Part two: a culture of apathy
The present — the National Hockey League
Ajitpaul Mangat, Staff
Why do we watch sports? Certainly, it allows for an expression of “jingoism” — extreme patriotism, accompanied by an eagerness to wage war — as detailed in part one of this series (March 12). Chuck Klosterman further elucidates this reasoning in his Esquire article, “Nothing to Worry About.”
“It is common to view the world as a dangerous place and, obviously, it is. But not compared with the past. Canadian cognitive scientist Steven Pinker sometimes delivers a lecture titled ‘The Myth of Violence,’ in which he statistically shows how we currently inhabit the most peaceful era of human existence . . . sport’s relationship to fear . . . the anxiety of hitting and the anxiety of being hit. . . . But that internal fear is gone. The flight-or-flight impulse still exists biologically, but it no longer has a purpose,” writes Klosterman.
Accordingly, watching sports allows for a socially acceptable mechanism of release for this repressed adversarial flight-or-flight instinct, because it psychologically sublimates a reprehensible impulse — fighting — into an innocent deed — watching others violently compete. Thus, since not everyone can fight in a war or play sports at a high level, watching athletes battle allows for a comparably jingoistic analogue. Individuals experiences immense pride and joy when they watch their homeland achieve victory in sports over an adversary, as it imbues them with knowledge that their country or, on a slighter scale, province or city, is superior — meaning they are directly associated with oppressive greatness and prominence. For the ubiquitously passive Canadian this sport, traditionally, has been the vicious activity of ice hockey.
Evidence of this national passion is apparent in the intertwining of historically seminal national and hockey moments that have merged like a dream into Canada’s collective unconscious. A nation knee-deep in dust during the Depression was given hope of a brighter, prosperous future when the world famous ostentatious Maple Leaf Gardens was erected in 1931; the frustration of French Canadians manifested itself in the “Richard riots” of 1955 and the intense rivalry that developed between the Montreal Canadians and Toronto Maple Leafs in the 1960s; the tension of the Cold War — East versus West, democracy versus communism and the physical Canadian style of play versus the lively Soviet style of play — led to the tense 1972 Summit series.
Clearly, hockey was a chief facet of Canadian culture, as, developing in tandem with culture, it reflected national sprit and character. In particular, hockey liberated the adversarial side of the populace. Canadians received immense pride and joy from watching hockey because it was largely uniquely theirs, and they were dominant at it, meaning that they were finally associated with oppressive greatness and prominence, as the rest of the world could not compete. Thus, the Canadian sports fan, an individual who cherished his or her nation’s pastime, was not always an obvious artefact of a national culture of apathy.
So, when did this change? The rejoinder lies in the evolution of the NHL.
The National Hockey League began as a Canadian organization through-and-through, from management to players to fans. In fact, 13 of the first 15 championships were won by Canadian franchises. And even the early American franchises that won championships were comprised largely of Canadian players. However, the Americanization, and then globalization, of the league would soon begin.
The first indication of this change was the NHL expansion of 1967. Rather than award a franchise to Vancouver, untraditionally hockey-centric cities, such as Oakland, Los Angeles, and St. Louis, were given teams. Shortly thereafter, an increasing number of American franchises, whose American owners were buying the best Canadian talent, began winning championships, as evidenced by the mid-1970s Philadelphia Flyers and early-1980s New York Islanders dynasties.
However, above all else, the most momentous symbol of Canada’s loss of the NHL was “The Trade” of 1988. After leading the Edmonton Oilers to four Stanley Cups in five years, breaking numerous scoring records, and in the process becoming the most dominant athlete of his generation Canadian centre man Wayne Gretzky was traded from the Edmonton Oilers to the Los Angeles Kings. The reason? Canadian franchises could not compete in terms of dollars and cents with American franchises. This piece of business allowed for an increasingly hurried Americanization and globalization of the league.
In 1993, the NHL further expanded into the American south, as the Mighty Ducks of Anaheim and Florida Panthers were formed; the Quebec Nordiques and Winnipeg Jets moved becoming the Colorado Avalanche in 1995, and the Phoenix Coyotes in 1996, respectively; the number of Canadian players decreased dramatically, as more European players began plying their trade in the league. But, most significantly, Canada’s singular dominance of the NHL ended in 1993 with the Montreal Canadians’ record 24th Stanley Cup victory, as no Canadian franchise has captured the NHL’s biggest prize since then.
The steadily increasing Canadian apathy, which allowed for this transformation, has since been amplified exponentially. The Globe and Mail recently ran an article that questioned: “Where Have all the Canucks’ Viewers Gone?” A more accurate headline would have read: “Where have all the NHL Viewers Gone?” Television viewership for the once-immensely popular ice hockey league in Canada has dropped nearly across the board this season. Both games of Hockey Night in Canada have experienced a decrease in ratings, with the early game down 10 per cent and late game down eight per cent from last year. Similarly, the television audience of regional games is significantly lower, as much as 30 per cent for Oilers games and 20 per cent for Vancouver Canucks games. The only sizeable increase has been for Ottawa Senators games, which are up 17 per cent, but, at 102,000 viewers per game, that still leaves them far and away the least-watched team in the country.
What makes these statistics even more profound is that there has been a renaissance in Canadian ice hockey the past two years, as Canadian franchises have reached consecutive Stanley Cup finals and Pittsburgh Penguins centre man Sidney Crosby has emerged as the most gifted and charismatic Canadian NHL superstar in years. It seems the built-up apathy of the Canadian sports fan cannot now simply be inverted with transient success.
Whereas Canadians could once point to their passion for the NHL as a marker of their passion, this zeal for professional ice hockey is clearly now not the case. A Canadian sports fan watching the NHL experiences no psychological sublimation of adversarial feelings. He or she no longer receives immense pride and joy from watching the league, because it is no longer uniquely theirs, and a Canadian can no longer be dominant at it, as the league is now American through-and-through, meaning that Canadians are not associated with greatness and prominence, as the rest of the world can equally compete.
Thus, the Canadian sports fan, an individual who does not cherish his or her nation’s pastime, has become an obvious artefact of a national culture of apathy.
Next week: part three, the future — the Canadian Football League.
