Research Report

‘If I Ever Play Football, Dad, Can I Play for England or India?’ British Asians, Sport and Diasporic National Identities

■ Daniel Burdsey University of Brighton


The overall scope of this article is to examine how young British Asians experi- ence and articulate recent transformations in popular notions of ‘race’, nation and culture.The context for the analysis is sport, which acts as a prominent arena in which these variables are contested and, indeed, embodies the complexities of national affiliations and identities.The article argues that despite continuing ethni- cally exclusive manifestations of ‘Englishness’ – both in football and in the wider society – increasing numbers of young British Asians are expressing their support for the England football team.This is in direct contrast to cricket, where large num- bers choose to follow a team from the Indian subcontinent.The article argues that these trends reflect the multifaceted, fragmented nature of diasporic identities, in that the diverse sporting affiliations of young British Asians enable them to empha- size both their cultural traditions and the permanency of South Asian settlement in Britain.


British Asians / diaspora / football / hybridity / identity / ‘race’ / sport


uring the spring and summer of 2001, a number of towns and cities in northern England witnessed extensive outbreaks of urban unrest, as local tensions between British Asian and white communities – exacerbated by


Sociology Copyright © 2006

BSA Publications Ltd® Volume 40(1): 11–28

DOI: 10.1177/0038038506058435 SAGE Publications

London,Thousand Oaks, New Delhi

Diasporic Identities


058435 Burdsey 13/1/06 11:10 am Page 11

the insidious presence of far right activists – erupted into violent street con- frontations. Shortly after these events, the British and United States govern- ments initiated their global ‘war against terror’ – ‘officially’ a response to the terrorist attacks on the USA on 11 September 2001. These atrocities were reportedly carried out by pan-global Islamic extremist groups but, in the after- math, many British Asians (of all religious denominations) experienced a back- lash – much of which was violent – against them. This situation was further influenced by media reports alleging that British Muslims were amongst those fighting coalition forces in Afghanistan and, more significantly, was re- intensified in 2005 as a result of the terrorist attacks on London. A direct consequence of these episodes is that the citizenship, national affiliations and identities of British Asians, especially Muslims, have become subject to rigorous political and public debate.

Carrington and McDonald (2001a: 2) suggest that ‘sport is a particularly useful sociological site for examining the changing context and content of con- temporary British racisms, as it articulates the complex interplay of “race”, nation, culture and identity in very public and direct ways’. Of considerable sociological significance in this regard are those teams that are selected to rep- resent ‘the nation’ – or, as is it popularly conceived, ‘the people’ – and it is these national teams that form the focus of this article. It has been widely argued that the symbolism that these teams possess is so powerful that they often become the main outlets for popular articulations of nationalist sentiment. For exam- ple, Kellas (1991: 21) argues that ‘the most popular form of nationalist behaviour in many countries is sport, where masses of people become highly emotional in support of their national team’. However, a pertinent question to ask is: who are ‘the people’ that these teams are perceived to represent? As has been increasingly noted, not all social or ethnic groups endorse such rhetoric, and the processes of selection, affiliation and fandom that operate in relation to such teams can sustain, as well as challenge, structures and patterns of inclu- sion/exclusion, discrimination and prejudice in the wider society (Back et al., 2001; Carrington, 1998a).

This article examines how contemporary popular interpretations of ‘race’, nation and culture are articulated and experienced by young British Asians in the context of international sport, and demonstrates how these trends reflect the complexities of 21st-century diasporic lifestyles, affiliations and identities. The analysis comprises three interrelated sections: first, it traces the development of ‘cultural racism’ (Fanon, 1967) in late 20th-century Britain, particularly in rela- tion to the migration and settlement of South Asians, and highlights how this has contributed to increasingly ethnically exclusive notions of ‘Englishness’. Second, the article illustrates how the nexus between ‘race’ and nation is enacted within English sport. It argues that national identities remain complex and contentious within this sphere, and indicates how sport embodies the frag- mented and seemingly contradictory nature of identity in late modern society, by examining the contrasting affiliations of young British Asians in football and cricket. Third, the article argues that these trends reflect the multifaceted nature

12 Sociology Volume 40 ■ Number 1 ■ February 2006

058435 Burdsey 13/1/06 11:10 am Page 12

of diasporic identities, in that the diverse sporting allegiances of young British Asians enable them to both preserve notions of culture and tradition associated with the subcontinent, and to emphasize the permanency of South Asian settle- ment in Britain.


The data presented here were generated by a comprehensive process of ethno- graphic fieldwork, undertaken between 2000 and 2003. Primarily, interviews were carried out with 16 professional, ex-professional and amateur British Asian footballers in south-east England. Interviewees were selected through ‘snowball’ sampling and by utilizing the contact networks of existing partici- pants. In order to complement the data generated through interviews, par- ticipant observation was also undertaken with four British Asian amateur teams, based in inner and Greater London, between autumn 2001 and summer 2002. Two of these teams consisted predominantly of Bangladeshi Muslim players, one of Pakistani Muslims and the other of Punjabi Sikhs. This obser- vation mainly involved attending matches and training sessions, but also included social excursions to cafés, restaurants and pubs. Access to participant groups was achieved through a continuous process of (re)negotiation and by gaining the acceptance and trust of a number of ‘gatekeepers’, i.e. those ‘actors with control over key sources and avenues of opportunity’ (Hammersley and Atkinson, 1995: 34). In the amateur sphere, these tended to be those players who also had important off-field roles, for example, as coaches or as members of federations, whilst contact with professional players was enabled by their clubs.

It is crucial to emphasize that this research involved a white, middle-class researcher probing the world of working-class British Asian footballers. Debates about the ethics behind, and the legitimacy of, white researchers under- taking research with minority ethnic groups have existed for a considerable time. There is not space within this article to make a substantial contribution to this dialectic, yet it must be recognized that these issues remain extremely salient and require ongoing critical analysis and dialogue, particularly while minority ethnic scholars remain underrepresented within the academy (Bulmer and Solomos, 2004). It is essential for white researchers in the field of ethnic and racial studies to examine not simply how hegemonic ‘whiteness’ and notions of white privilege permeate the structures and institutions in our areas of research (Ware and Back, 2002); we must also examine how these issues enter and affect the research process. The intrinsic power relations of the research setting (especially interviews) – further compounded by class differen- tials – can inadvertently construct ‘whiteness’ as fixed, normal, homogenous, knowledgeable and unproblematic. Ethnic differences between researchers and participants are certainly not insurmountable, but they also cannot be fully evis- cerated. Consequently, we must engage in a continual process of self-reflexivity

13Diasporic national identities Burdsey

058435 Burdsey 13/1/06 11:10 am Page 13

and seek to critically scrutinize and interrogate how our ethnicities impinge on the research process (Fawcett and Hearn, 2004).

The focus of this article is on British Asian identities but its content exclu- sively covers young men. Regrettably, it thus does not contribute towards relocating minority ethnic women from their subordinate position as ‘a “blind spot” in mainstream policy and research studies that talk about women on the one hand or ethnic minorities on the other’ (Mirza, 2003: 121). The main rea- son (although not an excuse) for this is that this article emanates from a larger research project which specifically examined young, male British Asian identi- ties. The absence of reference to gender in this article is also due to the fact there is very little auxiliary involvement of girls and women in British Asian men’s football. Unlike the situation with many white amateur men’s clubs, British Asian female supporters were never present at matches observed as part of this research, and they were not involved in off-field roles, for example as secretaries or treasurers. As a result, this particular ethnography focused on an exclusively male social space and was unable to explicate the role of football for British Asian females. The popularity of, and participation in, football amongst British Asian females is gradually increasing, yet the significance of football in their lifestyles and identities remains largely unrecognized (Anvari, 2001). Indeed, it is extremely significant that the first major British film to focus on women’s football, Bend It Like Beckham, centres on a young British Asian women who is forced to confront some of the issues raised in this article. Whilst obviously a fictional account, it demonstrates the need for academic research that unravels the nexus between ‘race’, ‘Asianness’ and gender in British football.

‘Little Englanders’, ‘the People’ and ‘Others’: ‘Race’, Nation and Culture in late 20th-century Britain

From the middle of the 20th century, a rapid and sizeable migration of South Asians to Britain began to take place, influenced by a demand for labour within Britain’s manual industries and public services combined with a striving amongst migrants to improve their standard of living. Many of Britain’s metropolitan regions soon experienced major demographic changes, with resi- dents of previously ‘white’, working-class districts finding themselves with South Asian neighbours and work colleagues. Balibar (1991: 43) argues that the influx of migrants from former colonial territories, such as the Indian subcon- tinent, represented an ‘interiorization of the exterior’ and that this process established the context for the (re)construction and (re)contestation of notions of ‘race’, nation and culture in late 20th-century Western Europe. In particular, these transformations provided the antecedents for the emergence of ‘cultural racism’ (Fanon, 1967) in western societies. In contrast to cruder biological racisms, which revolve explicitly around phenotypical characteristics and hier- archies of ‘race’, the key tenet of cultural racism is the concept of cultural dif- ference and the degree to which minority ethnic groups are believed to conform

14 Sociology Volume 40 ■ Number 1 ■ February 2006

058435 Burdsey 13/1/06 11:10 am Page 14

to, and assimilate into, the norms and values of ‘traditional’ domestic life. However, culture becomes a euphemism for ‘race’ as, despite the changing nomenclature, cultures are also interpreted as being fixed and discrete. Different cultures are viewed as being inherently incompatible and those minorities that do not share the dominant values of western societies are believed to represent a threat to their cohesion and, therefore, their social stability.

During the early phases of migration, South Asians were seen to be intro- ducing irreversible changes to the social composition of Britain. In particular, the main threats were believed to be that they provided competition for jobs and housing, that they had excessively large families, and that adult men harassed white women (Pearson, 1976). It was also perceived that their differ- ent religious and social practices, together with a lack of identification with cer- tain elements of the host culture, were not conducive to a modern, western, Christian nation. More recently, the refusal of many young British Asians to withstand the levels of racism meted out to previous generations – and the grad- ual erosion of the ‘passive Asian’ stereotype – means that discourses of ‘threat’ and ‘fear’ among white communities are now articulated with reference to per- ceived associations between young British Asian men and militant resistance, violent masculinity and gang culture (Alexander, 2000, 2004; Goodey, 2001; Webster, 1997). These beliefs often result not only in further racial discrimina- tion and violence towards British Asians, but also what Cohen terms a ‘racial- ization of space’. He argues that this:

Involves the colour-coding of particular residential areas, housing estates, or public amenities as ‘white’ or ‘black’ in a way which often homogenizes ethnically diverse neighbourhoods and turns relative population densities into absolute markers of racial division. This process is usually articulated through images of confrontation – ‘front lines’, ‘no-go areas’, and the like – which serve to orchestrate moral panics about ‘invasion’ and ‘blacks [or Asians] taking over’. (1996: 71)

Fundamentally, the presence of large numbers of British Asians in adjacent neighbourhoods is irrationally interpreted, fuelling the belief amongst certain white groups that they are becoming a minority within their own towns and, by implication, their country and, as a result, that their way of life is under threat.

Perceptions of a threat to England and ‘Englishness’ have resulted in the emergence of a defensive ‘Little Englander’ mentality. This worldview is con- structed around the celebration of a quasi-mythical English history and utopian images of suburban/rural life, free from the alleged problems of inner city (and ipso facto minority ethnic) communities. It stresses a perceived common ances- try and homogeneity of English culture and, in the process, constructs a notion of ‘Englishness’ that is palpably monocultural. As Gilroy argues, the signifi- cance of cultural racism is that:

The emphasis on culture allows nation and race to fuse. Nationalism and racism become so closely identified that to speak of the nation is to speak automatically in racially exclusive terms. Blackness and Englishness are constructed as incompatible, mutually exclusive identities. To speak of the British or English people is to speak of the white people. (1993: 27–8)

15Diasporic national identities Burdsey

058435 Burdsey 13/1/06 11:10 am Page 15

Whilst these views are prevalent at all levels of society, they often find their most public expression within the dictums of the political right. For example, in 2001, echoing Margaret Thatcher’s ‘swamping’ rhetoric of the 1980s, Conservative MP John Townend argued that ‘Our homogenous Anglo-Saxon society has been seriously undermined by the massive immigration … that has taken place since the war’ (cited in White, 2001, emphasis added). Similarly, speaking after the urban unrest in Oldham during April 2001, British National Party activist Michael Treacy stated, somewhat apocryphally, that ‘I have no qualms against Asians or people of any colour. It’s a matter of the country losing its identity and culture’ (cited in Vasagar et al., 2001, emphasis added).

Hall (1992: 293) highlights how popular images of ‘Englishness’ have invoked notions of militarism, empire, ritual and commemoration, through their associations with public ceremonials, such as Trooping the Colour and Remembrance Sunday. In reality, these specific connotations appeal only to older generations. Young white people are similarly inclined to define them- selves as an English ethnic collective (Anthias and Lloyd, 2002), yet their notions of ‘Englishness’ are more likely to be constructed in relation to style and consumption than to history. For example, images of national sports teams, ‘Britpop’ music, football violence, Eastenders or Coronation Street, and lager- induced shenanigans in Mediterranean holiday resorts all conjure up notions of ‘Englishness’. Nonetheless, the sense of cultural separation between whites and minority ethnic groups is reproduced through the alienation of the latter from these contemporary white, youth-orientated forms of ‘Englishness’.

Putting the Ball in Play: Nation, Identity and Sporting Affiliation

A significant number of authors have identified that popular manifestations of ‘Englishness’ are often exclusionary, alienating or irrelevant to African- Caribbeans (e.g. Back, 1996; Gilroy, 1993). Whilst less attention has focused on British Asians, many are also antipathetic towards dominant images of English national culture and demotic manifestations of nationalism. Consequently their identities are often constructed outside of this context. For example, the National Centre for Social Research annual survey of 2000 found that the notion of ‘Englishness’ proves particularly problematic for British Asians. Whilst more than a third classified themselves as British (not English), only seven percent clas- sified themselves as English (not British) (Carvel, 2000). Similarly, according to the Office for National Statistics (2004), whilst 67 percent of Bangladeshis see themselves as British, only six percent identify as English. The reasons for this identification with ‘Britishness’ rather than ‘Englishness’ are multiple, and con- textually and temporally specific. Nevertheless, it is evident that these notions are perceived to possess different connotations in relation to concepts of citizenship and ethnicity. For example, in Eade’s (1994: 389) study of Bangladeshi Muslims in east London, one participant stated that ‘I don’t know why, I just feel to be

16 Sociology Volume 40 ■ Number 1 ■ February 2006

058435 Burdsey 13/1/06 11:10 am Page 16

British, you don’t actually have to be white. But to be English I always have this feeling you have to be white.’ Whilst ‘Britishness’ appears to possess more plu- ralistic and less racialized associations, ‘Englishness’ is perceived as an ethnically exclusive identity.

