As the door opens, I see his familiar face, looking down the steps with a smile. It is 11:47 and the bus is empty. Playing the incognito, I mumble through my ticket details, “Just to the station, thanks?”
“You’re paying full fare these days? What was it you were studying again, music?” For our first real conversation, he has a lot of information on me. He must have seen me with my bass. So much for incognito.
“Yeah, I was studying writing…”
“And now what are you doing?”
“Well…now I’m a writer, so I have to pay full fare,” I smile and he laughs.
“You should spend more time on the buses.” There’s a glint in his eye like he can’t wait to impart his unique brand of knowledge, “I hear a lot of stories.”
Ned knows the students from the full fares, the pensioners from concessions. There’s something about the way he says hello that convinces you that he knows who you are beyond how much you pay to travel. Throughout the trip, he tells me about my neighbourhood, driving slowly with his head craned as far around as he can to look at me while he drives. Icould tell you what Ned told me I should write about; the neighbourhood man who was a rear gunner in the war and now has three ex-wives with whom “he still gets along just fine.” But he makes the mistake which writers take as a blessing, he gives away little bits of information about himself without realising it.
On family: “My daughter studies psychology and she tells me I know more about people than her because of my time on the bus.”
His hobbies: “So… I told him how I’ve got good hands for my age because I play guitar and violin.”
“You know what? Around here there are a lot of people.” he stops and lowers his voice, trying to stay out of the earshot of the other passengers. “who try to be invisible.”
It is the small stories which bring the invisible people to life. It is the size of the man which makes a dirty little story a scandal.
Small Stories and Larger Scandals
As citizens of a growing social sphere, we are bound to our identity by the stories we tell, the company we keep and the cultural actions we repeat. If you have seen any media in the last week, you know the story of Australian Matthew Johns, NRL star (as was addressed by Trespass Magazine last week). Our knowledge of his story is the innate ‘problem’ with celebrity status; small stories grow into bigger stories and media scandals with very little fuel. As far as human identity goes, sexuality plays a major role in defining who and what we are (and sometimes, what we are not.)
Michel Foucault said, ‘If identity becomes the problem of sexual existence, and if people think they have to ‘uncover’ their ‘own identity’ and that their own identity has to become …the code of their existence; if the perennial question they ask is ‘Does this thing conform to my identity?’ then, I think, they will turn back to a kind of ethics very close to the old heterosexual virility.” (Foucault 1984; 385)
Interesting, in respect to the NRL saga, is Foucault’s use of the term ‘virility,’ a word which in definition refers to “manly character, vigor, or spirit; masculinity” (Random House Dictionary.) In truth, what has been uncovered in the NRL is a naturalised culture of heterosexual virility, enacted in multiplicity. A virility which pervades (and perverts) the team culture of Rugby League. A virility which an unnamed representative player stated would not cease, nor be considered shameful.
“I don’t know how a chief executive can come out and say we can’t have group sex if it’s consensual. It’s like discrimination because that is a person’s private life. It’s like saying you can’t be homosexual, or you can’t have such-and-such sexual preferences. How can he tell us what we can do in our private lives? What if there’s more women than guys, is that wrong, too? We already have so many rules: we can’t drink on these days, we can’t go to these places, now we can’t have group sex. About the only thing we can do these days is go to club functions, and just hang around other players. That’s just isolating us more from the rest of the world, and it could lead to even more violent acts.” (Defiant rep star says group sex romps will keep happening, Sydney Morning Herald)
It seems that people in the public eye can’t be seen doing things that are not suitable for the public eye. Who would’ve thought that the companies who pay millions of dollars in sponsorship wouldn’t want to be associated with drunkenness and polygamous debauchery?
The above quote underlines the point of this week’s topic; the impact of these forms of identity. He is correct in saying that the culture will not be stamped out. Lest I begin to rant and rave, I won’t even begin to speculate on what the idea of orgiastic abstinence leading to ‘more violent acts’ says about the players in question. However, it is not the private sexual rights that the above player believes they have which will propagate the culture, it is the intrinsic nature of sexuality within heterosexual virility and a sport which has postulated itself as the epicenter of Australian masculinity. Italian theorist Antonio Gramsci believes that hegemony (the power state where one group is dominant over another) is created not only by the dominant class, but also by the minority. He argues that a culture’s identity (and therefore the individuals identity) is self-propagated by their repetition of cultural actions. Using the example of working class students (lads) he reports that they create for themselves “a posture of joking macho defiance which it so happens, is exactly the indifferent posture they subsequently take into the world of manual labour.” (Jones 2006; 57) The same can be said of the NRL culture; the sub-cultural practices contribute to the perpetuation of heterosexual virility. Their identity is intrinsic to proactive masculinity and vice versa.
This is not to say that the NRL cannot clean up its act but the above unnamed player gives a good example of why it will be a hard shift. My predictions is that the first movement will be to market the NRL as a clean sport, free of the scandals of the past, but will that be enough for the Australian public? Are we to lose our own identities as spectators? It is this relationship which worries me. Australians as a majority invest a lot of their time, and personality in following sport. If the ones we hail as heroes fall short, where do our physical aspirations lie. Only time will tell.
What do you think? Leave a comment below!
