One of the interesting features of this year’s Iron Bowl is the
apparently radically different views of the game: for Auburn fans, a
sublime comeback, or Bama fans, a dreadful collapse. But which was
it—comeback or collapse?
Both.
Creatures like us, human beings, see themselves as agents, as the
doers of deeds—at least, that way of seeing ourselves has (necessarily
and typically) had priority over seeing ourselves as patients, the
sufferers of deeds. Events in which I see myself as meaningfully
involved are events in which I see myself as an agent. What happens I
take to be the result of successes of mine or of failures of mine. If I
cannot take what happens to be the result of successes or failures of
mine, then I cannot take what happens as really involving me
meaningfully.
So—consider the play in which A. C. Carter chased down Mark Ingram
and punched the ball from Ingram’s grasp, resulting in a touchback.
Notice that I described this event in the way that I think AU fans
would, as Carter would. He was the agent in the event, he made things
happen. But from Ingram’s point of view, or a Bama fan’s, Ingram is the
agent and he failed to keep something from happening. For Carter, he
succeeded in stripping the ball; for Ingram, he failed to tuck the ball
away. This explains why I imagine that Carter must feel he did
something crucial to help win the game and Ingram must feel he failed to
do something crucial that helped to lose the game. Who is right? Both
are, I think. From the point of view of agency, a point of view that
both Carter and Ingram will take on the play, one succeeded and the
other failed. That means that the answer to the question, who is
responsible for the contribution of that play to AU winning and Bama
losing must be: both. Carter did something great, Ingram failed to do
something necessary—in that way each contributed to the result of the
game.
My point in all this is simply to remind fans on both sides that
there will never be agreement about whether the game was a comeback (AU
as the agent who succeeded) or collapse (Bama as the agent who
failed). Could Bama have won if they had succeeded on plays where they
failed? Yes. Could Auburn have lost if they failed on plays where
they succeeded? Yes. Can AU fans see the outcome of the game simply as
the result of Bama failures? No—because to do so would be to rob AU of
agency. Can Bama fans see the outcome of the game simply as the result
of AU successes? No—for the same reason mutatis mutandis.
For AU fans to complain that Bama fans cannot admit that they got
beat, well that may or may not be right. If the AU fan means that Bama
fans won’t acknowledge that the score of the game was 28-27, then the AU
fan is right to complain, the Bama fan would have to be crazy. That
was the score. If he means that the Bama fan should recognize that the
flip-side of many of their failures are AU successes, then is right to
complain (but he must also return the favor, recognizing the flip-side
Bama failures in AU successes. But if the AU fan means that the Bama
fan refuses to see the games as nothing but a series of AU successes (at
least after halftime), then the AU fan should recognize that he is
requiring the Bama fan to stop being what he is, a Bama fan, someone who
sees Bama as the agent, not as the patient, as the successful or
unsuccessful doer of deeds, not as the sufferer of them.
…
Dr. Jolley is a philosophy professor at Auburn University. He
works in the theory of judgment, the history of 20th-century
philosophy, metaphilosophy and philosophical psychology.
--
"I think it is safe to say that while the South is hardly Christ-centered, it is most certainly Christ-haunted." "All human nature vigorously resists grace because grace changes us and the change is painful." — Flannery O'Connor