Switching the focus to sport, this rejection of ‘Englishness’ by British Asians appears to be present in international cricket. In recent years, it has been increasingly acknowledged that a substantial number of British Asians support their country of ancestry – India, Pakistan, Bangladesh or Sri Lanka – particu- larly when they are playing against England (Werbner, 1996). This phe- nomenon prevails despite the criticisms forwarded by public figures such as the Conservative politician Norman Tebbit and former England cricket captain Nasser Hussain. Before the 1990 cricket Test series between England and India, Tebbit made a parliamentary speech in which he castigated British Asian and African-Caribbean people who chose not to support England in sporting con- tests.1 He argued that:

If you come to live in a country and take up the passport of that country, and you see your future and your family’s future in that country, it seems to me that is your country. You can’t just keep harking back. (cited in Werbner, 1996: 104)

In May 2001, England cricket captain Nasser Hussain – himself of dual eth- nicity – expressed his disappointment that most of the British Asian supporters at a Test match between England and Pakistan at Edgbaston supported Pakistan. He stated that, ‘I cannot really understand why those born here, or who came here at a very early age like me, cannot support or follow England’ (cited in Campbell, 2001).

However, supporting a South Asian nation serves an important function for many British Asians. First, it facilitates the construction of an ‘imagined com- munity’ (Anderson, 1991), in that it forges a symbolic link with the subconti- nent, enabling the celebration of tradition and feelings of belonging with the nation from which they or their forebears migrated. Second, cricket fandom provides an opportunity for British Asians to distance themselves from those elements of ‘Englishness’ with which they feel uncomfortable. As Werbner (1996: 101) points out, ‘it is in the field of sport, through support of the [Pakistan] national team, that young British Pakistanis express their love of both cricket and the home country, along with their sense of alienation and dis- affection from British society’. Nevertheless, whilst substantial attention – both in academe and the media – has focused on the relationship between cricket and national identity amongst British Asians, due to the fallacious, yet pervasive, belief that participation in football is anathema to British Asians, little investi- gation has focused on this latter sport.

Analogous interpretations of, and attitudes towards, ‘Englishness’ to those identified above are often reproduced within football. For example, Carrington’s (1998a) analysis of the 1996 European Football Championships (held in England), highlights that the manner in which the mass media depicted the event, together with the concomitant celebration of popular cultural forms,

17Diasporic national identities Burdsey

058435 Burdsey 13/1/06 11:10 am Page 17

such as ‘Britpop’ music and the British film industry, contributed to increasingly ethnically exclusive definitions of ‘Englishness’, and reinforced discourses of exclusion and cultural racism. He argues that:

The fact that the majority of the black population living in England had either a large degree of ambivalence towards England or openly supported ‘anyone but England’ underscores the points being made that the form of national identity pro- duced failed to be inclusive and actually alienated large sections of the nation from view. (1998a: 118)

It might be argued that the position of British Asians is especially problematic as their sense of exclusion has been compounded by the absence of British Asians on the pitch. Significant numbers of African-Caribbeans have played for the England national football team yet, although British Asian players Zesh Rehman and Michael Chopra (an Anglo-Asian)2 have achieved England hon- ours at youth and under-21 levels respectively, a male British Asian has never played for the full England team.

Widespread beliefs regarding the potential conflict between ‘Englishness’ and British Asian identities were demonstrated by a number of football sup- porters during a piece of observational fieldwork undertaken in the summer of 2001:

On 24 July 2001, as part of their summer tour of England, the Indian national football team played Brentford FC at Griffin Park. Before the match (an evening fixture) commenced, a group of eight white, male teenagers were sitting in the Ealing Road end of the main stand. One was sporting a replica England shirt and the youths were openly displaying both St. George and Union flags. These flags were new but of cheap quality and in contrast to those normally displayed by sup- porters at professional matches, which include some form of appellation, such as the club name or nickname, they had no identifications. It was evident that the flags had been purchased especially for this game. Many other supporters wore England replica shirts or items of leisurewear, such as baseball caps, t-shirts and shorts. In the eyes of these supporters, for the duration of this match, their team were per- forming as an ‘England representative XI’, rather than as Brentford FC per se. After the match, a sizeable proportion of supporters – many of whom were young, white men – walked towards Brentford railway station. A car of Indian supporters approached the road junction and was met with loud, aggressive shouts of ‘3–0’ [the match result] and ‘England, England’. A group of youths surrounded the car, placing their St. George and Union flags over the windscreen, thus preventing the vehicle from moving. Various threats were made, such as ‘Don’t let him [the driver] through, he’s Indian!’ and ‘Smash the windows!’. At Brentford railway station the youths (numbering approximately thirty males and now including a couple who were of dual white and African-Caribbean heritage) entered the westbound plat- form. On the eastbound platform (across the tracks) were approximately ten adult Indian supporters. The youths stood in a confrontational stance, displaying their flags and chanting ‘England, England’. After a few minutes they decided to walk home rather than wait for the train and as they made their way up the steps, a num- ber chanted ‘We’re coming to get you’ and shouted ‘Fucking Pakis’. Two glass beer

18 Sociology Volume 40 ■ Number 1 ■ February 2006

058435 Burdsey 13/1/06 11:10 am Page 18

bottles were thrown by the youths, which smashed, but missed their intended tar- gets. (Fieldnotes, 24 July 2001)

It would be unsurprising if such displays of ‘Englishness’ further alienated British Asians from the national football collectivity and led to an affiliation with a national team from the subcontinent, as occurs in international cricket. Whilst hostility within the diaspora is clearly not the only reason underpinning allegiance with teams from ancestral countries, it may be a significant factor for some supporters.

However, whilst this appears to the case with cricket, this research suggests that, with English football, certain contradictory trends are evident. For exam- ple, Fulham’s Zesh Rehman states that ‘My perfect day would be to score a goal for my country in an important game. Would that be England or Pakistan? Huh, England!’ (cited in Donovan, 2003). Furthermore, Dagenham and Redbridge’s Anglo-Asian defender Anwar Uddin states that:

My mum’s English [and white] and I was brought up in the East End [of London]. I think of myself as English and would be so proud to represent my country. I was asked to captain Bangladesh recently, but I turned it down, because if I played for them, I won’t be eligible to play for England. (cited in Hawkey, 2002)

Likewise, when asked which country he would wish to represent, Harpal Singh of Stockport County replied, ‘England – no question’ (cited in Bhatia, 2003). These sentiments are endorsed by the British Asian players interviewed in this research. One current British Asian professional player stated that, ‘I was born here, brought up here and lived and raised here so I see myself as British Asian. I want to play for England. I’d love to play for England’ (Interview, 11 February 2002). Similar statements were made by amateur players:

Obviously [players] will have sentiments attached to [the subcontinent] but, you know, if you ask a lot of the Asian community, they would like to play for England … A lot of Asian players don’t even see themselves as, you know, Indian or Bangladeshi, etc. because they see themselves as British Asian individuals. (Interview with British Asian player/member of British Asian sports organization, 14 May 2002)

My son certainly says to me at times, ‘Dad, what am I?’. And I say to him, ‘Obviously by parents you’re Indian – because we’re both Indian – but by your right of birth, you know, you’re English’. So he’s already said to me, ‘If I ever play foot- ball Dad, can I play for England or India?’. And I said, ‘Who do you want to play for?’. He said ‘England’, so I said, ‘There you are, you know, it’s your choice.’ (Interview with British Asian amateur player, 5 February 2002)

The following two statements were made with regard to supporting, rather than playing for, England:

I’ve spoken to a few people I know about this and all of us were actually up for England in this [2002] World Cup. And that’s a first because in the past we’ve not really felt affiliated to England. But for some reason we felt more English on this occasion … I think people are realising that they’re English or British or British

19Diasporic national identities Burdsey

058435 Burdsey 13/1/06 11:10 am Page 19

Asians, or whatever, and want to fit in … I think more and more British-born Asian people are thinking that they are, or looking at themselves as, English and if they were given a choice in playing sport, they’d play for England. (Interview with British Asian football supporter, 27 June 2002)

I think that it is a misconception [that British Asians do not support England] because there’s loads of Asians that support England. If you go to local cafés, [British Asians] are England supporters. It’s natural because they’re living in this country and they’re supporting the country, you know. There’s nothing wrong with that. (Interview with ‘Asian’ semi-professional player, 11 May 2002)

During observations at coaching sessions for young Bangladeshis in Tower Hamlets, England shirts were well represented amongst the replica jerseys worn by players (Fieldnotes, 11 May 2002). Furthermore, anecdotal evidence sug- gests that significant numbers of British Asian supporters travelled to Portugal for the 2004 European Championships, either to watch matches in the stadiums or in bars in the Algarve (Laville, 2004).

The final section of this article argues that affiliation to the England national football team reflects recent transformations in the identity politics of young British Asians, but it is first possible to propose some specific explana- tions for the disparity between cricket and football. First, whilst India, Pakistan and, to a lesser extent, Bangladesh, are world forces in international cricket, they remain comparative minnows – and thus possess low prestige – in the global football arena.3 Thus the perception amongst most British professional footballers that playing international football would represent the pinnacle of their careers may not be applicable to those qualified to play for these nations. Since the beginning of the century, the India and Pakistan national teams have been convincingly beaten by English club sides4 and so for any British Asians playing professionally in England, representing India, Pakistan or Bangladesh does not represent an avenue for international success, career development or enhancing their reputations. Furthermore, until a standardized global football calendar is implemented, English-based players representing non-European countries still have to miss substantial sections of their club seasons in order to fulfil their international commitments. Many players are becoming increasingly reluctant to jeopardize their place in their club teams in order to play for their countries, particularly if those nations have little or no chance of qualifying for a major championship.

Second, and in direct contrast to football, supporting a subcontinental nation in cricket provides frequent opportunities for British Asians to experi- ence international sporting success, either in Test matches or in the World Cup, which India (1983) and Pakistan (1992) have both won since its inception in 1975. These achievements may also serve wider political functions. Cricket is one of the few arenas in which the Indian subcontinent and its diaspora can assert an ephemeral challenge to western hegemony. Due to the competitive structure of international cricket, India and Pakistan regularly play against England and, in recent decades, have been frequently victorious.5 Despite, or

20 Sociology Volume 40 ■ Number 1 ■ February 2006

058435 Burdsey 13/1/06 11:10 am Page 20

perhaps because of, the role of cricket in British imperialism in India, the game now enables a temporary disruption of this historical connection, whereby for- mer colonial peoples are able to compete with, and even defeat, England. Conversely, because similar matches do not occur, this process is not evident in football. Therefore, within the context of colonial subordination and contem- porary racisms, international cricket can operate as a means of cultural resist- ance (Carrington, 1998b) for British Asians.

Third, attending international cricket matches enables British Asians to support their teams in a manner that is not only more similar to how games are experienced in the subcontinent, but is also often excluded from lower levels of the English game (Carrington and McDonald, 2001b). In amateur (and to some extent professional) cricket, British Asians can be alienated by the class-specific connotations of various structures and institutions, together with a hegemonic ‘traditional (white) Englishness’ which means that the game is often equated with village greens, church spires and the quaffing of real ale. However, spectatorship of the international game appears to facilitate greater opportunities for recreating popular South Asian forms of cricket fandom. Whilst increasingly stringent and restrictive stewarding practices have reduced the feasibility of this phenomenon, international cricket has enabled British Asians to celebrate the game on their own terms, through the use of chants, flags and musical instruments.

Fourth, despite it being one of their stated aims, the recent visits to England by the India and Pakistan national teams do not appear to have forged any sig- nificant footballing links between subcontinental and diasporic South Asians. For example, although nations such as Jamaica and the Republic of Ireland have utilized changes in FIFA regulations which state that a player is eligible to play for a country if one of his grandparents was born there and have subse- quently selected English-born players, Bangladesh, India and Pakistan have failed to recruit players from their respective diasporas. British Indians Harpal Singh (of Stockport County) and Nevin Saroya (a former professional now playing non-league football with Yeading) have trained with the Indian national team during their visits to England, but subcontinental teams have not selected such players for matches.6 In the case of India, this is because, unlike most other nations, the All India Football Federation (AIFF) does not currently allow non- nationals or dual nationals to represent the country. This decision to exclude diasporic Indians clearly reflects wider socio-political developments that have sought to restrict the boundaries of ‘Indianness’ (Dimeo, 2002).

In terms of fandom, it is apparent that whilst young British Asians may cite cricketers such as India’s Sachin Tendulkar or Shoaib Akhtar of Pakistan as heroes, in football they are far more likely to idolize familiar, non-British Asian figures such as David Beckham (Din and Cullingford, 2004). Indeed, few young British Asians will be familiar with any subcontinental footballers, except pos- sibly for Baichung Bhutia, who played for Bury during the late 1990s. Certainly, the players in this research had little knowledge about, or interest in, foot- ball in South Asia, and although there was a degree of curiosity about the

21Diasporic national identities Burdsey

058435 Burdsey 13/1/06 11:10 am Page 21

Bagladesh, India and Pakistan teams, there was no evidence of actual support. This may help to explain the indifference shown by many British Asians to the visits made by these teams in recent years. The numbers of British Asians attending most of these matches were very low, especially considering that the majority of games were held at clubs based in areas of high British Asian population.7

Playing away from Home? Sport, Diaspora and ‘Glocal’ British Asian Identities

The different affiliations held by young British Asians in relation to the English national football and cricket teams demonstrate not only the inadequacy of essentialist models of national identity, but also the need to appreciate the dynamic, fluctuating and fragmented nature of British Asian identities in late modernity. Social identities are constantly ‘in process’ (Hall, 1990), contextu- ally specific, and the product of numerous different, and often seemingly con- flicting or contradictory, influences. As Hall (1992: 277) argues:

The fully unified, completed, secure and coherent identity is a fantasy. Instead, as the systems of meaning and cultural representation multiply, we are confronted by a bewildering, fleeting multiplicity of possible identities, any one of which we could identify with – at least temporarily.

