I’ve been following the Detroit Lions almost all of my life–I write “almost” because I don’t have memories of any games before 1979 or so. I’ve lived in two cities with better teams–I lived in St Louis when the Rams moved there and established one of the most powerful offenses the NFL had seen up to that point, and have seen the Baltimore Ravens win a superbowl while I lived here. Neither team could pull me away from the Lions and I really wish they would have.
Watching them win against Green Bay last night has me thinking. When I wrote on Ella Baker in Contemporary Political Theory I expressly juxtaposed her mode of leadership against the charismatic mode expressed by figures like Martin Luther King jr. I now think my argument was a bit too strong. I should’ve made a descriptive claim rather than a normative one. Why? Because I think the leadership expressed by figures like King do have more than an extractive role. Thinking about it in APD terms, charisma can reorient our interests, can heighten the role identity plays in our politics, and can either stabilize or destabilize institutions.
There are all types of problems in making the leap from politics to sports, but if we think about the Lions as an institution it becomes a bit less problematic to do so. I think the success of the Detroit Lions can be traced in part to the charismatic leadership of its head coach Dan Campbell. It isn’t solely due to Campbell–Sheila Ford (Lions owner) and Brad Holmes play a role as well. He’s been able to get buy-in from the players and then from the organization and that’s enabled the team to overcome the culture of losing they’ve experienced for the better part of three decades. Although it’s possible the Lions crash and burn–we’re only a quarter into the season–I think it’s highly unlikely.
Recent Comments