Cross-National Cultural Diffusion: the Global Spread of Cricket
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
#2117-ASR 70:1 filename:70105-kaufman Cross-National Cultural Diffusion: The Global Spread of Cricket Jason Kaufman Orlando Patterson Harvard University Harvard University This article explores the dynamics of cross-national cultural diffusion through the study of a case in which a symbolically powerful cultural practice, the traditionally English sport of cricket, successfully diffused to most but not all countries with close cultural ties to England. Neither network ties, nor national values, nor climatic conditions account for this disparity. Our explanation hinges instead on two key factors: first, the degree to which elites chose either to appropriate the game and deter others from participating or actively to promote it throughout the population for hegemonic purposes; and second, the degree to which the game was “popularized” by cultural entrepreneurs looking to get and keep spectators and athletes interested in the sport. Both outcomes relate to the nature of status hierarchies in these different societies, as well as the agency of elites and entrepreneurs in shaping the cultural valence of the game. The theoretical significance of this project is thus the observation that the diffusion of cultural practices can be promoted or discouraged by intermediaries with the power to shape the cultural meaning and institutional accessibility of such practices. hy do some foreign practices take root between adopters and adoptees, as well as the Wwhile others either arrive dead in the environmental contexts that modulate such inter- water or take hold only to wither and die? actions. But as Strang and Soule (1998:276) Modern diffusion studies have focused prima- note, “[S]tructural opportunities for meaning- rily on the structural aspects of diffusion, or ful contact cannot tell us what sorts of practices the existence of tangible points of contact are likely to diffuse,” whereas an “analysis of the cultural bases of diffusion speaks more direct- ly to what spreads, replacing a theory of con- nections with a theory of connecting.” Direct all correspondence to Jason Kaufman, Department of Sociology, 648 William James Hall, According to this more culturally minded Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, 02138 (jkauf- approach, diffusing practices are most likely to [email protected]), or to Orlando Patterson, be adopted when they are first made congruent Department of Sociology, 520 William James Hall, with local cultural frames or understandings, and Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, 02138 are thus “rendered salient, familiar and com- ([email protected]). The authors thank Joel Ngugi pelling” (Strang and Soule 1998:276; see also and Michael Nguyen for their extraordinary efforts as research assistants. Cynthia Rockwell and Mary Gottdiener 1985; Rogers 1995). In other cases, Quigley provided invaluable clerical assistance. The however, more than just “congruence” is need- staff at the National Library of Canada was both ed for successful adoption; institutional sup- helpful and accommodating. Andy Markovits pro- port, repeated exposure, and/or active instruction vided information and inspiration for our own endeav- in the new practice are required for it to “take or into “American exceptionalism” and the sociology hold” in new settings. The original cultural pro- of sport. Peter Moskos helped with baseball history. file of that practice is often transformed in the The authors also thank Jerry A. Jacobs and the edi- torial staff at ASR, as well as Michèle Lamont, Frank process (e.g., Appadurai 1996; Bhabha 1994; Dobbin, Chris Winship, and the members of the Guillén 2001; Watson 2002). Sometimes, more- Culture Brown-Bag group at Harvard for their crit- over, it is the very difference in social, cultur- ical feedback on earlier drafts of this manuscript. al, and political power between change agents AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW, 2005, VOL. 70 (February:82–110) #2117-ASR 70:1 filename:70105-kaufman CULTURAL DIFFUSION AND CRICKET—–83 and adopters that accounts for successful long- Although there is now a rich body of important term diffusion. findings about this process, several major prob- One case that encompasses all of these fac- lems and gaps still exist. tors is the cross-national diffusion of cricket. One major failing of the diffusion literature Cricket originated in England as an informal is the tendency to overlook cases where inno- rural game, though it quickly emerged into a vations are transmitted but eventually rejected, highly competitive sport. Over time, cricket as well as cases where adoption might have evolved into an English national pastime, along been expected but did not occur. Palloni (2001: with soccer, rugby, and horse