Sportsmanship and Word Association

By Jack Furlong

Founder/President/CEO

Per usual, it’s always important to begin a post such as this with the normal disclaimer:  OSIP does not endorse any political candidate or party, and the views, thoughts, and opinions of those associated with OSIP do not necessarily reflect the organization.
 
While brainstorming some new ideas for the organization, I playfully wondered what would happen if I started a media campaign called “Make Sportsmanship Great Again.”  That’s when it appropriately hit me:  word association is a bit of a hurdle.
 
In the United States, it’s not subjective to note that this phrase shares three words with the phrase “Make America Great Again,” which has become associated with President Donald Trump.  There is obviously a gaggle of thoughts and emotions that arise in this scenario, regardless of one’s political affiliation.  Perhaps the safest suggestion without sounding politically motivated is to say that the phrase “Make America Great Again” or its acronym MAGA has become used to label a group of people.  In doing so, the definition of each separate word and the absolute value of the sentence take not just a backseat to this label, but they feel like they’re shoved deep in the bowels of the trunk!
 
If able, try an experiment.  Eliminate this newer association with the phrase and consider what the sentence means.  At worst, the sentence is an imperative command that demands the listener or the reader to adopt the goal of working towards the best possible outcome for the United States of America.  The connotation of the sentence may also imply that the challenge to achieve this goal stems from the object (America) currently residing at a lower value than where the speaker or writer believes it should be.
 
Prior to the connotation being introduced, it’s difficult to argue with the impetus of the phrase.  Wanting the best for our country, regardless of the method, is just plain good; attempting to argue the opposite is ludicrous.  It’s not until the introduction of the connotation that a potential assertion is added that might suggest that where America resides prior to the goal proposed by the statement is lower than where one would want it to be.
 
Is it possible that opinions will differ once the connotation is introduced?  Absolutely.  But even so, a differing of opinions based on the status of America is not yet entwined (in this experiment, at least) with the association we’ve removed prior to beginning.
 
In short, the point is that the phrase and acronym in question isn’t troublesome.  It’s the weight and the charge that people inject into the entity that creates the hurdle.  The words stop holding their definition and become a symbol of something completely different.  But in a world where perception can dictate reality, trying to rely on objectivity to convey truth can be a losing game when many people prefer the path of least resistance.
 
In other words, a campaign based on the phrase “Make Sportsmanship Great Again” wouldn’t automatically fail because people don’t value the importance of sportsmanship.  It would suffer because it sounds too much like something else that some people have already judged, therefore not even giving it a chance to succeed.  The cost/benefit ratio tilts because of something not even remotely associated with sportsmanship.
 
This is not the first time this type of association has occurred, let alone with words.  What if we changed the symbol of words to an authority figure, such as a baseball umpire?  Sports officials commonly fall victim to the equation of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.”  Therefore, no matter how much two rival teams or their fanbases hate each other, it’s easy for them to bond over the idea that they can equally hate the arbiter overseeing them.  It’s the same idea as when two high school kids in detention equally hate the principal for putting them there, even though the cause of the punishment was a fist fight between these two kids!
 
And yet, the person doing the officiating changes from game to game.  But that doesn’t seem to affect the disdain for the position of the official!  For example, if a person gets pulled over for speeding three times in one day by three different cops, it’s more likely for the person to develop a disdain for the police in general than to take personal responsibility and learn that speeding might cause this outcome!
 
There’s a saying in officiating:  the players, coaches, and fans aren’t arguing with you, the person, but with your uniform.  They don’t see the value of the person wearing the uniform; they just see the uniform and fall into a trap of immediate negative association.  The same goes with word association.  The label associated with “Make America Great Again” holds more value than the words themselves.  It’s a form of name-calling.
 
In fact, this phenomenon has occurred throughout history in the form of prejudice.  Perhaps it seems a bit too simple to reduce it, but the civil rights movement occurred because people were being judged by the color of their skin (their uniform or label), not the content of their character.
 
Put simply, one must ask this question:  are we really playing (or existing) with good sportsmanship when we give more power to symbols and connotations instead of the individual words or people associated with them?