There’s no ‘I’ in team, but there sure is in China
China won gold at more events than any other country in the Olympics, but it didn’t take home the most gold medals, as Duke University political scientist Michael Allen Gillespie points out (via Tim Johnson). The reason: Americans dominated the team events, while Chinese athletes excelled in individual sports.
If one looks over all of the Olympic sports, Americans took home 118 gold medals, 99 silver medals and 76 bronze medals, while the Chinese took home 76 gold, 35 silver and 38 bronze medals. That is 293 total medals for the USA to 149 for China.
The point here is that Americans are much more successful in team sports than the Chinese, and perhaps this is no accident. Voluntary cooperation has always been a hallmark of the American system, suffusing the lives of children and adults alike, an outstanding factor in our playrooms and in our boardrooms.
China, by contrast, has always put much less emphasis on voluntary cooperation than on hierarchical control and the obligation of those below to take directions from those above. Such discipline and obedience can produce individuals who become superb at repeating individual tasks, as in the diving competitions where the Chinese were outstanding, but it cannot produce the creativity and voluntary cooperation necessary to the successful operation of a team.
The Chinese government has begun to learn this lesson in the case of industry and the world has applauded its success, even if many have been intimidated by it. One might anticipate a similar success if the Chinese loosened the reins on other sections of their society.
The evidence from the basketball courts around China suggests this may be beginning to happen. In a cosmopolitan spirit, we therefore may hope that, in London in 2012 or in some future Olympics, Chinese teams will bring home more gold medals than the U.S. (as painful as that might be for our pride), for it would be an indication that China has in fact become a more open and creative society.
Ah, there’s that temptation, again. Suddenly sports most people pay attention to only once every four years become clear indications of cultural and political character. Gillespie (whose specialty lies on the other side of the globe) has an interesting theory, but I suspect there’s a simpler explanation:
Eight years ago, as China was vying to win its bid for the Olympics, officials like Cui [Dalin, the vice minister of the General Administration of Sport of China] began a government-financed effort called the 119 Project. Its purpose was to improve performances in the medal-heavy sports–track and field, swimming, rowing, canoe/kayak and sailing–in which the Chinese have been weak. The plan was named after the 119 gold medals awarded in those sports at that time. Other nations’ Olympic committees also attempt to win medals by allocating extra resources to certain sports. But none have been as elaborate, well financed and daunting as China’s plan.
“No secrets, no mysteries going on here,” [rowing coach Igor] Grinko said in a heavy Russian accent. “They’re just doing this like the East Germans did in the 1970s and ’80s.”
Rowing, judo, diving, track and field and gymnastics. Lots of medals for lots of athletes using the same training facilities. China won nine gold medals in gymnastics, seven in diving, eight in weightlifting, five in shooting. ESPN has a complete list.
Would being a “more open and creative society” make China better at basketball? Maybe. I’m sure the last 30 years of Reform and Opening Up have helped the country’s prospects, but I’d credit that more to Yao Ming and an economy that suddenly allows more people to own TVs and obsess over the NBA than to any underlying change in culture.
August 31st, 2008 at 8:07 pm
While it is true that I am no China scholar, I have done a good deal of research on athletics and society. It is fairly clear that there are three forms of sport: Greek sports which were radically individualized, Roman sports which were spectator sports that employed only slaves to glorify the state, and British sports of the nineteenth century which were predominately team sports in which cooperation and team work were preeminent. In most modern states all three are present to a greater or lesser degree. I leave it to you China experts to tell me what is going on in the PRC. I merely observe that the end the Chinese state pursued with its 119 project was a glorification of its own power using something like forced labor by athletes removed as children from their homes to specialize mostly in individual sports. This sounds more Roman than Greek but hardly British. I recognize that the same is true for team sports in China. I just don’t think that that model is as likely to be successful because to be successful on a team you have to interact with others spontaneously not simply follow a coach’s commands.
August 31st, 2008 at 9:47 pm
It certainly is true that I’m no scholar on the subject, but I find it hard to believe that a global understanding of human sport would reasonably be classified into Greek, Roman, and British types.
Snark on nomenclature aside, I’m interested in where the individualistic, but importantly creative and spontaneous, sport of snowboarding would fit in this particular frame. A Chinese pro snowboarder told me once he wishes the national team’s coaching had more of an ethic of fun involved, and he sometimes tries to add that when working with the team.
August 31st, 2008 at 10:24 pm
Prof. Gillespie,
Thanks for the added explanation. It’s an interesting proposition, and the Olympics make a compelling test case, but I think it’s the wrong one.
China’s overall aim was to win as many events as possible. In the NY Times article I quoted above, Grinko, the rowing coach, says, “One gold is worth a thousand silvers.” The Chinese were thinking numbers, and the clearest way to do that was individual sports.
It would be interesting to see if a 119-style project would work for the World Cup.