racing (Allen 73–75) highlights two aspects of this problem 1990). Cricket began diffusing to other countries in his important recent review of the field. First, when British soldiers and settlers brought it he notes the common failure to try and account with them to the various colonies of the empire, for the persistence of diffused practices in their and today, most Commonwealth countries sup- new surroundings—how and why, in other port active cricket cultures, though not all. words, do diffused practices become part of the The case of Canada is particularly striking in lived experience of those who have adopted this regard. Cricket was popular in Canada and them? Second, he notes the obverse: that after the United States in the mid-nineteenth centu- the initial adoption of an innovation, mecha- ry—in fact, the first official international crick- nisms might arise that undermine its retention. et match in the world took place between Palloni (2001:73) adds that, “Despite the fact American and Canadian “elevens” in 1844 that this is a key part of a diffusion process, it (Boller 1994a:23). The game’s popularity rivaled is rarely mentioned and almost never explicit- that of baseball until the late nineteenth centu- ly modeled or studied.” The problem, we sus- ry, after which interest declined sharply. The pect, is that many diffusion studies track cultural game languished in both countries until quite practices that are not commonly rejected, such recently, when new immigrants from the as the adoption of new, time-tested medical or Caribbean and South Asia began arriving in agricultural practices. Strang and Soule (1998: North America in significant numbers 268) observe, for example, that there is “a strong (Gunaratnam 1993; Steen 1999). This pattern of selection bias in diffusion research, where inves- adoption-then-rejection poses important sub- tigators choose ultimately popular [i.e., widely stantive and theoretical issues regarding the diffused] practices as appropriate candidates cross-national diffusion of cultural practices. for study.” Issues such as the persistence and Given Canada’s—and to a lesser degree, rejection of diffused practices are thus generally America’s—demographic, cultural, and overlooked in the literature. sociopolitical connections to Britain, the game’s Another shortcoming of diffusion studies is unexpected demise there is puzzling, especial- highlighted by Wejnert (2002:299–302), who ly in contrast to its successful diffusion in far less notes a tendency in the literature to ignore the “British” parts of the Commonwealth. At the role of characteristics unique to the practice or same time, this disjuncture also seems at odds thing being diffused. Specific features of the with several important perspectives in the soci- innovation being adopted, such as its potential ological study of diffusion. for replication and change, play an important but often overlooked role in the ultimate success or SITUATING CRICKET IN failure of diffusion. By confining their studies to simple physical objects or cultural routines DIFFUSION THEORY that are diffused at the micro-social level, dif- There is widespread agreement that diffusion is fusion scholars have tended to create advanced the transmission, adoption, and eventual accul- formal models that overlook real-world obsta- turation of an innovation by a recipient popu- cles to diffusion—those posed by the nature, lation (Coleman, Katz, and Menzel 1966; complexity, continuity, and potential mutabili- Rogers 1995; Wejnert 2002; cf. Palloni 2001). ty of the innovations themselves. Wejnert (2002) Most sociological studies of the diffusion also notes the often overlooked distinction process aim to identify the mechanisms by between innovations that are diffused at the which an innovation spreads as well as the rate macro- and micro-social levels. Those involv- at which it does so in a given population. ing large collective actors such as countries and #2117-ASR 70:1 filename:70105-kaufman 84—–AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW industries likely have different consequences ure, an internally complex cultural entity with and diffusion mechanisms than those that powerful symbolic and political consequences involve mainly individuals or firms. (Appadurai 1996; Beckles and Stoddart 1995; The dominant “relational” approach to dif- Bourdieu 1978; Maguire 1999; Malcolm 2001; fusion research in sociology has improved our Miller et al. 2001; Nandy 2000; Patterson 1995; knowledge of the role of social networks in the Stoddart 1988). It involves cross-national dif- transmission of information and ideas (e.g. fusion among large collective entities engaging Buskens and Yamaguchi 1999), but it tends to broad arrays of both practitioners and spectators. underspecify the role of social structural factors It illustrates both the successful diffusion of a