It should thus come as no surprise that British Asians, like various other sec- tions of the population, follow different sides in different sports, and that these affiliations are underpinned and influenced by diverse personal reasons and social factors. Such a position sits uneasily with those who believe that the fail- ure of many British Asians to pass the ‘Tebbit test’ (discussed earler) suggests an unwillingness or inability to integrate into British society, yet as Parekh (2000: 205) rightly points out, ‘a multicultural society requires that the pre- vailing view of national identity should allow its members to entertain dual and even multiple identities without arising fears of divided loyalties’.

Analysing national identities and affiliations in the context of sport helps to facilitate a wider sociological understanding of the nuances and complexities of young British Asian identities. Indeed, despite their diverse histories, migra- tion trajectories and experiences, this relationship between sport and national identity may be of significant analytical value in examining other second- and third-generation migrant identities. It is apposite at this juncture to utilize the concept of ‘diaspora’, a term that primarily ‘references a connection between groups across different nation states whose commonality derives from an orig- inal but maybe removed homeland; a new identity becomes constructed on a world scale which crosses national borders and boundaries’ (Anthias, 1998: 559–60). However, as Brah (1996: 183) points out, ‘diasporas, in the sense of distinctive historical experiences, are often composite formations made up of many journeys to different parts of the globe, each with its own history, its own

22 Sociology Volume 40 ■ Number 1 ■ February 2006

058435 Burdsey 13/1/06 11:10 am Page 22

particularities’. Therefore, whilst British Asian communities need to be under- stood as part of, for example, wider Pakistani, Gujarati, Sikh or South Asian diasporas, it is important to recognize not only the similarities, but also the dif- ferences between those migrants situated in Britain and those in other global locations. Following Hall (1990) and Gilroy (1993), for example, who use the concept of diaspora as a means of progressing beyond representations of the essentialist black subject, it is employed here to theorize the myriad identities that comprise British ‘Asianness’. In this regard, like these authors, it is used to denote a social condition rather than as a descriptive term (Anthias, 1998: 565).

In particular, the concept of diaspora enables an unravelling of the nexus between (and relative significance of) place(s) of ‘origin’ and place(s) of ‘settle- ment’ and allows us to comprehend how the identities of second- and third- generation British Asians are subject to both global and local, or, as Robertson (1995) puts it, ‘glocal’, influences. Cohen (1999: ix) argues that:

All diasporic communities settled outside their natal (or imagined natal) territories acknowledge that ‘the old country’ – a notion often buried deep in language, reli- gion, custom or folklore – always has some claim on their loyalty and emotions. That claim may be strong or weak, or boldly or meekly articulated in a given cir- cumstance or historical period, but a member’s adherence to a diasporic community is demonstrated by an acceptance of an inescapable link with their past migration history and a sense of co-ethnicity with others of a similar background.

For many young British Asians, cricket invokes images of their own or their ancestors’ homes and lives before migration, and thus supporting a subconti- nental nation in the global sport arena facilitates an imagined connection with ‘the old country’. However, Anthias (2001: 632) points out that the concept of diaspora has often been employed in a way that privileges the point of ‘origin’ in constructing identities and solidarities, and does not sufficiently acknowledge transethnic, as opposed to transnational, processes. Furthermore, as Brah (1996: 180) argues, ‘not all diasporas sustain an ideology of “return”’. Unlike the original (and, in some cases, continuing) aspirations of their parents and grandparents, most young British Asians have no desire to permanently ‘return’ to the Indian subcontinent. In contrast to cricket, football is equated with their own residence in England and, in this regard, supporting the national team acts as an arena where the permanency of settlement, and the associated implica- tions for the construction of identity, can be emphasized. In other words, their involvement in football may be conceived of as a situating strategy, literally a means of signalling their attachment to what is regarded as ‘home’ rather than to what might be perceived as the ‘homeland(s)’.

The lives of young, diasporic British Asians are grounded not only in the cultures and traditions of their parents and the Indian subcontinent, but also in the social practices of Britain and beyond, with increasing reference to globally mediated spheres such as football, music, fashion, style and consumption, com- bined with a localism based in their personal and urban landscapes. As Clifford (1994) succinctly enunciates, diasporas think globally, but live locally.

23Diasporic national identities Burdsey

058435 Burdsey 13/1/06 11:10 am Page 23

However, the arguments outlined here should not be reduced to essentialist interpretations of ethnicity and culture, i.e. an equation of cricket equals ‘Asianness’ and football equals ‘Englishness/Britishness’, nor is it suggested that these notions are fixed, static or unproblematic. Furthermore, the fact that their interests, affiliations and identities differ in relation to football and cricket should not be seen as verification of the erroneous popular belief that young British Asians are ‘caught between two cultures’ (Anwar, 1998). Whilst dias- poric identities are intrinsically comprised of a panoply of diverse cultures, eth- nicities, histories, genealogies, migrations and settlements, these are inherently imbricating and cannot be disengaged from each other. As Ramji (2003: 229) argues, ‘By framing questions of culture as dichotomous and oppositional, tra- ditional or Western, the clash of culture thesis fails to come to grips with the complex realities of South Asian [people’s] everyday lives’. Instead, participa- tion in football and, in particular, affiliation to the England national team rep- resents the construction of specifically British Asian identities, rather than insular ‘Asian’ or ‘British’ ones. To further instantiate this point, it is pertinent to reflect on another sport, boxing, and in particular the imagery surrounding the silver medal won by Amir Khan at the 2004 Olympic Games: a Bolton-born British Asian boxer, proudly sporting a British boxing vest and a gum-shield bearing the green and white of the Pakistan national flag, juxtaposed against the cultural bricolage of England football shirts, Pakistan cricket jerseys and Union flags exhibited by his family and friends (Burdsley, 2005).

The construction of diasporic young British Asian identities thus emerges at the intersection of local and global dynamics. These ‘new’ identities are underpinned by a plethora of factors that transcend ethnic, cultural, genera- tional and national boundaries: increasing commonalities with multiethnic peers and decreasing continuities with previous familial generations; a growing ‘imagined’ distance between their lives in Britain and their relationship to the subcontinent; the influence of western commodities and new patterns of con- sumption; and a desire to construct a multilateral social identity that simulta- neously emphasizes their British citizenship and their ethnicities. Crucially, the formation of these identities is influenced not only by processes within the dias- pora itself, but it is also the result of socio-political transformations and fluctu- ating boundaries of belonging in the original point of migration.

It is extremely ironic, yet hugely significant, that the symbol being used by many young British Asians to celebrate their British citizenship, the England national football team, is one that has not only been used for similar purposes by young whites, but has also been one of the main outlets for overt racism and xenophobia by this latter group. In many ways sport represents a social ‘field’ (Bourdieu, 1990), a structured space of positions that impose specific determi- nations on those who enter it. It also operates as an arena of contestation where individuals and institutions can maintain – or, indeed, challenge – the existing distribution of power and capital. However, involvement and attainment in a ‘field’ are based on a combination of one’s habitus and cultural capital and those groups that possess the most capital can dictate the legitimate means of

24 Sociology Volume 40 ■ Number 1 ■ February 2006

058435 Burdsey 13/1/06 11:10 am Page 24

access to the ‘field’. Therefore, in conclusion, it must be acknowledged that the trends outlined in this article do not signify either a universal, unconditional embracing of ‘Englishness’ by young British Asians or a substantial shift towards multiculturalism in the English game. In other words, the fact that increasing numbers of British Asians are affirming their support for the England football team does not mean that notions of ‘Englishness’ are no longer prob- lematic or offensive, or that they are necessarily granted inclusion in ‘main- stream’ (predominantly white) fan collectivities. As Brah (1996: 193) argues, ‘It is quite possible to feel at home in a place and, yet, the experience of social exclusions may inhibit public proclamations of the place as home’. Popular symbols and manifestations of English football fandom certainly retain pejora- tive, ethnically monosemic connotations: for example, the Union flag, due to its appropriation by far right extremists; songs and chants, such as Rule Britannia and No Surrender to the IRA, which both celebrate/support British imperialism (past or present), and, most recently, the iterative I’d rather be a Paki than a Turk; and overt racism and xenophobia by supporters. Until such elements are eradicated, despite their support for the team, minority ethnic fans are still, sadly, likely to find the ‘live’ public England football experience – whether in the stadium or in pubs and bars – a hostile experience. Consequently, for British Asians, the articulations of English footballing identity outlined in this article may be restricted to their own, private social spheres. Thus, although football is an important social space in which shifting notions of identity and belonging amongst young British Asians can be articulated and contested, the degree to which the game can facilitate wider transformations in their social location may currently be limited.


I would like to express my gratitude to the three anonymous Sociology reviewers for their invaluable comments and suggestions on an earlier draft of this article.


1 In the July 1995 issue of Wisden Cricket Monthly, Tebbit’s sentiments were extended by Robert Henderson to question the loyalty of minority ethnic England players. He argued that ‘Norman Tebbit’s cricket test is as pertinent for players as it is for spectators. It is even possible that part of a coloured England-qualified player feels satisfaction (perhaps subconsciously) at seeing England humiliated, because of post-imperial myths of oppression and exploitation’ (Henderson, 1995: 9).

2 Chopra’s father is Indian and his mother is white. 3 In November 2004, the official FIFA rankings (out of 205) placed India 135th,

Bangladesh 168th and Pakistan 170th.

25Diasporic national identities Burdsey

058435 Burdsey 13/1/06 11:10 am Page 25

4 In 2000, India lost 2–0 to Fulham and drew 0–0 with West Bromwich Albion. In 2001, they lost 3–0 to Brentford, 2–0 to Walsall, 2–0 to Nottingham Forest and drew 1–1 with Leyton Orient. Also that year, Pakistan lost 3–0 to Bury and 2–0 to Coventry City.

5 Bangladesh only achieved Test status in the 1990s. 6 One attempt to forge links between subcontinental and diasporic Indian foot-

ballers was the first Indian International Football Series, held in Germany in 2002. This competition involved the Indian under-17 national team, the Indian Tata football academy under-16 side, an England under-17 Indian select side and a Germany under-17 IFG (Indian Footballers in Germany) select side.

7 In 2000, 5000 people, the majority of whom were white, watched Fulham play India (Fieldnotes, 22 July 2000); 3000 people watched Bangladesh play India in Leicester; and 1292 fans attended the match between Bury and Pakistan. In 2001, India played two matches against Jamaica in England. Some 1200 people watched the first match at Watford, whilst 4000 spectators attended the fixture at Wolverhampton Wanderers. An exception to the trend is the match between West Bromwich Albion and India in 2000, which attracted a crowd of over 12,000.


Alexander, C. (2000) The Asian Gang: Ethnicity, Identity, Masculinity. Oxford: Berg.

Alexander, C. (2004) ‘Imagining the Asian Gang: Ethnicity, Masculinity and Youth after ‘the Riots’’, Critical Social Policy 24(4): 526–49.

Anderson, B. (1991) Imagined Communities. Verso: London. Anthias, F. (1998) ‘Evaluating “Diaspora”: Beyond Ethnicity?’, Sociology 32(3):

557–80. Anthias, F. (2001) ‘New Hybridities, Old Concepts: The Limits of “Culture”’,

Ethnic and Racial Studies 24(4): 619–41. Anthias, F. and C. Lloyd (2002) ‘Introduction: Fighting Racisms, Defining the

Territory’, in F. Anthias and C. Lloyd (eds) Rethinking Anti-racisms: From Theory to Practice, pp. 1–21. London: Routledge.

Anvari, H. (2001) ‘Games beneath the Veil Uncovered’, Guardian 26 October. Anwar, M. (1998) Between Cultures: Continuity and Change in the Lives of Young

Asians. London: Routledge. Back, L. (1996) New Ethnicities and Urban Culture: Racisms and Multiculture in

Young Lives. London: UCL Press. Back, L., Crabbe, T. and J. Solomos (2001) The Changing Face of Football: Racism,

Identity and Multiculture in the English Game. Oxford: Berg. Balibar, E. (1991) ‘Racism and Nationalism’, in E. Balibar and I. Wallerstein Race,

Nation, Class: Ambiguous Identities, pp. 37–67. London: Verso. Bhatia, S. (2003) ‘Harpal is ready to Make Huge Step’, Eastern Eye 17 January. Bourdieu, P. (1990) The Logic of Practice. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Brah, A. (1996) Cartographies of Diaspora: Contesting Identities. London:


26 Sociology Volume 40 ■ Number 1 ■ February 2006

058435 Burdsey 13/1/06 11:10 am Page 26

Bulmer, M. and J. Solomos (eds) (2004) Researching Race and Racism. London: Routledge.

Burdsey, D. (2005) ‘“Role with the Punches”: “Race”, Representation and the Construction of Amir Khan as a Role Model for Multiethnic Britain’, Paper presented at Lost in Transl-Asian? British Asians, Sport, Leisure and Popular Culture study workshop, University of Brighton, 19 November.

Campbell, D. (2001) ‘Hussain Lashes British Asians as Unpatriotic’, Observer 27 May.

Carrington, B. (1998a) ‘“Football’s Coming Home” but Whose Home? And Do We Want It?: Nation, Football and the Politics of Exclusion’, in A. Brown (ed.) Fanatics! Power, Identity and Fandom in Football, pp. 101–23. London: Routledge.

Carrington, B. (1998b) ‘Sport, Masculinity and Black Cultural Resistance’, Journal of Sport and Social Issues 22(3): 275–98.

Carrington, B. and I. McDonald (2001a) ‘Introduction: “Race”, Sport and British Society’, in B. Carrington and I. McDonald (eds) ‘Race’, Sport and British Society, pp. 1–26. London: Routledge.

Carrington, B. and I. McDonald (2001b) ‘Whose Game Is It Anyway? Racism in Local League Cricket’, in B. Carrington and I. McDonald (eds) ‘Race’, Sport and British Society, pp. 49–69. London: Routledge.

