What do you think?
Rate this book
Globalizing Cricket: Englishness, Empire and Identity
Globalizing Cricket examines the global role of the sport's key points of development, the diffusion of cricket through colonization, and its impact on the changing notions of English national identity.
207 pages, Kindle Edition
First published December 6, 2012
1 person is currently reading
10 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
August 26, 2018
I reviewed this for an academic journal somewhere, but I forget where – and don’t know if it was ever published…. So here it is, rather academically:
**************************
Dominic Malcolm Globalizing Cricket: Englishness, Empire and Identity London, Bloomsbury. 2013. ISBN: 9781472576576. pp 197+viii. Pbk, £24.99.
Cricket is amongst the most paradoxical of sports: English (although Ashis Nandy sees it as Indian, accidentally invented in England), but global of a form, where global is limited by Britain’s former imperial presence and England’s expatriate presence. Its imagery is aristocratic, all bonhomie and indulgent, breaking for tea and wearing the most inappropriate of clothing for a sports event (white) but with legitimate flashes of colour. This imagery is at odds with a traditionally powerful working class attachment to the game, with much of the aristocratic imagery depending on the presence of working class players in teams alongside the great and the good. The global Englishness of cricket has, it seems, obfuscated the England/Britain distinction, while the emphasis on cricket as an English (which for these purposes includes Glamorgan) game obscures the presence and profile of the game elsewhere in the British Isles, as well as noting cricket’s presence in both the first and second British Empires. Amid all these historicising elements, cricket, as Dominic Malcolm argues here, is more about a contemporary sense of Englishness abroad, not some residual imperial vision – yet Britain’s and cricket’s latent, unresolved imperial attachments frame much of the understanding cricket’s place in globalising the English and in asserting and understanding the identities associated with this sense of Englishness.
Perhaps more than many areas of sociological analysis, sport lends itself to and almost requires an historical sensibility: this is not, however, a question of specific modes or models of analysis best deployed in sports studies, but a recognition that sport, like many other forms of popular culture, is imbued with a profound popular historicisation – in short, its fans and followers often exhibit a deep-seated historical understanding. The banal presence of the past in contemporary sport cultures presents a challenge for academic analysts, especially for those of us who find ourselves working in and around historical sociological issues, whose attention to the past begins to determine the questions we ask and the techniques we use to explore, and sometimes answer, them. Unfortunately, Malcolm falls into the increasingly common attempt to justify historical sociology by drawing on arguments that the disciplines are the same thing in terms of their “fundamental preoccupations” (p8), and invokes C Wright Mills’ case that history is vital to both ask and answer sociological questions, thus making history subservient to sociology. Despite this rocky start, that jarred with my not-so-inner Historian, Malcolm for the most part avoids the trap of teleological historical analysis, and in doing so poses important challenges to both historians and sociologists attempting to make sense not only of cricket in both national and colonial/imperial settings but also in many respects of sport more generally in the imperial world.
Malcolm’s approach means that the book presents a rich view of the complexities of Englishness in and through cricket: he turns his eye not only to outposts of the game in North America but also in Britain’s Celtic nations – specifically Ireland and Scotland. He delves into the Caribbean, highlighting the shift from class to ‘race’ as the trope shaping relations with Englishness, but here a recurrent focus on the question of violence in the game is weakened by a failure to unravel the politics of ‘race’ and Empire lying behind the 1980s focus on the ‘dangers’ of West Indies fast bowling, although he does note that fast bowling has been raised as an issue in other settings. Here we see Malcolm’s sociologist overwhelming his Historian (where the H suggests a discipline, not ‘the past’) in that it seems that theoretical rigour (more important to sociologists than many Historians) closes down avenues that the evidence seems to suggest are worthy of further exploration. Other questions explored include a post-Imperial, UK-resident diaspora and the dynamics of changing notions of Englishness, especially the ‘Barmy Army’ touring supporters, which includes a valuable critique of the place of New Laddism in supporter culture.
There are two chapters that stand out, noting my concerns and interests focusing Empire and Imperialism as both cultural and political practice. The chapter on the Imperial game very clearly lays out the flaws in many Imperial assumptions about cricket (and sport more generally) based in the presumptions of even distribution and cultural uniformity. Towards the end of the book there is a sharp and insightful discussion of the process of Othering drawing on the debates around Bob Woolmer’s death the day after Pakistan’s unexpected ejection from the 2007 World Cup. This question Malcolm approaches through tropes of Orientalism and Primitivism, and implicit and explicit discourses of irrationality in cricket in the ‘Indian’ Sub-continent. These are both powerful chapters, showing both Historical nuance and sociological insight.
