World Cup Ramble

As I watched the worldcup final, I had a secret. I should say, it was more of a secret after the final was over and I was talking about it with people. I was secretly supporting the Netherlands.

These are two sides that I both know and care almost nothing about, certainly a month ago my head was a nearly complete international footballing tabula rasa. On one level, it is interesting to consider the psychology of why, let's say you find yourself watching a game in the NorthEastern Lacrosse league or something, why you will choose one side or another. Or will you, always? Can you watch this sort of contest impartially, just looking for good play, never hoping for anything from one side or another? I think it might be possible to take the position that you hope that whoever has the ball scores, always, but I'm not totally sure.

So, if, when faced with a dichotomous contest (if you will allow me) we are simultaneously faced with a choice of where to sort ourselves, what is the nature of our choosing? I think that this worldcup case of having no preconceptions is an interesting test case. The first point is, one can choose without having any particular, let's say conscious, reason for making that choice. I shouldn't say I chose to support Netherlands, but perhaps more that my heart, no, my imagination was somehow more piqued by them. Not by their play, let's be clear, just by some combination of the color of the uniform, some snatches of narrative perhaps, the fact that they were, in my opinion, likely to lose, I think the fact that my education was firmly Anglo Protestant and so any former ally of England or harborer of Pilgrims' football side is kind of swept into this twisted historical meta-narrative's embrace (and, please note, you could read right in the British press, and elsewhere, references to the Spanish Armada and all kinds of craziness--yes, this in the sport section--a type of historico-nationalistic-footballizing I complained of but at the same time felt at work in myself in some way).

But speaking of their play, and this is the "lesson," I think, this unconscious decision that was made for me, that anteceded any rational thought on the matter, from this decision flowed more decisions--the decision not to be bothered by De Jong's foul, to overlook how annoying I found Robben. Of course, as I said, I secretly supported the Netherlands, almost feeling guilty for wanting the side with inferior play to rob the better team; secretly, in that I had no problem discussing the game in a rational and neutral way, even to express that it was good the better side won, etc.

The question, then, is how many decisions are *actually* made in the same way as the decision to support a certain brutish side for no particular reason? And how often are we aware of the fact that the decision has already been made for us by some other part of our being as we rationalize in a fair and neutral way? This gets worrisome to me when I factor in the response to the fouls, and then add this idea: I didn't really *want* to support the Oranje, and in a way I almost resisted the urge; what about situations in which a)the decision is made unconsciously, b)it is covered over by a skin of rational neutrality, particularly when it is convenient in conversation (I mean covered over to one's own perception as well), c)from this decision comes unethical but natural responses of passing over inconvenient incidents, and d)the unconscious decision actually corresponds with what I wish? How can all of that ever be overcome?