Carvel, J. (2000) ‘The Rise of the Little Englanders’, Guardian 28 November. Clifford, J. (1994) ‘Diasporas’, Cultural Anthropology 9(3): 302–38. Cohen, P. (1996) ‘Homing Devices’, in V. Amit-Talai and C. Knowles (eds) Re-

situating Identities: The Politics of Race, Ethnicity and Culture, pp. 68–82. Hadleigh: Broadview.

Cohen, R. (1999) Global Diasporas: An Introduction. London: UCL Press. Dimeo, P. (2002) ‘The Local, National and Global in Indian Football: Issues of

Power and Identity’, Football Studies 5(2): 74–87. Din, I. and C. Cullingford (2004) ‘Boyzone and Bhangra: The Place of Popular and

Minority Cultures’, Race, Ethnicity and Education 7(3): 307–20. Donovan, M. (2003) ‘Twenty Questions with Albion Loan Star Zesh Rehman’,

Brighton and Hove Sports Argus 18 October. Eade, J. (1994) ‘Identity, Nation and Religion: Educated Young Bangladeshi

Muslims in London’s East End’, International Sociology 9(3): 377–94. Fanon, F. (1967) Towards the African Revolution. New York: Monthly Review

Press. Fawcett, B. and J. Hearn (2004) ‘Researching Others: Epistemology, Experience,

Standpoints and Participation’, International Journal of Social Research Methodology 7(3): 201–18.

Gilroy, P. (1993) Small Acts: Thoughts on the Politics of Black Cultures. London: Serpent’s Tail.

Goodey, J. (2001) ‘The Criminalization of British Asian Youth: Research from Bradford and Sheffield’, Journal of Youth Studies 4(4): 429–50.

Hall, S. (1990) ‘Cultural Identity and Diaspora’, in J. Rutherford (ed.) Identity: Community, Culture, Difference, pp. 222–37. London: Lawrence and Wishart.

Hall, S. (1992) ‘The Question of Cultural Identity’, in S. Hall, D. Held and T. McGrew (eds) Modernity and its Futures, pp. 273–325. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Hammersley, M. and P. Atkinson (1995) Ethnography: Principles in Practice. London: Routledge.

27Diasporic national identities Burdsey

058435 Burdsey 13/1/06 11:10 am Page 27

Hawkey, I. (2002) ‘Hitting back at Racism on the Home Pitch’, Sunday Times 20 October.

Henderson, R. (1995) ‘Is it in the Blood?’, Wisden Cricket Monthly July. Kellas, J. (1991) The Politics of Nationalism and Ethnicity. London: Macmillan. Laville, S. (2004) ‘White Shirt, No Shame for British Asians’, Guardian 21 June. Mirza, H, (2003) ‘“All the Women Are White, All the Blacks are Men – But Some

of Us Are Brave”: Mapping the Consequences of Invisibility for Black and Minority Ethnic Women in Britain’, in D. Mason (ed.) Explaining Ethnic Differences: Changing Patterns of Disadvantage in Britain, pp. 121–38. Bristol: Policy Press.

Office for National Statistics (2004) URL (consulted Jan. 2004): http:// www.statis-

Parekh, B. (2000) ‘National Identity in a Multicultural Society’, in M. Anwar, P. Roach and R. Sondhi (eds) From Legislation to Integration? Race Relations in Britain, pp. 196–211. Basingstoke: Macmillan.

Pearson, G. (1976) ‘“Paki-bashing” in a North East Lancashire Cotton Town: A Case Study and its History’, in G. Mungham and G. Pearson (eds) Working- class Youth Culture, pp. 48–81. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Ramji, H. (2003) ‘Engendering Diasporic Identities’, in N. Puwar and P. Raghuram (eds) South Asian Women in the Diaspora, pp. 227–41. Oxford: Berg.

Robertson, R. (1995) ‘Glocalization: Time-space and Homogeneity-heterogeneity’, in M. Featherstone, S. Lash and R. Robertson (eds) Global Modernities, pp. 25–44. London: Sage.

Vasagar, J., Ward, D., Etim, A. and M. Keating (2001) ‘“No go for Whites” in Race Hotspot’, Guardian 20 April.

Ware, V. and L. Back (2002) Out of Whiteness: Color, Politics and Culture. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Webster, C. (1997) ‘The Construction of British “Asian” Criminality’, International Journal of the Sociology of Law 25(1): 65–86.

Werbner, P. (1996) ‘“Our Blood Is Green”: Cricket, Identity and Social Empowerment among British Pakistanis,’ in J. MacClancy (ed.) Sport, Identity and Ethnicity, pp. 87–111. Oxford: Berg.

White, M. (2001) ‘Tory Rapped for Saying Enoch Powell Was Right’, Guardian 28 March.

Daniel Burdsey

Is a senior lecturer in Sociology of Sport and Leisure, University of Brighton.

Address: Sociology of Sport and Leisure, Chelsea School, University of Brighton,Trevin

Towers Annexe, Gaudick Road, Eastbourne, BN20 7SP, UK.


28 Sociology Volume 40 ■ Number 1 ■ February 2006

058435 Burdsey 13/1/06 11:10 am Page 28

Un/making the British Asian Male Athlete: Race, Legibility and the State

by Daniel Burdsey

University of Brighton

Sociological Research Online, 20 (3), 17 DOI: 10.5153/sro.3768

Received: 15 March 2015 | Accepted: 16 Aug 2015 | Published: 31 Aug 2015

Abstract This article explores the social construction of the British Asian male sport star. It foregrounds an analysis of the racial state, primarily its biopolitical function in (re)affirming racialised models of citizenship and contemporary hierarchies of belonging. Drawing on conceptualisations of legibility, the article argues that this relationship between race and the state is necessary to understand the processes by which such athletes are made intelligible in the popular imagination. Empirically, the article focuses on the articulations, experiences and performativity of British Asian Muslim international cricketer, Moeen Ali, during the summer of 2014. It suggests that these examples reflect the contestation and de/legitimisation of various forms of social, cultural and political attachment and embodiment within the public sphere. The article argues that the extent to which athletes such as Ali are made il/legible in sport is linked inextricably to the way in which British Asians and British Muslims are made il/legible in society. Finally, the article considers the spaces, contexts and discourses within which British Asian athletes can(not) represent themselves; and the dominant forms of being, speaking and thinking with which they must conform to meet the requirements of elite sporting citizenship.

Keywords: British Asians; British Muslims; Legibility; Race; Sport; State

“Here to stay, here to play”: Moeen Ali, governmentalities of nation and the contested politics of (sporting) citizenship

“You’re playing for England, Moeen Ali, not your religion” – Michael Henderson, The Telegraph, June 2014.

“I am a Muslim, yes, but I am also very English. People don’t realise how proud I am to be representing my country or being from Birmingham” – Moeen Ali, Huffington Post, September 2014, (Hasan 2014)

This brief, indirect exchange between a white British journalist (of unknown religion) and a British Asian Muslim international cricketer took place during the summer of 2014. Its concision cannot obscure its resonance with a series of broader socio-political issues around national identity, religion, culture and citizenship – debates that, despite claims of a nation-state increasingly at ease with its diversity, refuse to wither in the sporting arena as much as elsewhere.

This article uses Moeen Ali’s articulations and experiences, and the performative statements made by/about him, to consider the contestation and de/legitimisation of various forms of social, cultural and political attachment and embodiment – ideological, material, stylistic, verbal – within the public sphere (Rootham et al 2015). Specifically, it addresses the ways that racialised corporeality is linked to discourses of national identity, citizenship, belonging and integration (Nagel and Staeheli 2008), together with the ways that the racial state attempts to narrow, or deny, social heterogeneities (Goldberg 2002). These themes underpin the substantive argument developed in the article: that an analysis of the relationship between race and the state is necessary to understand the processes by which the British Asian male athlete is made legible in the popular imagination.

Beginning this article with the strained dialogue between Henderson and Ali may appear trite, yet the tension between the two positions is palpable. One standpoint perceives the relationship between religion,

[1] 1 30/08/2015





ethnicity and national identity to be conflicting, unresolved and impossible even (at least in the embodied guise of normative sporting practices). It articulates a sense of ‘governmental belonging’, that is ‘the power to have a legitimate view concerning the positioning of others in the nation…who should “feel at home” in the nation and how’ (Hage 1998: 46). The opposite stance is no less assertive, but sees hyphenation and hybridity as unextraordinary, intersectional and convivial (Gilroy 2004). In contrast to the journalist’s affirmation of governmentality, Ali’s response is indicative of a ‘forced telling of the self’ (Archer 2009: 74), that is the ceaseless requirement to explain and justify one’s identities and affiliations. More broadly, the exchange speaks to the racialised classification of different bodies, cultures and the discourses attached to them, even when race is not made explicit. It demonstrates the manner in which these categories are produced both through the agency of the individuals involved, and the regulatory structures of the racial state (Goldberg 2002) and the sporting arena (Carter 2011). The dialogue is, then, inexorably one of unequal power relations, with Henderson’s individual proclamations operating as an ‘institutional speech act’ (Ahmed 2012) on behalf of the state.

Michael Henderson’s statement derived from his displeasure with comments that Moeen Ali made during the 2014 Test series between the England and India men’s XIs. Ali – Birmingham-born and raised, a Muslim, and of Pakistani (Mirpuri) heritage – had stated that his distinctive long beard was a ‘uniform’ or ‘label’ that provided a symbolic identification with, and demonstration of, his Islamic faith. Participation on the cricket pitch, Ali maintained, was as much a matter of performing Islam as his Englishness. Reflections of this kind are increasingly common in contemporary elite sport, whether that be by British Muslims (Burdsey 2010) or players from other faiths, such as evangelical Christians (Krattenmaker 2010). Ali’s thoughtful and erudite statements were rejected nonetheless by Henderson, who perceived religious – or, at least, ‘non-Christian’ – affiliation to be inappropriate and divisive in the sporting arena. The journalist’s refusal to accept and endorse Ali’s intersectional identity – and, in essence, his misreading and misrepresentation of it – needs to be understood in the context of the increasing prominence of religion in debates around multiculturalism (Modood 2005). This is manifest primarily via claims promulgated (erroneously) over the last decade by politicians and other popular constituencies regarding a perceived reluctance by Muslim communities to identify with Britishness. It is also indicative of a nuanced but oppressive mode of contemporary state biopolitics that has emerged in response: one that seeks to circumscribe forms of allegiance, agency and mobility, while creating a binary of those Muslims that qualify or “count” as British citizens, and those that do not (Bhattacharyya 2006, Kapoor 2013a).

At face value, Henderson’s original comments were initiated by concerns about religious identity. One perhaps ought then to avoid an instinctive inclination to situate them within conventional analyses of ethnic and racial discrimination in sport. However, a more intricate and contextual reading of these (and other) remarks suggests that discourses around race, ethnicity and religion actually cohere and overlap in popular representations of the player. Ali may regard his ethnic, racial and religious identities as distinct categories, or he may view them as composite. This article suggests that these classifications are separated rarely in the popular imagination. A critical evaluation of everyday performances of self and institutional workings demonstrates that they are intertwined (Bhattacharyya 2006). Put simply, racialisation does not work through the category of race alone; rather, it interacts and intersects with gender and class (Meer 2013).

This is highlighted in many demotic responses to Ali’s selection for the England squad. The announcement, earlier in 2014, of his inclusion led to a spate of racist comments on Facebook. Epithets such as ‘Osama bin Laden’ and ‘Borat’ were posted, along with comments about ‘foreigners playing for England’ and a reference to ‘Birmistan’ – seemingly a nod to Birmingham’s sizeable British Pakistani communities and the city’s construction in the contemporary popular imagination as a site of Islamic radicalisation (Hodgson 2014). It is important, however, to recognise ‘the ambiguous ways in which multicultural intimacies and visceral hatred coexist’ (Nayak 2010: 2389), together with the nuanced and complex ways that different publics respond to sport stars. Evidence points to Ali’s great popularity as well. His name is chanted by fans at matches, media portrayals are often amiable – albeit employing discourses that centralise stereotypical attributes, and drawing trivial comparisons to other players – and he won the award of Professional Sportsman of the Year for the city of Birmingham in 2014.

We have been here before. But had we not moved on? It seems fairly incongruous that a minority ethnic person playing for England should cause comment, let alone consternation, given the advance of (sporting) multicultural Britain. Yet this encapsulates the paradoxical nature of modern sport: fundamental both to the eradication and reproduction of racial inequalities and stereotypes, as well as a supposedly commonsense space in which to (re)inscribe the racial parameters of national belonging. The exchange between Ali and Henderson tells us something about the contemporary politics of multiculture, racial vernacular and the role of the state as well, in that we are dealing here with a coded discourse. It may speak of religion, but it draws intermittently on




[5] 2 30/08/2015






ideas of race, ethnicity and culture. Moreover, this episode speaks to broader conflations of nation and state – a form of slippage that elides the power of the latter in the processes under scrutiny (Carter 2011). While Ali’s international sporting participation is fundamentally a question of nation (he plays for England), the way it is framed in relation to his ethnic, racial and religious identities brings the role of the state firmly into the equation (he is a British citizen).

Racism, John Solomos and Les Back (1996: 213) remind us, is ‘a scavenger ideology’. It ‘draws selectively upon the past, present and imagined future, distilling complex fears and anxieties’ (Meer and Nayak 2013: 13). Similarly, Claire Alexander (2014: 1785) notes the ‘continued and unresolved’ nature of racism, and its capacity to ‘build on – and recycle – former images and discourses’. Cricket is more than a mere backdrop here. An ‘Indian game accidentally discovered by the English’ (Nandy 2001: 1), cricket’s (post-)colonial pitfalls and possibilities have been articulated notably over the last half century (e.g. James 1963, Marqusee 1998, Nandy 2001) and remain germane to the present analysis. Historically, English cricket’s relationship with India and Pakistan, and, over the last half century, British Asian communities, has been characterised often by acrimony and racial exclusion. The Othering of British Asian players has centred recurrently on accusations – infamously from Conservative MP Norman Tebbit and Wisden Cricket Monthly author Robert Henderson in the 1990s – of divided national loyalties and the ‘threat’ posed by their cultural inassimilability with the embodied cultures of English cricket (Williams 2001). English cricket’s role as a sporting symbol of hegemonic whiteness and racialised articulations of national identity has been challenged in the twenty-first century, with the long-list of players capped by the country now including a distinct corpus of names: Afzaal, Ali (plural), Bopara, Habib, Hussain, Khan, Mahmood, Mascarenhas, Panesar, Patel, Rashid, Shah, Shahzad and Solanki. There has also been a marked shift in the balance of power within international cricket administration towards Asian nations. This is demonstrated by the International Cricket Council’s (ICC) relocation from London to Dubai and the growing significance of limited-overs competitions, such as the Indian Premier League (IPL), in relation to Test matches (Rumford 2007). These global power geometries offer an important context for the debates addressed in this article.