As with any good piece of scholarly work, there are aspects that could be stronger or that weaken the argument. While the close attention to the mitigation of violence in the game is consistent with Malcolm’s emphasis of Eliasian civilising process notions, there is as noted a sense that it comes at the expense of important and valuable other lines of enquiry. It might be my Historian’s outlook (we tend to be theoretical magpies), but this suggests a danger where a single dominant theoretical frame shifts from a tool to help make sense of the evidence to become an ‘everythingist’ approach, blinkering analysts. There were several places, especially in the discussion of the Caribbean and the emergence of cricket as England’s national game where tight adherence to his Eliasian approach seemed to close down discussion, while in the discussion of post-Imperial diaspora it seemed to be a particularly useful tool. The discussion of gambling, described on p41 as a “fashion”, during the early 19th century revival of the game is surprising in that Malcolm seems to ignore the widespread social, political and cultural struggles around what in many cases was the raison d’etre for a sports event being held: making money from wagers. Similarly, the discussion of Celtic nations relies on ideas derived from models of internal colonialism, without any seeming recognition of the contested character of that model. It’s a small point, but in my view Malcolm is dead wrong in his statement that cricket was more tolerant of apartheid South Africa than any other sport: unlike rugby union which only terminated official level tours for four years, and even then not formally while high level forms of contact continued, at least cricket, despite all the other contacts, officially excluded South African for nearly 20 years – but that is a quibble.
Malcolm’s argument that the concepts are so deeply interwoven that ‘Englishness and cricket’ is a pleonasm, it uses more words than necessary to explain the concept, is compelling. Others have made a similar case, but none with the temporal and geographical sweep here. In considering Englishness, and its problematic relationship with Britishness however he needed a more nuanced and carefully critical reading of models of internal colonialism and of some of Krishnan Kumar’s critics (that might be my scepticism about Kumar coming through). More significantly, his adherence to Eliasian approaches is likely to alienate and frustrate some readers, just as his emphasis on the ‘sociological’ aspect of historical sociology raised my Historian hackles in places. Critics would make a serious error if they did allow their theoretical disagreements to overpower the very valuable and insightful case being made here, and for the most part Malcolm mediates the tension between the danger of theoretical dogmatism which very many of us suffer from and the operation of his Eliasian outlook as a frame through which to read the evidence. There is much here for Historians and sociologists to consider, work with, critique, engage in scholarly and comradely contention and build on to further not only our explorations of cricket in national and imperial identities but sport more generally.
**************************
Dominic Malcolm Globalizing Cricket: Englishness, Empire and Identity London, Bloomsbury. 2013. ISBN: 9781472576576. pp 197+viii. Pbk, £24.99.
Cricket is amongst the most paradoxical of sports: English (although Ashis Nandy sees it as Indian, accidentally invented in England), but global of a form, where global is limited by Britain’s former imperial presence and England’s expatriate presence. Its imagery is aristocratic, all bonhomie and indulgent, breaking for tea and wearing the most inappropriate of clothing for a sports event (white) but with legitimate flashes of colour. This imagery is at odds with a traditionally powerful working class attachment to the game, with much of the aristocratic imagery depending on the presence of working class players in teams alongside the great and the good. The global Englishness of cricket has, it seems, obfuscated the England/Britain distinction, while the emphasis on cricket as an English (which for these purposes includes Glamorgan) game obscures the presence and profile of the game elsewhere in the British Isles, as well as noting cricket’s presence in both the first and second British Empires. Amid all these historicising elements, cricket, as Dominic Malcolm argues here, is more about a contemporary sense of Englishness abroad, not some residual imperial vision – yet Britain’s and cricket’s latent, unresolved imperial attachments frame much of the understanding cricket’s place in globalising the English and in asserting and understanding the identities associated with this sense of Englishness.
Perhaps more than many areas of sociological analysis, sport lends itself to and almost requires an historical sensibility: this is not, however, a question of specific modes or models of analysis best deployed in sports studies, but a recognition that sport, like many other forms of popular culture, is imbued with a profound popular historicisation – in short, its fans and followers often exhibit a deep-seated historical understanding. The banal presence of the past in contemporary sport cultures presents a challenge for academic analysts, especially for those of us who find ourselves working in and around historical sociological issues, whose attention to the past begins to determine the questions we ask and the techniques we use to explore, and sometimes answer, them. Unfortunately, Malcolm falls into the increasingly common attempt to justify historical sociology by drawing on arguments that the disciplines are the same thing in terms of their “fundamental preoccupations” (p8), and invokes C Wright Mills’ case that history is vital to both ask and answer sociological questions, thus making history subservient to sociology. Despite this rocky start, that jarred with my not-so-inner Historian, Malcolm for the most part avoids the trap of teleological historical analysis, and in doing so poses important challenges to both historians and sociologists attempting to make sense not only of cricket in both national and colonial/imperial settings but also in many respects of sport more generally in the imperial world.
