Thursday, August 2, 2012

olympic madness

If I've been neglectful at all of my blog the last couple of weeks, it's because of the OLYMPICS. I mean, honestly, it's the coolest thing to be in London for the Olympics, and I'll tell you why (and it will be 85% relevant to field studies, I promise):

1. Melting-pot mayhem: There are already 300 languages spoken in London on a regular basis (seriously, look it up), but the Olympics attracts athletes and fans from about 200 different countries so, as you can imagine, things are a little loco here (but it's nothing that this city can't handle [so far], and all of the naysayers who were predicting massive transportation issues have hopefully been impressed with the way things have unfolded up to this point). One of the things I love about London is that you don't just get a single cultural experience; rather, you constantly find yourself in the middle of a hundred different cultures, like a giant kaleidoscope where every pattern represents fractured pieces of different countries and heritages dancing around each other in fragile harmony. And yes, the Olympics heightens this cultural tension, but cultural influence is something this city does better than anywhere else. And if the influx of athletes and fans from all over the world means that I have a better chance of meeting a hot foreign swimmer, so be it (although with Lochte and Phelps in the pool, who needs foreign?)

2. British commentators: So, I've been a fan of the Olympics since I was a wee little bairn, so I'm really used to my American commentators with their phrases and quirks, and I never realized how much of a difference the British commentators would be. Honestly, I shouldn't be surprised, but it's really quite fun to hear the different vocabulary and pet phrases that the commentators here use. I've heard of gymnastics routines described as "scrabbly," "scrappy," "scruffy," and they refer to people as "nice chap," and "good lad," and say things like, "now, that's the ticket, isn't it just?" It's quite comical. And it also brings me to my next point:

3. British lens: It's been quite interesting to see the British people view their own athletes. The British commentators are so proud of their athletes, and their national pride is infectious. For example, the British men's gymnastics team won the bronze medal in the team finals, and apparently it was an unexpected win, so the commentators were just busting with pride. They were as eager to praise their athletes as we are to praise ours––sometimes even more so, perhaps, because Team USA always sends so many athletes that sometimes we can forget how truly cool it is to come from behind and win the almost-out-of-reach gold medal. With that said, they still recognize and respect athletes no matter where they come from, and when Michael Phelps won his 19th  Olympic medal, the commentators remarked that every single person in the arena stood and cheered for him, knowing what an incredible accomplishment he had achieved and not caring where he was from. It has also been infinitely fascinating to see how they view American athletes––and how many of the American stereotypes, like enthusiasm and team spirit, sometimes hold up in comparison to the other athletes. I've noticed coaches from different countries ignore an athlete after he/she has performed poorly, and American coaches seem encouraging and sympathetic even in those cases––and it's hard to say which method works the best. I'm inclined to think that at times athletes need a tougher hand, but maybe we just don't see that on TV. It's just a different way of responding to performance that could just be chalked up to different coaching styles, but the consistency of the coaching styles across different cultures is telling, because it shows that some cultures value personal achievement over self-esteem, and some value self-esteem over personal achievement.

Anyway, that may or may not make any sense, but there it is.

No comments:

Post a Comment