Although drawing essentially on a single case study, this article exposes themes and connections beyond the micro-politics of one individual’s experiences and a single form of physical culture. As Joshua Newman and Michael Giardina (2014: 419) contend, ‘as the body moves – as it performs, sweats, runs and jumps – it is thrust into a complex web of scientific discourses, biomedical rationalities, spatial arrangements, geopolitical networks, corporate imperatives, and intersubjective identity politics’ (see also Gilchrist et al 2015). It is therefore necessary to look outside sport to a wider exploration of the state’s biopolitical role in creating, regulating, monitoring and securing racialised bodies; and to address the links between the local, national and global, at the level of discourse, structure and ideology, in an understanding of British Asian identities (Alexander 2008).

These connections were no more evident than in the third match of the England-India Test series in July 2014. This game took place at the same time that the Israeli government was undertaking an aerial bombardment of the Gaza Strip. Moeen Ali took to the field wearing two plastic wristbands, embossed with the phrases ‘Save Gaza’ and ‘Free Palestine’. While the England and Wales Cricket Board (ECB) defended the act, the ICC stated that ‘equipment and clothing regulations do not permit the display of messages that relate to political, religious or racial activities or causes during an international match’ (cited in Wilson 2014a). The ICC proscribed any subsequent use of the wristbands. This position denied the already politicised nature of this particular white public space (Hill 2008), as well as the extant political and racialised elements of sporting structures, institutions, and normative participatory cultures in general.

Ali stated that his gesture was humanitarian and not political. It was not out of line with much contemporaneous public opinion in the UK. Yet, according to Telegraph columnist, Dan Hodges, Ali’s choice was a ‘very bad’ one and ‘needlessly divisive’; it was believed to promote Muslim exceptionalism and to reinforce negative stereotypes of young British Muslim men (Hodges 2014). This inference that Ali was somehow culpable for any individuals who used his actions to buttress their own prejudices is problematic. Not only does it place a weighty burden of (over)representation on a player who may or may not want this responsibility (Farred 2003), but it also inhibits his agency. It promotes a performative essentialism that refuses to see Ali (or allow him to exist) outside dominant discursive constructions of British Muslim men, and it reinforces ethno-religious governmentalities regarding what such individuals are expected or allowed to do or say. Simultaneously it permits the silence of white communities, itself also a political act.

At the end of summer 2014, Ali espoused a more ‘acceptable’ position, urging against any British




[9] 3 30/08/2015





Muslims considering travelling to Iraq and Syria to fight for the radical Islamist organisation, known (among other designations) as ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria). Unlike the organic gesture of the wristbands, Ali’s statement was a direct response to a journalist’s question (Hasan 2014). This is an important distinction. Media questioning and reporting are indicative of the performative nature of dominant discourses about Ali, which limit the parameters and possibilities of his legibility (see below). Following Judith Butler (1993a: 2), performativity is understood here ‘not as a singular or deliberate “act”, but, rather, as the reiterative and citational practice by which discourse produces the effects that it names’. It is recognised, as Sara Ahmed (2012) has shown, that discourse can be ‘non-performative’ too, when the speech act does not produce what it names. This is not necessarily due to the absence of appropriate conditions or intent; it is in essence the act’s function. The speech act can be interpreted as performative though – as enacting what it names – and accordingly acts as a signifier of its assumed effect.

Notes on standpoint and the cultural politics of representation This article attempts to forge analytical connections between discursive constructions of the British Asian, particularly Muslim (see below), male athlete and the role of the state. It explores the biopolitical function of the racial state in (re)affirming racialised models of citizenship and contemporary hierarchies of belonging (Back et al 2012), and discusses how they are ‘played out’, literally, in this form of popular culture. In this sense, citizenship is understood as ‘a field of biopolitical techniques and practices (legal, social, moral) through which populations are controlled and fashioned’ (Tyler 2010: 62).

Very few British Asian male athletes have achieved success and stardom within national and global sportscapes. All have received in-depth sociological analysis: boxing brothers Amir Khan (Burdsey 2007) and Haroon Khan (Barron 2013), and cricketer Monty Panesar (Burdsey 2013). The absence of British Asian women from elite sport in the UK is even more pronounced, accentuated by the wider marginalisation of female sport in the mainstream, particularly in the realm of media and political discourses. As a result we still know very little about the experiences of British Asian women and girls in high level sport. Critical insights are emerging within the academy that shed light on British Asian, mainly Muslim, amateur sportswomen (e.g. Ahmad 2011, Ratna 2011, Samie 2013) and Muslim sportswomen in an international capacity (Samie and Sehlikoglu 2015). Yet the visibility and audibility of these sportswomen beyond the academic realm can be limited. They are excluded from popular debates about sporting nationhood and permitted rarely positions of influence within dominant Western sporting institutions. More broadly, the particular gendered and racialised manner in which British Asian (and other minority ethnic) women have been subjected to state racism must be acknowledged, as do the notable ways that women have engaged in activism against the state, and its public and private structures and institutions (e.g. Wilson 2006). This was highlighted in 2015 by the dehumanising conditions experienced by migrant women at the Yarlswood detention centre in Bedfordshire, England, and the protests against their mistreatment. An appreciation of these gender dynamics requires this article to make its focus on male sport explicit, including recognition of the problematic aspects of maintaining a masculinist scholarly tradition.

This article emphasises the ways that race operates as a source of classification, subordination and exclusion within sport, plus its centrality to state practices around citizenship, belonging and mobility. In a reflective essay on the foundational text, The Empire Strikes Back (Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies 1982), Claire Alexander (2014: 1787) states that ‘if the challenge for the CCCS Collective was to get race and racism on the agenda at all, the challenge today is to get racism back on the agenda’. She makes the critical point that within political discourse – and, we should add, within some academic thought – the significance and naming of race, and recognition of its structural manifestations, have been obfuscated by a focus on identity, culture, nation, migration and super-diversity (see also Fortier 2008, Harries 2014, Meer and Nayak 2013). This is not to underplay the purchase of such concepts; it is a matter of ensuring that their connections to notions of race and racialisation remain intact. As Nasar Meer (2013: 504) points out, ‘instead of trying to neatly delineate social tendencies that are intertwined, they should instead be understood as a composite of cultural racism’.

In introducing the notion of intersectionality, Kimberlé Crenshaw (1989) refers to the multidimensional lived experiences of marginalised individuals (see also Collins 2008). Scholars such as Nira Yuval-Davis (2011: 8) have called for a broader focus, arguing that ‘the boundaries of intersectional analysis should encompass all members of society and thus intersectionality should be seen as the right theoretical framework for analysing social stratification’ (see Birrell and McDonald 2000 on sport; see May 2015 for a contemporary overview). With specific reference to Muslim communities, Claire Alexander (2014: 6) articulates that:

Race equality and religious equality agendas have become increasingly separate, and academic research in these areas has also become distinct. We could make the same argument about migration studies, and the danger is the 4 30/08/2015







same – that it is now seemingly possible to talk about religion without race and race without reference to religion. In the first instance we risk separating out Muslims from a broader struggle for equality, and in the second we run the risk of subsuming or erasing the differences between experiences, priorities, groups and subjectivities for a one-size- fits-all definition of racism.

In trying to tease out some of the intricacies of this intersectional position, elements of the current discussion refer to British Asian men in general, while in some parts a focus on Muslims specifically is more germane. At other times, the connections between Asianness and Muslimness are delineated more closely. This conceptual elasticity is not unproblematic. A multi-dimensional approach can run the risk of reinforcing inadvertently essentialist constructions within dominant discourses that conflate the ethnic and religious categories under consideration. To be clear, this article views the various identity categories and modes of being under focus as overlapping and interconnecting; yet it recognises the tensions between (and within) them, and rejects any suggestion that they are coterminous.

Lastly, the potential hazards of inadvertent academic complicity with the dominant political discourse and the process of Othering (Spivak 1988) warrant reflection. This article critiques dominant forms of discourse, representation and processes of legibility; but in turn discusses British Asian athletes within particular frames of reference, in conjunction with Western theoretical traditions and through the authorship of white, male academic privilege. As Peggy Phelan (1993) articulates, making marginalised individuals and groups visible is always a matter of power: what or who is being represented; and by, and to, whom. The objective here is to write about dominant discourses as a means of trying to write against them. This essay engages with these hegemonic modes of representation in order to trouble and subvert them.

The racial state Before exploring how Moeen Ali’s eminence connects to notions of legibility, the role of the state and its co-constitution with structures of race require consideration. This is not to deny that racial politics emerge from, and exist, beyond the state. For instance, they materialise within communities themselves and in forms of popular culture. Individuals and groups construct and define their identities as well, and they can resist those imposed from above (Omi and Winant 2015). Nonetheless, this article maintains that foregrounding the role of the state is important in understanding the discursive construction of racialised athletes.

David Theo Goldberg (2002: 8) suggests that the state can be defined as ‘a more or less coherent and discrete entity in two related ways: as state projects underpinned and rationalized by a self-represented history as state memory; and as state power(s).’ More specifically, he argues that:

The racial state is racial not merely or reductively because of the racial composition of its personnel or the racial implications of its policies – though clearly both play a part. States are racial more deeply because of the structural position they occupy in producing and reproducing, constituting and effecting racially shaped spaces and places, groups and events, life worlds and possibilities, accesses and restrictions, inclusions and exclusions, conceptions and modes of representation. They are racial, in short, in virtue of their modes of population definition, determination, and structuration. And they are racist to the extent such definition, determination, and structuration operate to exclude or privilege in or on racial terms, and in so far as they circulate in and reproduce a world whose meanings and effects are racist (ibid.: 104).

While he would reject a reductionist categorisation that his intellectual oeuvre on racial phenomena is purely Foucauldian (Goldberg 2014), Goldberg’s (2002) foregrounding of race within biopolitics represents a foundational understanding of the modern state. As Michael Omi and Howard Winant (2015: 138) point out, ’emphasizing the political dimensions of race and racism allows us to discern the contours of the racial system, to understand what racial hegemony looks like, to specify its contradictions, and to envisage alternative scenarios’ (see also Lentin and Lentin 2006). Critically, this requires recognition not only that racial states exist in a plurality (Goldberg 2002), but also that their internal power struggles can be as significant as their external challenges. Moreover, contemporary state racisms often exceed national boundaries to the extent that it may be more accurate to refer to ‘a globally integrated machinery of state racisms’ (Bhattacharyya 2006: 139).

The relationship between the politics of race and various state practices in twenty-first century Britain is highlighted by Ben Pitcher (2009), primarily how the state constructs and reinforces the boundaries of nationhood, both in a literal and legislative sense. He remarks that, ‘by shaping the trajectory of dominant understandings of those marked out as racially different, the state plays its part in identifying, inculcating and reproducing that difference’ (ibid.: 29-30). Accordingly, through the politics of diversity management, (im)migration, and security, the state is ‘engaged in definition, regulation, governance, management, and mediation of racial matters they at once help to fashion and facilitate’ (Goldberg 2002: 109-10). These processes


[11] 5 30/08/2015






translate to the categorisation, control and securitisation of different marginalised communities (as well as their homogenisation and often their conflation) which operate as processes of state racism (Tyler 2010, Kapoor 2015). As \michael Omi and Howard Winant (2015: 145) articulate in their noteworthy text on the state’s role in creating and applying signification through the process of racial formation:

The phrase ‘body politic’, of course, refers not only to the collective body, the ‘nation’ or its equivalents; it also refers to the politicized body. Here we are arguing that the phenomic dimensions of race are among the central components of this phenomenon. Race and racism not only politicize the social but render up the human body into the burning heart of the state as material for the social control. State racial policy is directed against the racial body, in such forms as surveillance, profiling, policing, and confinement.

While hierarchies of oppression are to be avoided, and the experiences of other racialised communities warrant their own attention and action, much of the British state’s regulatory governance focuses currently on British Muslim communities (Kundnani 2014). This is especially the case with young men, who are ‘used for retaining/sustaining embedded racial hierarchies, essentially enabling a biopolitics which in turn could be remobilised for the state’s own ends’ (Kapoor 2013b: 223). Consequently they become ‘the figure upon which the state can practice new techniques of repression and control’ (ibid.: 227).

Representation, legibility and British Asian male sporting male bodies The opening vignette about Moeen Ali encourages an exploration of the various ways that British Asian male bodies become “legible” within, and through, the realm of elite sport. Legibility is employed here to describe the manner in which bodies are recognisable, intelligible, unambiguous and legitimate in relation to normative and performative scripts and speech acts. Visibility, on the hand, implies more prosaically ‘the state of being able to be seen’ (Fleetwood 2010: 16). These concepts are understood as part of a relational process rather than static conditions (Goldberg 1997), and as having ontological and political affects and connotations as well as literal ones. It is the contention here that bodies might be visible (seen) without being rendered legible (understood); but also that processes of legibility and illegibility can create various forms (e.g. social, political) of hyper-visibility or invisibility. To this end, the following questions underpin the discussion: What is the relationship between visibility, legibility and the British Asian athlete? What role does the state play in influencing their reception within the realm of sport? What, or how, can the British Asian athlete speak, and what are the repercussions of these speech acts? In exploring these questions, the components and effects of power, race and racialisation are foregrounded here. As Judith Butler (1993b) remarks, ‘the visual field is not neutral to the question of race; it is itself a racial formation, an episteme, hegemonic and forceful’.

