As intriguing as the rivalry between
the All Blacks and the Springboks is, one can’t help but wonder why the
relationship between the two teams is so intense. More specifically, as an international
relations student, one can’t help but wonder if the rivalry can be explained by
the three major IR theories: realism, liberalism, and constructivism.
At its most basic level, the rivalry
between the All Blacks and the Springboks can be explained by realism, which
insists that world politics is driven by self-interest. Many times, ruggers have described the game
of rugby as war. “When South African
plays New Zealand,” Boy Louw once said, “consider your country at war” (Austin). Because the Springboks and the All Blacks
view each other as equals, realism dictates that they should compete for
superiority in order to ensure their survival, similar to the actions of states
in war. Just as states only focus on the
actions of other states in realism, New Zealand and South Africa only pay
attention to each other and Australia, the other member of the Tri Nation
Championship. Though there are
interprovincial leagues, the members of those leagues are not considered a
player in the Springbok All Black rivalry (Brown). However, the rivalry cannot be attributed to
only realism because there is a lack of anarchy; each match is governed by a
centralized power, a power that provides referees and the laws of rugby.
It is difficult to see how
liberalism would explain the All Black Springbok rivalry: the main purpose of
liberalism is to achieve lasting peace and cooperation. Liberalism does explain the pause in the
rivalry near the year 1976: New Zealand, among other states, reacted negatively
to the continuation of the Apartheid in South Africa, leading eventually to the
discontinuation of matches between the two teams (“The 1976…”). This pause in the rivalry is a prime example
of liberalism’s emphasis on the necessity of basic human rights.
Rather than using liberalism, then,
perhaps it would be best to analyze how neoliberalism explains the
rivalry. Neoliberalism “argues that international institutions can allow nations
to successfully cooperate in the international system.” Given this definition, it makes sense to view
rugby rivalries not as a political rivalry, but as an alternative to a
political rivalry. Rugby is very much an
institution: it is governed by laws (Brown) and it transcends national
borders. Being involved in rugby should
allow New Zealand and South Africa connect through their similarities to
prevent political strife and conflicts.
Perhaps the easiest theory to use to
describe the All Black-Springbok rivalry is constructivism, which argues that “actions
and words shape society, and society, in turn, shapes our actions and words” (Lamy,
et. al.). In an interview discussing the
causes of the rivalry, Springbok John Smit claimed that the team and its
success meant a lot to the people; he also mentioned that it was “tough to beat
South Africa in South Africa” (John Smit, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WeMpCOsWeuc). Because
of the interests of the people, the rivalry between the two teams grew over the
years; if the two teams did not have any fans, or if the people of South Africa
or New Zealand been unsupportive of the sport, it is unlikely that the rivalry
would have developed at all. The
reaction of the New Zealand people to Apartheid is an example of the effect of
the interest of the people on the rivalry: though New Zealand wanted to
continue its rivalry with South Africa, the people of New Zealand opposed
Apartheid and protested many of the matches, making the continuation of the
rivalry difficult and nearly impossible (Austin).
Constructivism also best explains
why the rivalry between the All Blacks and Springboks continued after South
Africa ended Apartheid and was no longer isolated in politics or, more
importantly, sports. Because of its
isolation from rugby, South Africa was no longer New Zealand’s main rival in
terms of skill; rather, Australia had filled that gap. However, New Zealand fans still referred to
the Springboks as “the old enemy.” For
these fans, history and tradition were more important than the current status
of rugby rankings in their league. A
similar sentiment is echoed by Springbok player Joel Stransky: "We South
Africans grow up wanting to wear the green and gold and play against the All
Blacks. It is part of our rugby DNA. The history is just so strong and we want
to judge ourselves against the arch enemy and the best" (Austin). The continuation of the All Black Springbok
rivalry is not merely a contest to see which team is stronger; it is a
tradition built on nearly a century of history.
Each other main theories of
international relations can explain a portion of the Springbok All Black
relationship, but in order to understand to the fullest extent of that
relationship, it is best to consider realism, liberalism, and constructivism
all at once. It is only through the
interactions of these three theories that a full explanation can be reached.
Works Cited
Austin, Andrew. "The Rivalries: Battle against Boks
Fiercest Clash of All." The New Zealand Herald. APN Holdings NZ
Limited, 3 Aug. 2011. Web. 11 Oct. 2012.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/great-all-black-moments/news/article.cfm?c_id=1503161.