References:
Michel Foucault. (1996) [1984]. Sex, Power and the Politics of Identity. In Foucault Live. collected Interviews, 1961-1984. Sylvère Lotringer (Ed.). New York: Semiotext(e)
Steve Jones, ‘Hegemony in Practice 1: Identity’ from Antonio Gramsci, London and New York Routledge 2006
*Bus Image by Brian Yap
*Matthew Johns image by Brendan Esposito
This is now my 2nd favourite quote of the week:
“It seems that people in the public eye can’t be seen doing things that are not suitable for the public eye. Who would’ve thought that the companies who pay millions of dollars in sponsorship wouldn’t want to be associated with drunkenness and polygamous debauchery?”
I guess that’s a point which has not been made clear enough.
I bet you they could come up with 10 things to do in there free time that doesn’t involve getting pissed and getting it on with some girl and 5 to 10 of your closest friends if they really put their collective minds to it – normal people seem to be able to manage that.
Hi Sam,
Wouldn’t it be interesting if the public imposed the same judgements on themselves as they do on these “role models”. I certainly don’t condone their behaviour, but find it hypocritical of the media, who are also members of the public, to shame this behaviour when it is clearly a product of our society.
To say normal (and I assume you mean majority) people can manage to avoid these acts, I believe, is off the mark. Unfortunately this behaviour is quite normal, and I think it would be a more productive discussion if we first looked at society in general.
Just a thought.
cheers.
Phil and Adam – It is really their reputation/celebrity status that draws the problem out of the woodwork. It’s not purely because a polygamous act (consentual) is seen as ‘taboo’ in our society (though that does play a part), but because of the ‘family image’ that the NRL has pushed upon younger members of society. They need to conform to society’s ‘wholesome image’ if that is what they are being paid to do. It’s a simple matter.
Adam – yes, there is a bigger issue at hand, though I do not think it is for us to condemn orgiastic fraternity on a consentual level. Non-consentual is a whole other ballgame. Normal people avoid these acts being made public, I do not think they are not going on, that would indeed be naive. We could look at society in general, but then I would begin to agree with the unnamed footballer, who are we to say what people do in private is wrong? Consenting adults have that right, and deserve that right. However, no matter which way you look at it, if you are being paid to be a role model to a society (whether a conformist straight-laced one or not), then your job requires that of you in all aspects, including in a private situation which may at any time become public due to your celebrity status. To believe otherwise is to be naive of the influence you have as a celebrity.
Hey Sam, nice write! I particularly enjoyed the opener.
I agree with the fact that the story rides of sensationalism and celebrity culture. The matter of the incident itself is relatively unimportant. Many people engage in group sex very often and many more engage is various activities which are relatively harmless (sexual or not) that others, whether a majority or minority of people, judge as being not proper fir those own personal reasons.
I’m all for matters being raised disproportionatley for the sake of community awareness, but this particular purpose seems to have been missed in this particular incident.
Sam,
“Normal people avoid these acts being made public”?
Do they need to do anything to avoid publicity? Who tries to publicise it? Your assuming normal people experience the same scrutiny professional sports people do and we both know that’s not true.
“though I do not think it is for us to condemn orgiastic fraternity on a consentual level”
I wasn’t condemning, but yes the media is, and they seem to be voicing the beliefs of our society???
You also say:
“who are we to say what people do in private is wrong?”……….maybe!
But you then say:
“However, no matter which way you look at it, if you are being paid to be a role model to a society (whether a conformist straight-laced one or not), then your job requires that of you in all aspects, including in a private situation which may at any time become public due to your celebrity status.”
I think this is a common thought. We sit back and say “what they do behind closed doors is their business”, but at the same time demand they act appropriate to their status at “all times” when things go south. This sends a mixed message to these players, no wonder they are frustrated.
cheers
@ Sam
I agree with the point what you say; they got rid of advertising from cigarette manufacturing companies, and strong alcohol is on the way out, so it is perfectly logical that the NRL officials don’t want their players being seen as people you wouldn’t invite into your home, especially if you have young daughters.
Although that these guys enjoy being so high-profile, but it’s not just 19 year-old girls who have an interest in these people, there’s 7 year-old kids who follow their heroes, I wonder what their perspective on all of this is.
Hi Sam – good thoughts!
As Liv pointed out in her article last week, the Johns incident isn’t questioning the morality of group sex – or at least, it shouldn’t be – so much as highlighting the issue of sexual consent. While I think individuals should have a right to privacy, the notion of celebrity undermines that: the two are often antithetical states. Potentially, there’s a parallel between the notion of sexual consent in the Johns case (viz: consenting to sleep with one man is not the same as consenting to sleep with ten of his mates) and the rights of celebrities to privacy (viz: consenting to a career in the public eye is not the same as consenting to a total lack of privacy). But the Johns case isn’t about privacy. It’s about the allegation of a serious crime, and in that circumstance, there is no right to privacy: not for celebrities, and not for the rest of us. The mysogynist culture in football is relevant to that discussion. The sooner people focus on that, the better.
I disagree with you pip, I think morality has been the highlight in the media on this issue, not consent. Wouldn’t they have the right to privacy now as the legal case was closed 7 years ago?
Hi Sam,
Fantastic article. I think it is interesting that in the whole debate we have not sought to dismantle this whole concept of ‘consent’. If a women (or a man) tells another that it is ok to hit them then is it ok?
Just a thought.
Janice