The relationship between legibility and the state is theorised, perhaps most famously, by James Scott (1998), who argues that making their citizens legible is a key concern for modern states. According to Michel- Rolph Trouillet (2001: 126), this involves a ‘legibility effect’, that is ‘the production of both a language and a knowledge for governance and of theoretical and empirical tools that classify and regulate collectivities’. In terms of popular culture, Mark Anthony Neal’s (2013) analysis of portrayals of black male bodies in the United States provides a valuable starting point. Through case studies of a range of diverse African-American men, Neal argues that:

That the most ‘legible’ black male body is often thought to be a criminal body and/or a body in need of policing and containment – incarceration – is just a reminder that the black male body that so seduced America is just as often the bogeyman that keeps America awake at night. Thus ‘legible’ black male bodies, ironically, bring welcome relief, a comforting knowingness (ibid: 5).

Neal’s work offers a number of valuable observations about male racial embodiment that are germane to the current discussion, beyond simply illuminating which types of racialised bodies become “legible”. He highlights the dichotomous ways that legible and illegible masculinities are constructed, and discusses the complexities, nuances and ambiguities that characterise what are regarded as less legible forms of being. Neal also talks about the repercussions of dominant representations of il/legibility, in terms of the psychosocial reassurance they offer through the confirmation of existing racial schema. Moreover, Neal addresses the politics of trying to disrupt these hegemonic constructions and the possibilities that arise from such interventions: ‘the radical potential of rendering ‘legible’ black male bodies – those bodies that are all too real to us – illegible, while simultaneously rendering so-called illegible black male bodies – those black male bodies we can’t believe are real – legible’ (ibid.: 8). This can create a particular type of racialised affect that troubles and subverts the dominant Western vision in certain spheres and practices (Fleetwood 2010).

Despite the book’s athletic cover – an image taken from Hank Willis Thomas’ Strange Fruit collection –

[12] 6 30/08/2015




Neal does not address sport at all. This is a curious omission, especially given recent debates within the US about the relationship between seemingly ‘illegible’ black males and sport, such as ‘out’ gay men, Jason Collins and Michael Sam. Or, perhaps this absence actually tells us something about the relationship between racial identity, legibility and sport itself, in that illegible bodies are marginalised, disguised or excluded. In short, they are denied the opportunity to be visible, let alone legible, in this form of popular culture.

The social construction of the black athlete has been examined elsewhere, primarily the manner in which he (as it usually is) is “made” and becomes legible within the popular imagination (Fleetwood 2015). Amy Bass (2002: 3), for instance, describes the black athlete as ‘one of the most visible integrated racial subjects in modern society’ (emphasis in original). She highlights the ubiquity of the black athlete in the mass media, its integration within sporting cultures and a degree of (sometimes superficial) acceptance among, and celebration by, white fans. Yet, as Ben Carrington (2010: 2) points out, the meanings attached to the black athlete have been struggled over and contested continuously, resulting in a range of substantive shifts: ‘submissive and threatening, often obedient, occasionally rebellious, revolting and in revolt, political and compromised, a commodity and commodified’. These constructions are rarely discrete. Dichotomous imagery and descriptions operate frequently at the same time and in the same place, irrespective of their apparent contradictions. In construction and representation, the black athlete thus becomes ‘typically exceptional’; emblematic of an essentialised category of blackness, but also beyond human in terms of stereotypical physical capacities (ibid.). Critically, Carrington points out that the construction of the black athlete is not actually about blackness itself; but emerged from a ‘white masculinist fear of loss and impotence, revealing the commingling of sex, class, race and power’ (ibid.: 3).

How might we begin, then, to understand, conceptually, the notion of the British Asian athlete, or the South Asian athlete more broadly as Sameer Pandya (2013) asks? Central to this task, as Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak (1988) suggests, is an appreciation of the mechanics of the constitution of the Other in this popular cultural sphere. At one level, the wider processes of racial formation that pertain to the black athlete are in operation here as well. The particular commingling of power relations around race, gender and masculinity that has rendered the black athlete ‘knowable’ has inhibited the visibility of, and circumscribed the legibility afforded to, the British Asian athlete as well (Kim 2014). Yet, within this set of power relations, the British Asian athlete is subjected to a distinctly different form of racialised corporeal and cultural construction, and thus requires a distinct analytical frame. The British Asian athlete is largely ‘invisible’ – or, at the very least, inaudible – in sporting, media and popular discourse: s/he is depoliticized; s/he is seen as effete, passive or timid; s/he is not – cannot – be a commodity in the sense of being recognised and valued in the global marketplace. In short, elite sport has been regarded rarely as a space in which the bifurcated process of making British Asian males il/legible can occur (Kalra 2009). Their bodies are regarded habitually as anomalies in this space, on account of physical and cultural attributes. The British Asian elite athlete, it seems, has been almost an ontological impossibility.

Occasionally British Asian athletes have achieved sporting success and stardom. The various discursive tropes through which they have been decipherable thus require consideration: narratives of exceptionalism; the subjective reproduction of biological stereotypes (such as the notion, embedded in the British colonial project, that British Asians make ‘natural’ cricketers due to their perceived strong hand-eye co-ordination); and (sub)cultural processes within sport that erase certain racial signifiers from their bodies and practices (Burdsey 2010). These latter procedures entail partial interpretations of their identities, focusing on those forms of subjectivity and affiliation that (are seen to) reflect existing racial schema and dovetail with the putative post- racial nature of sport. This legibility is ideological as well, in terms of its relations to athletes’ compatibility with, and (perceived) endorsement of, certain political doctrines. For instance, Amir Khan exhibits a ‘Westernised’ stylistic demeanour, forms of conspicuous consumption and a legible British Asian desi repidentity (see Bakrania 2013, Kim 2012). Then there is his performance of a bounded British Asian Muslim masculinity and his deference to white authority figures, such as coaches. Politically, he has also been perceived to embody and endorse hegemonic discourses around multiculturalism, community cohesion and the ‘war on terror’ (Burdsey 2007). Conversely, Monty Panesar embodies a ‘soft’ (sporting) masculinity which reinforces popular stereotypes about South Asian male physicality, passivity and effeminacy. He certainly looks ‘Asian enough’ but, on account of his Punjabi Sikh heritage – regarded historically as a loyal ‘martial race’ – does not threaten the established racial and religious status quo, physically, politically or ideologically (Burdsey 2013). Haroon Khan – Amir’s less famous younger brother – made the decision to represent Pakistan at the 2010 Commonwealth Games in Delhi, having previously boxed for England. Explanatory discourses within the media represented this first as a ‘threat’, thus situating it within broader Islamophobic rhetoric. Khan’s choice was portrayed later as an act of last resort, having been overlooked by the England selectors, rather than a reflection of cultural hybridity and fluid diasporic citizenship (Barron 2013).


[13] 7 30/08/2015





Structures, typologies and classifications initiated by the state are adopted (and occasionally modified) by sport – as a mixture of private and public institutions – which then determine individuals’ capacities to become in/visible, in/audible and il/legible in this realm. The structures of the state and those of other social institutions, such as elite sport, do not therefore exist in a binary; rather, they are entwined and co-productive (Das 2004). Michael Omi and Howard Winant (2015: 124) note that ‘race is a “crossroads” where social structure and cultural representation meet’, while David Theo Goldberg (2002: 109) refers to the racial state as ‘a political force fashioning and fashioned by economic, legal, and cultural forces’ (emphasis in original). The connections between structure and signification – ‘racial projects’ (Omi and Winant 2015) – in sport are addressed by Ben Carrington (2010). He develops the notion of ‘sporting racial projects’ as a means of illuminating the ways that ‘sports become productive, and not merely receptive of racial discourse’ (ibid: 66). In the context of South Asian participation, Stanley Thangaraj (2012, 2013) demonstrates how men’s amateur basketball leagues represent a principal sphere in which ideas about race derived from the state are imposed onto sport. They are taken up and embodied, but also, importantly, resisted, in order to (re)signify symbolic orders of race (and gender and sexuality), and to interrogate racialised notions of citizenship in the US. With basketball again the reference point, Sumaya Samie (2013) shows how the British Pakistani Muslim female body is also reduced to classifications and discourses derived originally from the state. Samie argues that ‘”who” sporting Muslims females are, both “beneath” and/or outside a discursive identity of the veil, and what their relationship is like with their body, remains a mystery and a topic of much contention’ (ibid.: 257).

Although focusing on transnational migration, Thomas Carter (2011) forges instructive connections between sport and state practices. He argues that sporting migrants’ mobility and capacity to travel unhindered, as global sporting citizens, is determined by their visibility (at point of departure and point of arrival). This visibility, as a manifestation of sovereign power, is underpinned by the extent to which their identity (broadly as a member of a particular ethno-national community) is understood and validated by the public, and is legible both to state and sporting authorities. These processes facilitate certain migrants (but not others) to become ‘legitimate in relation to bureaucratic power and discipline’ and therefore removed from ‘the space of illegality’ (ibid. 176) that renders them immobile and unwelcome. As mechanisms by which the apparatuses of governmentality operate, visibility and legibility are not simply about race and ethnicity; they are gendered and heteronormative too (Farred 2003, Goldberg 2002).

Moeen Ali is not, of course, a migrant, but similar processes can be identified. His visibility in the sporting arena can only be understood in the context of the racial state; namely, the ways that the state seeks to draw particular lines of ethno-religious closure and to make certain racialised bodies ‘known’, and thus subject to regulation and control. The state ensures simultaneously that the identities that underpin them are, paradoxically, inaudible and fundamentally “unknowable”, through restrictive forms of (mis)representation and (dis)enfranchisement. At the current time, the young British Muslim male becomes legible through particular constructions, discourses and speech acts: ones that demonise and criminalise him, and often mark him as an illegitimate citizen; that vindicate state domestic and foreign policy; and that uphold the racial status quo. These tropes are performative in that they create a restrictive interpretative frame that draws repeatedly on – and refuses to locate such individuals outside – issues such as radicalisation in cities like Birmingham, and British militants joining ISIS. The pervasiveness of this framing enables it to percolate into otherwise cordial depictions. A newspaper article by the journalist, Yasmin Alibhai-Brown (2014), is a case in point. While recognising the wider meaning of the term, describing Ali as an ‘exemplary jihadi’ does little to liberate the player from dominant constructions. Moreover, her reference to ‘sporting a Taliban beard’ may play on popular stereotypes, but it reflects ultimately the pejorative conflation of religion, culture and ideology, particularly imagined ideas of the Islamic terrorist. This dominant discourse of legibility is employed elsewhere through the ‘nickname’ used by fans and as a marketing ploy by his club, Worcestershire: ‘The Beard That’s Feared’.

The case study of Moeen Ali encourages us to think about visibility and legibility as complex, equivocal and relational; and as operating differently across temporal and spatial contexts. It also allows us to consider a number of relationships, such as those between race and the state, sport and the state, and legibility and citizenship. The current analysis shows how Muslim masculinities need to be understood in the context of normative ones, in that they are subject to forms of power and governmentality that influence their construction and articulation (Kalra 2009). Following David Theo Goldberg (2014: 93), ‘the notion of “governmentality” becomes productive because it has broader applicability, not tied simply or reductively to institutional apparatuses’. For a sportsperson like Ali, the extent to which he is il/legible in sport is linked inseparably to the way in which British Asians and British Muslims are made il/legible in society. More specifically, the processes of state regulation and signification – as well as media representation and sporting ascription – that make him visible and legible in society are those that mark him as Other in the related, but distinct, realm of sport. In other


[15] 8 30/08/2015






words, the way he is made ‘knowable’ in the broader context – corporeal markers and affiliations – are precisely those attributes that sport rejects habitually as ‘out of place’, such as articulating a political stance and refusing to underplay one’s ethno-religious alterity.

(‘What’ or ‘how’) can the British Asian athlete ‘speak’? Transruptions, vernaculars, activism In a spin on Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak’s (1988) foundational question – Can the subaltern speak? – the concluding section of this article asks: Can the British Asian male athlete speak? And, if he can: Where, when and how is this sanctioned? Following Spivak, this section considers the parameters within which the British Asian athlete can articulate their experiences: the spaces, contexts and discourses within which they can(not) represent themselves; and the dominant forms of being, speaking and thinking with which they must conform to meet the requirements of elite sporting citizenship.

Esther Rootham and colleagues (2015: 1529) encourage us to think about how ‘the modalities through which [minority ethnic young men] narrate and practice their individual spatial sense of belonging reflect wider policy and political discourses which position them as differently regarded citizens’. The performances and articulations of Moeen Ali might offer an emerging, individualised ‘transruption’ (Hesse 2000) to dominant, racialised discourses of nation and the embodied practices, politics and poetics of elite British sport. As Barnor Hesse (2000: 17) states, a multicultural transruption ‘comprises any series of contestatory cultural and theoretical interventions which, in their impact as cultural differences, unsettle social norms and threaten to dismantle hegemonic concepts and practices’ (emphasis in original). For Ali, transruption occurs through the personal-as- political: manifest in visual markers; articulate public proclamations on identity, religion and politics; and an organic, vernacular anti-racism with deep roots in British Asian communities (Ramamurthy 2013). Embodying a racialised masculinity that is varyingly hyper-visible and invisible (Fleetwood 2010, Nagel and Staeheli 2008), Ali’s own performativity demonstrates ‘the ways in which less “hegemonic” masculine identities are managed at the everyday and local level in public space through practices of resistance and subversion’ (Barber 2015: 441).

The previous section suggested that, understood through a particular lens, these might be bounded and transient acts though. The effects of dominant modes of representation, the absence of a critical mass of similar players, his own (inadvertent) reproduction of dominant narratives, and the regulations of elite sport regarding what one can do or articulate in the public sphere can all be prohibitive. Indeed, there are certain sporting structures and cultures that remain ostensibly beyond transruption. For example, one might consider the scenes at The Oval, London in August 2014 as England clinched the Test Series against India. As his team-mates sprayed bottles of champagne, Ali could be seen running for cover behind the sponsor’s podium to avoid any contact with the alcohol – a stark reminder of the embodied, racialised sporting practices that marginalise and Other those who do not endorse the dominant (sub)cultural code (see Burdsey 2010).