Brown, Matthew, Patrick Guthrie, and Greg Growden.
"Rugby For Dummies." Rugby for Dummies. 3rd ed. N.p.: Wiley,
2011. N. pag. Dummies. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Sept. 2011. Web. 11
Oct. 2012.
http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/rugby-for-dummies-cheat-sheet.html.
"John Smit on All Blacks Rivalry." Interview. OfficialBokTube.
YouTube, 27 July 2011. Web. 11 Oct. 2012.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WeMpCOsWeuc.
McLook. "The Greatest of All Rugby Rivalries." Rugby-Talk.
Rudi Geldenhuys, 16 Feb. 2011. Web. 12 Oct. 2012.
http://www.rugby-talk.com/2011/02/the-greatest-of-all-rugby-rivalries/.
“The 1976 All Black Tour to South Africa." Web log
post. The McLook Rugby Collection: A Personal Collection That Tells the
Story of Springbok Rugby. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Oct. 2012.
http://springbokrugby.webs.com/arrival.htm.
Your way of analyzing a non IR topic through IR theories is very interesting. Usually, we've usee IR theories when talking about governments of various states. Are you interpreting rugby teams as self-governing individual states? Or are they representatives of the states they are from, such as Australia or New Zealand? Since each rubgy team does not have its own "government" within the team, what/who drives the teams' decisions and attitudes?
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed how you connected politics and sports in your post. Your use of evidence in explaining how each IR theory could be applied to understanding the rivalry between the All Blacks and the Springboks cemented the argument and made the two subjects (politics and sports) work harmoniously together. How do you think we can relate “The Asch Test” to the subject of sport rivalry? “The Asch Test” is the experiment that we discussed when reviewing constructivist theory which proved that one-third of people will give an answer that they know to be incorrect by reason of conformity. Do you think that the rivalry that has continued for several years between the All Blacks and the Springboks has persevered due to the blind obedience of individuals to ideas of the societal majority? How do you think the sport rivalries among New Zealand, Australia, and South Africa have impacted political decision making in a “Two level game” model? Remember, Putnam’s “Two level game” incorporates two levels of opinion, that of government leaders between states, and of popular opinion in those respective states, when dissecting the decision making process.
ReplyDeleteI like the part when discussing neoliberalism when you describe rugby as an institution. We tend not to think of sports teams and civil groups in society as institutions. Can you elaborate on this a little more? Are there any specific examples of relations improving or worsening between these two groups because of their interactions in this sport?
ReplyDeleteYou stated that the New Zealand fans still see the Springboks as "old enemies" because of history rather than current standing in the league. Do you believe that countries do this as well? That people still see one another as enemies due to past incidents regardless of current relations? Does this influence the way that polticians make decisions in the long run? Personally, I would argue that this is true. Despite Japan and Korea's current civil cooperation, many of the older generation within South Korea still foster a hatred for Japan because of the invasion and occupation period. If you agree with this assertion, do you think that these people are morally justified in still fostering hatred and competitiveness?
ReplyDeleteAnnie, I really liked this post. It was very well thought through. I do have one question though. You said in your article that if the two teams were playing it was like the two countries were at war. Do you see sports as a replacement for war? A sense of competition without a zero-sum result since nobody actually loses any of their resources or territory, perhaps some dignity, at the end of the game. And if this is true, then can realists explain sports rivalries - because no one actually gains any leverage over the other team, unless the end result is bet on or decides home field advantage for the next game.
ReplyDeleteThe idea of sports as a replacement for war is interesting.
DeleteI did a project for Arabic on Arabic poetry recently, and I discovered that one facet of pre-Islamic poetry was the use of poetry as a replacement for war. Poets from many tribes would gather together at a big convention, and essentially rap out their differences. The debates would determine the status of the tribes.
I'm not sure such a thing would work now that globalization has created this international infrastructure. The stakes are higher, and government structured differently, more rigidly. There are also more people to account for in a country than in a tribe. Lots of things contribute to the fundamental differences between the flexibility of a successful commune structure and the necessitated rigidity of a successful state.
So although I think it is unlikely that sports are replacements for war amongst modern countries, it would be pretty awesome, wouldn't it?