered explanation of all the issues glazed over by that last run-on sentence can be found here:
In an incredible, well-researched, and artfully constructed piece, friend and former cohort Jon Mackenzie spoke to the undercurrent of the issue. We exalted peoples here in the west ‘get’ to make moral decisions about whether we should or shouldn’t watch something as we sit atop our hill, fertilized by the blood of the innocent a continent or two away. The reason we get to do so isn’t because our supposedly progressive societies have, as Martin Luther King suggested, followed the long yet inevitable arc of the moral universe. It’s because power, and how it’s consolidated, functions differently than it did just a few hundred years ago. Western civilizations have moved beyond exercising overt, violent displays of power, not because they are any more civilized than anyone else, but because it paints a target on who wields it. Instead of concentrating power to a singular position, like a king or head of state, philosopher Michel Foucault suggested that a transference of power to the overarching form of society is a far more efficient way to control large swathes of people.
Jon cites Jeremy Bentham and his idea of the panopticon, a well-referenced concept that illustrates the function of self-regulation. Instead of a singular force enacting its will on a populace, getting the society in question to regulate itself allows for the powers that be to escape valid criticisms. Jon uses the following as an example.
Last year, 184 people were executed in Saudi Arabia. But between the years of 2012 and 2014, 45,000 people were estimated to have died because of austerity measures introduced by the Tory government. Through the enactment of micro-power—the implementation of economic sanctions on the most vulnerable in society—the Tories were able to impose control upon the British people without doing so in a manner that raised any question about their methods in much of the population. Thousands of lives snuffed out on the say-so of the state but to little moral fanfare.
The World Cup in Qatar exists similarly. The aforementioned NPR piece estimates 6500 enslaved peoples died in the making of the World Cup, cementing the idea, in the minds of uppity westerners, that these regimes are ‘savage and brutal’ as we hit the popcorn button on our microwaves and slurp down whatever sugar beverage sponsors the ad break.
So, why am I saying all this? Aren’t I just invalidating my position as a hypocritical westerner who should just shut up and move on with the show? Well, though I do think we have to try and differentiate what exists as valid criticism of the World Cup and some strange, orientalist racism against an Arab nation hosting a westernized competition- In the past few years, I have fundamentally come to believe in the idea of collective individualism.
This term may exist under a different moniker, but as far as I can tell- it doesn’t. Though we tend to think our opinions on matters like the World Cup or voting for a particular candidate are unique and specific- they aren’t. What you ultimately act upon in your day-to-day life results from conditions that many, mainly those who live similar socio-economic and cultural conditions, also act upon.
The example here being the quandary US voters are often given- ‘I don’t like either candidate, and I much prefer one that isn’t one of the main two options, but I think it would be a waste if I chose to vote for them.’ Though you’ll undoubtedly be accosted by mainstays of the two major political parties as we move closer to the general election- the decisions you make matter. If, by hook or crook, you decide that, despite being told your vote effectively won’t count, you maintain resolve and vote for who you believe in; chances are there are many others like you. We are not the unique, individual stars we like to imagine ourselves to be. And that’s okay.
So too, are morally based decisions around consumption. A few years ago, I decided to stop using amazon services, Uber, and other gig economy applications because I believe them to be a massive detriment to society. Most around me didn’t care. Some responded with the typical retort- ‘you’re just one person. It’s not going to matter.’ And that may be true in the immediacy, but I refer to the aforementioned logic as a rationale.
The asterisk here is that I exist in a way that allows me to make these decisions. We know that the rise of these applications and the economy of convenience isn’t because people are fundamentally flawed or lazy- they have less time to do things they once could. The average person is overworked and underpaid, so minimizing the time they spend cooking and cleaning is a natural result of the lifestyle we have become all too accustomed to. This is an entirely different can of worms, so I’ll leave it there- but maybe if we demanded a better work-life balance… anyways.
I don’t want to watch the World Cup because it represents the culmination of an ultimately corrupt, money-hungry game that takes the goodness of humanity- the sense of cooperation, diversity, and unity that can often be found in sport- and uses it to cover up the crimes of those committing both implicit and explicit forms of violence.
With all that being said, I believe deciding not to watch the World Cup can be impactful. If but for no one else but yourself, you are no longer directly adding to the problem. Refusing to accept the fruits of corruption and what can only be described as evil, not because it doesn’t happen where you live but because it shouldn’t happen anywhere, is a stance. Understanding the context in which we live, which is to say, understanding that we are complicit in a system that is morally irredeemable, yet choosing to try and act morally anyways, is still valid and valuable. If we are ever to make this world a better place, we must start somewhere. Where better to start than the places you feel you can?