[Note: This is a similiar version of a post on my own blog, here. @IdleHistorian]
Throughout London 2012 I have thought back to the similarities with Vancouver in 2010. They were also presaged by
much-hand wringing over the exorbitant cost, doubts over whether it was
really worth the trouble, grave predictions about traffic chaos and
other doom-saying. This was followed by exhilaration, over-the-top
patriotism, joy, triumph, and a long-lasting warm and fuzzy glow. London 2012 has already been all this. On speed.
I
follow a variety of Brits from different walks of life and political
persuasions on twitter and have witnessed a roller-coaster of emotion
since July 27th. It began with outright hostility, Olympic-sized
portions of Eeyoreish worry and whingeing ["When Will This Nightmare End?"] about the cost, the G4S security debacle (remember them?), corporate
authoritarianism, 81-year-old grannies being forced to withdraw Olympic
hand-knitted dolls from church jumble sales and the like.
But then, By Jove,
the Opening Ceremonies arrived and Danny Boyle was arranging Freeborn
Englishmen (and women) in the green and pleasant land and children were
singing Jerusalem and there were dancing nurses in a tribute to the NHS
and Mr. Bean being unbelievably hilarious with a Chariots of Fire spoof and, OMG, The Queen and James Bond,
and my tweeps were tweeting fast and furiously. These jaded souls who had been complaining only a day before
that it would all be "rubbish" were crying,
cheering and declaring that Britain was the best country ever in all
history [*] and that the Ceremony showed the nation's unbounded humour
and individualism and creativity (read: "Take that, Beijing!") and
they'd never felt happier in all their lives and Danny Boyle for a Knighthood *this instant* while we've got Her Majesty right here!!!!
 |
| Danny Boyle's vision of pre-industrial England, before the"dark satanic mills" - reference: hymn Jerusalem and poem by William Blake |
And the waves of emotion haven't let up. Team GB has truly done
brilliantly. Of course everyone needed to panic for a day or two that
Britain wouldn't win any medals at all, but from the first gold to
Dickensian-named Bradley Wiggins dear old Blighty has been running on
happy fumes. Even the acerbic and performative-cynic Charlie Brooker has been caught up in the frenzy.
There has been an uncharacteristic showing of collective emotion in Britain and among its athletes. As per one tweet: "@sarasheridan: Another gold! Only 7% of Chinese & 17% of US athletes cry on medal podium @TeamGB win blubbing gold on 37.5% ". One British friend has proffered this explanation for the "blubbering": Chinese and American athletes largely expect to
be on the podium. Brits generally, having bought into the national myth
of being "rubbish" at sport and inevitable failures, greet victory with
these wellsprings of emotion.
There are stories aplenty to provide a backdrop
for an inclusive, meritocratic Games - as modern Britain wishes to see
itself. All
this has left many asking: What does this say about modern Britain,
national identity, or the national character? How do these reactions fit
with history and received ideas of "Britishness" in this post-Imperial
and multicultural landscape?
Differing
political factions have been able to read into the Games the narrative
they wish. Conservatives like Boris Johnson trumpet the lessons (as they
see it) for free enterprise, competition, and other assorted Big
Society ideas. (Gratuitous link to Boris-stuck-on-zipline meme.) For The Daily Telegraph it was an opportunity for national regeneration and ascertaining where Britain's "genius lies." For The Guardian and more left-of-centre individuals the Opening Ceremony and the Games itself are a model of an egalitarian, integrated and less class-ridden nation they would wish to realize.
As one twitter said after the Boyle opener: "Britain: slightly bonkers
and more socialist than some would wish, for 2000 years." There was much
chatter about this "socialist" vision in light of current British
politics under the Coalition Government.
It is perhaps only correct that there should
be (not to sound too postmodern) "multiple meanings" of the Games.
Perhaps Britain's "genius" lies in the direction of being able to
equally combine both the pre-Games criticism, hatred of authoritarianism and being told what to think and do, and also a
plurality of "meanings" inherent in sport and belonging. Britain has
been doing its freedom-thing for awhile now. It can cope with
contradiction and ambiguity - which strikes me as an exceptionally
useful quality. Somehow these elements become spun into positive
narratives of national identity. I do think the much-lauded British
sense of humour goes a long way in this direction. The Games are now at an end, but one hopes their sense of national belonging and happy after-glow will also continue.
No comments:
Post a Comment