Or maybe this is too simplistic an interpretation of the process, which limits our understanding of Ali’s relationship with his sport, the complexity of his identity and his latent oppositional role. He is not constituted and constrained purely by discourse or embodied sporting practice, and his own agency is important. As Judith Butler states in an interview with Vikki Bell:

The real task is to figure out how a subject who is constituted in and by discourse then recites that very same discourse but perhaps to another purpose. For me that’s always been the question of how to find agency, the moment of that recitation or that replay of discourse that is the condition of one’s own emergence (cited in Bell 1999: 165).

Perhaps we need to consider other meanings and manifestations of transruption; as more fluid, complex, ambiguous and subtle than we may have appreciated previously, but as equally significant and subversive? In this regard, analyses of two other minority ethnic male sport stars are instructive: Fijian-American professional golfer, Vijay Singh, and the black French ex-footballer, Lilian Thuram. According to Sameer Pandya (2013: 220), Singh represents ‘a particular type of early twenty-first-century minority sports figure whose racial and political consciousness is neither consistently articulated nor inherently submerged’. Pandya does not locate Singh’s silence towards the media – his rejection of role model status, not discussing his migratory background and personal life, and not endorsing the discourse of post-racialism in the US – as a case of being enigmatic. Instead, following Martin Manalansan (2010), it is understood as a matter of disaffection – towards traditional forms of masculinity, expectations to foreground his ethnicity and requests to politicise sport. Singh is, then, ‘a new type of sports figure who is not political in the way that we understand the term, and yet politics are certainly not absent’ (ibid: 229). 9 30/08/2015





The theme of alternative politics is likewise taken up by Grant Farred (2012). He discusses issues of representation and citizenship in the context of the public statements made by Thuram about, and on behalf of, disenfranchised and excluded black, Berber and Arab communities in urban France. Illuminating the intricate and problematic connections between representation and absence, Farred argues that ‘there can be no representation without absence of the Other’ and, as such, representation ‘represses voice as much as it insists all subjects are politically audible’ (ibid.: 1054). He concludes that ‘[Thuram’s] silence, especially should it come after so much – such – public speaking, could be more salient and disruptive than his continued rhetorical interventions’ (ibid.: 1055). As demonstrated more recently with African-American sportsman Marshawn Lynch (Crunk Feminist Collective 2015) , these forms of silence – often symbolic rather than literal – are inexorably political, comprising a refusal to be ‘known’ only within hegemonic tropes.

Throughout the summer of 2014, a slight semantic shift could be observed, from Moeen Ali wearing Gaza wristbands and discussing his Islamic faith to denouncing ISIS and a reticence to talk about discrimination. This modification makes him a more legible and ‘legitimate’ sporting body, and arguably, in time, perhaps a less ‘visible’ one. This does not necessarily dilute Ali’s political potential, for he offers a particular sense of transruption and a noteworthy vernacular mode of being. According to Farred (2003: 5), vernacular intellectuals are:

Producers, articulators and disseminators of cultural knowledge; they are public figures who contribute and create new forms of knowledge; they think carefully about what they say (as much as any conventional intellectual), how they say it, why they are moved to say it; and they understand how their rhetorical interventions connect to their original constituency.

The vernacular intellectual exists outside formal political structures and ‘craft[s] a unique public space from which to speak as they address the issues of the day that directly affect their community’ (ibid: 22).

By engaging with the questions of journalists in media interviews, Ali certainly responds to, and within, the dominant discourse. Indeed, these depictions necessitate the very imperative to respond to this script in the first place (Archer 2009). Maybe he perceives there to be benefits from speaking within such conventional channels as well, in terms of the opportunities to explain his faith and intersectional identities, and to provide more constructive and corrective responses to derogatory depictions of his communities. Ali, it seems, is comfortable in this sphere: combining erudition, civility and humility in his statements; knowing what and when to speak; and – while he does not talk of being representative of them – understanding how his articulations relate to the communities from which he has emerged. Perhaps he does not feel constrained by the dominant discourse though, and is able to oppose, challenge, influence or reconfigure it from a subaltern standpoint. As Patricia Noxolo (2009: 61) asks, ‘what if the voiceless choose to speak in a voice that is other to what we “give” them?’. We know less about the player away from the game and the media spotlight, but there may be different modes of being and complementary discourses with which Ali is equally at ease. These exist outside the dominant frame, yet are no less important in engaging with political and humanitarian concerns, seeking social justice and empowering marginalised communities. They can be highly effective and influential despite their sometimes understated delivery.

Ali provides a(nother) compelling case for exploring the relationship between sport, politics, activism and the sporting hero, primarily the use of sport as a platform from which to “speak” in the public sphere. His position is not unique, as has been shown in relation to a number of athletes and sports over the last fifty years (e.g. Carrington 2010, Farred 2003, James 1963, Marqusee 2005). It is, however, distinctive, in the context both of British Asian and Muslim communities and contemporary British sport. In making this claim, one must be cognisant of the fact that it is a particular subaltern representation that is being selected for celebratory intellectual claim in this article (Ahmed 2000). Moreover, this essay does not offer the player or his contemporaries any greater “voice” than many of the sources under critique (Spivak 1988). Nonetheless, Ali’s articulations, performances and experiences elsewhere encourage us to think differently about British Asian and Muslim participation in sport; and they provide potentially a discursive frame for talking about, and engaging in, sporting resistance and activism, in ways that are not couched in traditional intersections of race, gender and class. In Moeen Ali, we are witnessing, possibly, a more important and influential British Asian Muslim sporting hero than we have witnessed thus far.


[16] 10 30/08/2015

I am very grateful to the guest editors of this special themed section for their insight, support and encouragement with this article; and to the two anonymous SRO reviewers, whose comments improved this article immeasurably. I am indebted to Thomas Carter and Stan Thangaraj for their constructive comments on earlier drafts. I thank Thomas, along with Paul Gilchrist, for pushing me continuously to think differently about the minority ethnic sports hero, and to Mark Erickson for encouraging me to develop ideas about discourse and agency.

Notes The phrase in the prefix of this section title provides an alternative take on Claire Alexander and Helen Kim’s (2014: 359) ‘Here to stay, here to dance’ description of twenty-first century British Asian youth cultures – itself a reference to the 1970s anti-racist slogan ‘Here to stay, here to fight’.

One of Ali’s grandmothers is white British.

Statistics show that, in England, British Asian groups are actually far more likely that white British ones to describe themselves as exclusively British. Muslims are four times more likely to identify in this way than Christians (Centre on Dynamics of Ethnicity 2013).

Borat is a 2006 comedy movie, based around the adventures of the eponymous fictional Kazakhstani journalist.

Ali was booed by some British Indian supporters when he played for England against India in a Twenty20 match at Edgbaston, in his home city of Birmingham, in September 2014. Angus Porter, the Chief Executive of the Professional Cricketers’ Association, argued that Ali should ‘take it as a positive – you’d rather be booed than ignored’ (cited in Wilson 2014b). A number of commentators were similarly quick to highlight perceived prejudice by the supporters (see, for example, Smith 2014). These claims might be read as an attempt to shift accusations of racism onto minority ethnic bodies, rather than (just) white ones (see Song 2014 for a critique of an emerging ‘culture of racial equivalence’).

No relation.

Malaysian cyclist, Azizulhasni Awang, competed at the 2014 Commonwealth Games with ‘Save Gaza’ printed on his gloves (Simpson 2014). At around the same time, a football match between the Israeli club, Maccabi Haifa, and their French opponents, Lille, was abandoned late in the game. This was due to a pitch invasion by individuals holding Palestinian flags, who also traded blows with Maccabi players (Guardian 2014).

The shirts worn by the England players advertised the charity Help for Heroes, while the match commemorated the one hundredth anniversary of the commencement of World War One. This reflects the increasing role of British sport events, clubs and competitions in the ‘hero’-fication of militarism (Kelly 2013).

Ali was supported publicly by other cricketers, such as Kabir Ali (his cousin) and Azhar Mahmood. He was labelled a ‘silly boy’ and ‘naïve’ by his England team-mate, Steve Harmison (Hoult 2014).

See Alana Lentin and Ronit Lentin (2006) for a brief history of scholarship exploring the race-state relationship.

Perhaps most famously, Robert Young (1995: 57) has written about what he regards as Michel Foucault’s ‘virtual silence’ on race and colonialism. Others, such as Ann Laura Stoler (1995), have sought to make Foucault’s application to race more overt. These linkages have been recognised primarily since the English translation of Foucault’s (2003) Society Must be Defended, where the relationship between race, power and biopolitics is more pronounced (Macey 2009).

The cover depicts an athletic black male in Nike basketball shorts and trainers, but wearing no jersey. He is facing away from the camera, with his head bowed. He is suspended from a rope noose, which hooks over the basketball held in his right arm above his head. The basketball is imprinted with NBA (National Basketball Association).













13 11 30/08/2015

See, for example, Eric Anderson and Mark McCormack (2014) on sport; and Roderick Ferguson (2004) and Shaka McGlotten and Dána-Ain Davis (2012) for a more general discussion on the intersections between race and sexuality.

Veena Das (2004) suggests that this also enables the state to protect the illegibility – the ‘unreadability of its rules and regulations’ (ibid.: 234) – of its own constitution.

‘Fear the Beard’ is a phrase also associated with Brian Wilson, a white, Christian, American baseball player. Fans have been known to chant and display the appellation at matches, commemorative t-shirts have been produced, and Facebook and Twitter accounts exist in the beard’s ‘honour’. See Burdsey (2013) for a discussion of British Asian cricketer, Monty Panesar, and the adoption of replica beards by England cricket fans.

At a press conference before American Football’s 2015 Super Bowl, Lynch refused to engage with any questions. Referencing professional sports people’s media obligations, he responded repeatedly with ‘I’m here so I won’t get fined’ (Crunk Feminist Collective 2015). I am grateful to Sanaa Qureshi for sharing details of this case.

References AHMED, A (2011) British Muslim female experiences in football: Islam, identity and the hijab, in Burdsey, D (Ed.)

Race, Ethnicity and Football: Persisting Debates and Emergent Issues, Abingdon: Routledge.

AHMED, S (2000) ‘Who knows? Knowing strangers and strangerness’, Australian Feminist Studies, Vol. 15, No. 31, p. 49-68.

AHMED, S (2012) On Being Included: Racism and Diversity in Institutional Life, Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

ALEXANDER, C (2013) The Muslim question(s): reflections from a race and ethnic studies perspective, in Alexander, C, Redclift, V and Hussain, A (Eds.) The New Muslims, London: Runnymede Trust.

ALEXANDER, C (2014) ‘The Empire Strikes Back: 30 years on’, Ethnic and Racial Studies, Vol. 37, No. 10, p. 1784-92.

ALEXANDER, C and Kim, H (2014) Dis/locating diaspora: South Asian youth cultures in Britain, in Chatterji, J and Washbrook, D (Eds.) Routledge Handbook of the South Asian Diaspora, Abingdon: Routledge.

ALEXANDER, C (2008) ‘The problem of South Asian popular culture: a view from the UK’, South Asian Popular Culture, Vol. 6, No. 1, p. 1-12.

ALIBHAI-BROWN, Y (2014) ‘Torture? Spying? The freedoms Britain prides itself on are illusory. We live in a secret state’, Independent on Sunday. freedoms-britain-prides-itself-on-are-illusory-we-live-in-a-secret-state-9645163.html. Accessed 16 September 2014.

ANDERSON, E and McCormack, M (2014) ‘Being a black gay male athlete’, Gender and Society blog. Accessed 16 September 2014.

ARCHER, L (2009) Race, “face” and masculinity: the identities and local geographies of Muslim boys, in Hopkins, P and Gale, R (eds.) Muslims in Britain: Race, Place and Identities, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

BACK, L and SINHA, S with BRYAN, C (2012) ‘New hierarchies of belonging’, European Journal of Cultural Studies, Vol. 15, No. 2, p. 155-66.

BAKRANIA, F (2013) Bhangra and Asian Underground: South Asian Music and the Politics of Belonging, Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

BARBER, T (2015) ‘Performing “Oriental” masculinities: embodied identities among Vietnamese men in London’,




16 12 30/08/2015
Being a Black Gay Male Athlete

Gender, Place and Culture: a Journal of Feminist Geography, Vol. 22, No. 3, p. 440-55.

BARRON, D (2013) ‘Diasporic pugilists and fighting for national belonging: Haroon Khan and the 2010 Commonwealth Games’, South Asian Popular Culture, Vol. 11, No. 3, p. 313-24.

BASS, A (2002) Not the Triumph but the Struggle: The 1968 Olympics and the Making of the Black Athlete, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

BELL, V (1999) ‘On speech, race and melancholia: an interview with Judith Butler’, Theory, Culture and Society, 16, 2: p. 163-74.

BHATTACHARYYA, G (2006) Wars on our doorstep: Islamicising “race” and militarising everyday life, in Lentin, A and Lentin, R (Eds.) Race and State, Newcastle-upon-Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

BIRRELL, S and McDonald, M (Eds.) (2000) Reading Sport: Critical Essays on Power and Representation, Boston: Northeastern University Press.

BURDSEY, D (2007) ‘Role with the punches: the construction and representation of Amir Khan as a role model for multiethnic Britain’, Sociological Review, Vol. 55, No. 3, p. 611-31.

BURDSEY, (2010) ‘British Muslim experiences in English first-class cricket’, International Review for the Sociology of Sport, Vol. 45, No. 3, p. 315-34.

BURDSEY, (2013) Monty Panesar and the new (sporting) Asian Britishness, in Andrews, D. and Carrington, B. (Eds.) A Companion to Sport, Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.

BUTLER, J (1993a) Bodies That Matter: On the Discursive Limits of “Sex”, London: Routledge.

BUTLER, J (1993b) Endangered/endangering: schematic racism and white paranoia, in Gooding-Williams, R (ed.) Reading Rodney King/Reading Urban Uprising, London: Routledge.

CARRINGTON, B (2010) Race, Sport and Politics: the Sporting Black Diaspora, London: Sage.

CARTER, T (2011) In Foreign Fields: The Politics and Experiences of Transnational Sport Migration, London: Pluto Press.

CENTRE FOR CONTEMPORARY CULTURAL STUDIES (1982) The Empire Strikes Back: Race and Racism in 70s Britain, London: Hutchinson.