Malcolm’s approach means that the book presents a rich view of the complexities of Englishness in and through cricket: he turns his eye not only to outposts of the game in North America but also in Britain’s Celtic nations – specifically Ireland and Scotland. He delves into the Caribbean, highlighting the shift from class to ‘race’ as the trope shaping relations with Englishness, but here a recurrent focus on the question of violence in the game is weakened by a failure to unravel the politics of ‘race’ and Empire lying behind the 1980s focus on the ‘dangers’ of West Indies fast bowling, although he does note that fast bowling has been raised as an issue in other settings. Here we see Malcolm’s sociologist overwhelming his Historian (where the H suggests a discipline, not ‘the past’) in that it seems that theoretical rigour (more important to sociologists than many Historians) closes down avenues that the evidence seems to suggest are worthy of further exploration. Other questions explored include a post-Imperial, UK-resident diaspora and the dynamics of changing notions of Englishness, especially the ‘Barmy Army’ touring supporters, which includes a valuable critique of the place of New Laddism in supporter culture.
There are two chapters that stand out, noting my concerns and interests focusing Empire and Imperialism as both cultural and political practice. The chapter on the Imperial game very clearly lays out the flaws in many Imperial assumptions about cricket (and sport more generally) based in the presumptions of even distribution and cultural uniformity. Towards the end of the book there is a sharp and insightful discussion of the process of Othering drawing on the debates around Bob Woolmer’s death the day after Pakistan’s unexpected ejection from the 2007 World Cup. This question Malcolm approaches through tropes of Orientalism and Primitivism, and implicit and explicit discourses of irrationality in cricket in the ‘Indian’ Sub-continent. These are both powerful chapters, showing both Historical nuance and sociological insight.
As with any good piece of scholarly work, there are aspects that could be stronger or that weaken the argument. While the close attention to the mitigation of violence in the game is consistent with Malcolm’s emphasis of Eliasian civilising process notions, there is as noted a sense that it comes at the expense of important and valuable other lines of enquiry. It might be my Historian’s outlook (we tend to be theoretical magpies), but this suggests a danger where a single dominant theoretical frame shifts from a tool to help make sense of the evidence to become an ‘everythingist’ approach, blinkering analysts. There were several places, especially in the discussion of the Caribbean and the emergence of cricket as England’s national game where tight adherence to his Eliasian approach seemed to close down discussion, while in the discussion of post-Imperial diaspora it seemed to be a particularly useful tool. The discussion of gambling, described on p41 as a “fashion”, during the early 19th century revival of the game is surprising in that Malcolm seems to ignore the widespread social, political and cultural struggles around what in many cases was the raison d’etre for a sports event being held: making money from wagers. Similarly, the discussion of Celtic nations relies on ideas derived from models of internal colonialism, without any seeming recognition of the contested character of that model. It’s a small point, but in my view Malcolm is dead wrong in his statement that cricket was more tolerant of apartheid South Africa than any other sport: unlike rugby union which only terminated official level tours for four years, and even then not formally while high level forms of contact continued, at least cricket, despite all the other contacts, officially excluded South African for nearly 20 years – but that is a quibble.
Malcolm’s argument that the concepts are so deeply interwoven that ‘Englishness and cricket’ is a pleonasm, it uses more words than necessary to explain the concept, is compelling. Others have made a similar case, but none with the temporal and geographical sweep here. In considering Englishness, and its problematic relationship with Britishness however he needed a more nuanced and carefully critical reading of models of internal colonialism and of some of Krishnan Kumar’s critics (that might be my scepticism about Kumar coming through). More significantly, his adherence to Eliasian approaches is likely to alienate and frustrate some readers, just as his emphasis on the ‘sociological’ aspect of historical sociology raised my Historian hackles in places. Critics would make a serious error if they did allow their theoretical disagreements to overpower the very valuable and insightful case being made here, and for the most part Malcolm mediates the tension between the danger of theoretical dogmatism which very many of us suffer from and the operation of his Eliasian outlook as a frame through which to read the evidence. There is much here for Historians and sociologists to consider, work with, critique, engage in scholarly and comradely contention and build on to further not only our explorations of cricket in national and imperial identities but sport more generally.
Displaying 1 of 1 review