CENTRE ON DYNAMICS OF ETHNICITY (2013) ‘Who feels British? The relationship between ethnicity, religion and national identity in England’, Manchester: University of Manchester/Joseph Rowntree Foundation.

COLLINS, P H (2008) Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness, and the Politics of Empowerment, Abingdon: Routledge.

CRENSHAW, K (1989) ‘Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: a Black Feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist politics and antiracist politics’, University of Chicago Legal Forum, Vol. 140: 139-67.

CRUNK FEMINIST COLLECTIVE (2015) ‘What Marshawn Lynch and Richard Sherman teach us about respectability and black masculinity’. marshawn-lynch-and-richard-sherman-teach-us-about-respectability-black-masculinity/. Accessed 22 June 2015.

DAS, V (2004) The signature of the state: the paradox of illegibility, in Das, V and Poole, D (eds.) Anthropology in the Margins of the State, Santa Fe, NM: School of American Research Press.

FARRED, G (2003) What’s My Name? Black Vernacular Intellectuals, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

FARRED, G (2012) ‘”Keeping silent”: the problem of citizenship for Lilian Thuram’, Ethnic and Racial Studies, Vol. 35, No. 6, p. 1040-58.

FERGUSON, R (2004) Aberrations in Black: Toward a Queer of Colour Critique, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. 13 30/08/2015

What Marshawn Lynch and Richard Sherman Teach Us About Respectability & Black Masculinity

FLEETWOOD, N (2010) Troubling Vision: Performance, Visuality, and Blackness, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

FLEETWOOD, N (2015) On Racial Icons: Blackness and the Public Imagination, New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.

FORTIER, A-M (2008) Multicultural Horizons: Diversity and the Limits of the Civil Nation, Abingdon: Routledge.

FOUCAULT, M (2003) ‘Society Must be Defended’: Lectures at the Collège de France 1975-76 (trans. David Macey), London: Allen Lane.

GILCHRIST, P, Holden R and Millward, P (2015) ‘Special section introduction: the political sociologies of sport’, Sociological Research Online,

GILROY, P (2004) After Empire: Melancholia or Convivial Culture?, London: Routledge.

GOLDBERG, D T (1997) Racial Subjects: Writing on Race in America, London: Routledge.

GOLDBERG, D T (2002) The Racial State, Oxford: Blackwell.

GOLDBERG, D T (2014) Sites of Race: Conversations with Susan Searls Giroux, Cambridge: Polity Press.

GUARDIAN (2014) ‘Maccabi Haifa v Lille abandoned after pro-Palestinian protesters storm pitch’. Accessed 10 September 2014.

HAGE, G (1998) White Nation: Fantasies of White Supremacy in a Multicultural Society, Annandale: Pluto Press.

HARRIES, B (2014) ‘We need to talk about race’, Sociology, Vol. 48, No. 6, p. 1107-22.

HASAN, M (2014) ‘Moeen Ali interview: “I am a Muslim, yes, but I am also very English’, Huffington Post. Accessed 12 September 2014.

HENDERSON, M (2014) ‘You’re playing for England, Moeen Ali, not your religion’, Telegraph. religion.html. Accessed 12 August 2014.

HESSE, B (2000) Introduction: un/settled multiculturalisms, in Hesse, B (Ed.) Un/Settled Multiculturalisms: Diasporas, Entanglements, Transruptions, London: Zed Books.

HILL, J (2008) The Everyday Language of White Racism, Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.

HODGES, D (2014) ‘No one has gained from Moeen Ali’s wristbands’, Telegraph. wristbands/. Accessed 13 August 2013.

HODGSON, A (2014) ‘England call up for Moeen Ali sparks racist slurs and nationality debate on Facebook’, London Evening Standard. racist-slurs-and-nationality-debate-on-facebook-9112277.html. Accessed 13 August 2014.

HOULT, N (2014) ‘Azhar Mahmood threatens copycat Moeen Ali “Save Gaza” wristband protest in Surrey Twenty20 tie’, Telegraph. copycat-Moeen-Ali-Save-Gaza-wristband-protest-in-Surrey-Twenty20-tie.html. Accessed 13 August 2014.

JAMES, C L R (1963) Beyond a Boundary, London: Hutchison.

KALRA, V (2009) ‘Between emasculation and hypermasculinity: theorizing British South Asian masculinities’, South Asian Popular Culture, Vol. 7, No. 2, p. 113-25.

KAPOOR, N (2013a) Along the fault lines of “British justice for British citizens”: locating the non-/British Muslim, in Alexander, C et al (Eds.) op cit. 14 30/08/2015

KAPOOR, N (2013b) Afterword: racial futures, in Kapoor N, Kalra, V S and Rhodes, J. (Eds.) The State of Race, Basingstoke: Palgrave.

KAPOOR, N (2015) ‘Removing the right to have rights’, Studies in Ethnicity and Nationalism, Vol. 15, No. 1, p. 105-10.

KELLY, J (2013) ‘Popular culture, sport and the “hero”-fication of British militarism’, Sociology, Vol. 47, No. 4, p. 722-38.

KIM, C (2014) ‘The smell of communities to come: Jeremy Lin and post-racial desire’, Journal of Intercultural Studies, Vol. 35, No. 3, p. 310-27.

KIM, H (2012) ‘A “desi” diaspora? The production of “desiness” and London’s Asian urban music scene’, Identities: Global Studies in Culture and Power, Vol. 19, No. 5, p. 557-75.

KRATTENMAKER, T (2010) Onward Christian Athletes: Turning Ballparks into Pulpits and Players into Preachers, Lanham, MA: Rowman and Littlefield.

KUNDNANI, A (2014) The Muslims are Coming! Islamophobia, Extremism and the Domestic War on Terror, London: Verso.

LENTIN, A and Lentin, R (2006) Speaking of racism, in Lentin, A and Lentin, R (Eds.) op cit.

MACEY, D (2009) ‘Rethinking biopolitics, race and power in the wake of Foucault’, Theory, Culture and Society, Vol. 26, No. 6, p. 186-205.

MANALANSAN, M. (2010) Servicing the world: flexible Filipinos and the unsecured life, in Staiger, J, Cvetkovitch, A and Reynolds, A (Eds.) Political Emotions, Abingdon: Routledge.

MARQUSEE, M. (1998) Anyone but England: Cricket, Race and Class, London: Two Heads Publishing.

MARQUSEE, M. (2005) Redemption Song: Muhammad Ali and the Spirit of the Sixties, London: Verso.

MAY, V (2015) Pursuing Intersectionality: Unsettling Dominant Imaginaries, Abingdon: Routledge.

MCGLOTTEN, S and Davis, D-A (Eds.) (2012) Black Genders and Sexualities, Basingstoke: Palgrave.

MEER, N (2013) ‘Semantics, scales and solidarities in the study of antisemitism and Islamophobia’, Ethnic and Racial Studies, Vol. 36, No. 3, p. 500-15.

MEER, N and Nayak, A (2013) ‘Race ends where? Race, racism and contemporary sociology’, Sociology, DOI: 10.1177/0038038513501943.

MODOOD, T (2005) Multicultural Politics: Racism, Ethnicity and Muslims in Britain, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

NAGEL, C and Staeheli, L (2008) Integration and the politics of visibility and invisibility in Britain: the case of British Arab activists, in Dwyer, C and Bressey, C (Eds.) New Geographies of Race and Racism, Aldershot: Ashgate.

NANDY, A (2001) The Tao of Cricket: On Games of Destiny and the Destiny of Games (Second Edition), Oxford: Oxford University Press.

NAYAK, A (2010) ‘Race, affect and emotion: young people, racism and graffiti in the postcolonial English suburbs’, Environment and Planning A, Vol. 42, No. 10, p. 2370-92.

NEAL, M A (2013) Looking for Leroy: Illegible Black Masculinities, New York: New York University Press.

NEWMAN, J and Giardina, M (2014) ‘Moving biopolitics’, Cultural Studies ? Critical Methodologies, Vol. 14, No. 5, p. 419-24.

NOXOLO, P (2009) ‘”My paper, my paper”: reflections on the embodied production of postcolonial geographical responsibility in academic writing’, Geoforum, Vol. 40, No. 1, p. 55-65.

OMI, M and Winant, H (2015) Racial Formation in the United States (Third Edition), Abingdon: Routledge. 15 30/08/2015

PANDYA, S (2013) ‘Situating Vijay Singh in (Asian) America’, South Asian Popular Culture, Vol. 11, No. 3, p. 219- 30.

PHELAN, P (1993) Unmarked: the Politics of Performance, London: Routledge.

PITCHER, B (2009) The Politics of Multiculturalism: Race and Racism in Contemporary Britain, Basingstoke: Palgrave.

RAMAMURTHY, A (2013) Black Star: Britain’s Asian Youth Movements, London: Pluto Press.

RATNA, A (2011) Flying the flag for England? National identities and British Asian female footballers, in Burdsey, D (Ed.) op cit.

ROOTHAM, E, Hardgrove, A and McDowell, L (2015) ‘Constructing racialised masculinities in/through affective orientations to a multicultural town’, Urban Studies, Vol. 52, No.8, p. 1523-39.

RUMFORD, C (2007) ‘More than a game: globalization and the post-Westernization of world cricket’, Global Networks, Vol. 7, No. 2, p.202-14.

SAMIE, S F (2013) ‘Hetero-sexy self/body work and basketball: the invisible sporting women of British Pakistani Muslim heritage’, South Asian Popular Culture, Vol. 11, No. 3, p. 257-70.

SAMIE, S F and Sehlikoglu, S (2015) ‘Strange, incompetent and out-of-place’, Feminist Media Studies, Vol. 15, No. 3, p. 363-81.

SCOTT, J (1998) Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

SIMPSON, W (2014) ‘Malaysian cyclist could face disciplinary action after “Save Gaza” gloves protest, Independent. disciplinary-action-after-save-gaza-gloves-protest-9627907.html . Accessed 10 September 2014.

SMITH, E (2014) ‘Bigotry is bigotry – shame on those who booed Moeen Ali at Edgbaston’, New Statesman. edgbaston. Accessed 15 October 2014.

SOLOMOS, J and Back, L (1996) Racism and Society, London: Routledge.

SONG, M (2014) ‘Challenging a culture of racial equivalence’, British Journal of Sociology, Vol. 65, No. 1, p. 107- 29.

SPIVAK, G C (1988) Can the subaltern speak?, in Nelson, C and Grossberg, L (Eds.) Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture, Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.

STOLER, A L (1995) Race and the Education of Desire: Foucault’s History of Sexuality and the Colonial Order of Things, Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

THANGARAJ, S (2012) ‘Playing through differences: black-white racial logic and interrogating South Asian American identity’, Ethnic and Racial Studies, Vol. 35, No. 6, p. 988-1006.

THANGARAJ, S (2013) ‘Competing masculinities: South Asian American identity formation in Asian American basketball leagues’, South Asian Popular Culture, Vol. 11, No. 3, p. 243-56.

TROUILLET, M-R (2001) ‘The anthropology of the state in the age of globalization: close encounters of the deceptive kind’, Current Anthropology, Vol. 42, No. 1, p. 125-38.

TYLER, I (2010) ‘Designed to fail: a biopolitics of British citizenship’, Citizenship Studies, Vol. 14, No. 1, p. 61-74.

WILLIAMS, J (2001) Cricket and Race, Oxford: Berg.

WILSON, Amrit (2006) Dreams, Questions, Struggles: South Asian Women in Britain, London: Pluto Press.

WILSON, Andy (2014a) ‘Moeen Ali banned by ICC from wearing wristbands while playing for England’, Guardian. Accessed 12 August 2014. 16 30/08/2015

WILSON, Andy (2014b) ‘PCA’s attempt to defuse Moeen Ali booing row backfires’, Guardian. Accessed 11 August 2014.

YOUNG, R (1995) ‘Foucault on race and colonialism’, New Formations, Vol. 25, p. 57-65.

YUVAL-DAVIS, N (2011) The Politics of Belonging: Intersectional Contestations, London: SAGE. 17 30/08/2015

Un/making the British Asian Male Athlete: Race, Legibility and the State
Keywords: British Asians; British Muslims; Legibility; Race; Sport; State
“Here to stay, here to play”: Moeen Ali, governmentalities of nation and the contested politics of (sporting) citizenship[1]
Notes on standpoint and the cultural politics of representation
The racial state
Representation, legibility and British Asian male sporting male bodies
(‘What’ or ‘how’) can the British Asian athlete ‘speak’? Transruptions, vernaculars, activism

Cultural Research Report & Presentation (35 points max) The cultural research report is a personally reflective and intellectual project where you explore and present a specific phenomenon (a system, location, identity or occupation) that you believe requires a multicultural examination—i.e., what are the diversity needs, issues or concerns of your chosen phenomenon? In your report, suggest possible real-life strategies for change in communities or schools to assist everyday people—e.g., teachers, students, community folks, etc. 4 In your report, address the following questions below using class notes, required readings and outside research: 1. What is your specific societal phenomenon—give a brief history/background (5 pts.); 2. Why did you select it—personally and/or professionally (5 pts.); 3. What are the multicultural or diversity problems that exist there—too little or too much (5 pts.); 4. What are the implications of the changes that you are proposing—who might benefit from it, who might not, and why (5 pts.); 5. To support your arguments, use and reference at least ten (10) out-of-class sources—books, magazines, research articles or peer-reviewed journals (10 pts.); 6. Present briefly (no more than 15 minutes) your cultural research topic. The purpose of your presentation is to inform the class as to the social relevance of your topic and either engage us in an activity or review of literature that advises us on how to approach/deal with the multicultural problem(s) that exist in your phenomenon (10 pts.). Your Cultural Research Report can take virtually any form you decide (paper, podcast, video, social media, Prezi, artwork, etc.) providing you address the above requirements (1-6). Whichever method of communication you choose, please discuss your ideas with me ahead of time. For those electing to write a traditional paper (typed in 12-point font, double-spaced with standard 1-inch margins on all sides), your page count should be no less than seven (7), not including your reference pages. Note: Late reports and/or presentations will not be accepted.

My topic: Young British Asians in soccer. 7 PAGE


Get a 10 % discount on an order above $ 50
Use the following coupon code :