Sport and visions of the “American century”

Abstract

In 1899, as the United States prepared to enter the twentieth century, the man who would in just two years become its president declared a global culture war. Theodore Roosevelt proclaimed that the new century could be and should be an “American century.” Roosevelt predicted that if the republic committed itself to the strenuous life it would become the world's leader. He insisted that national devotion to sports—the cornerstone of the strenuous life—would make the American experiment in culture and politics a global phenomenon. Dedication to a vigorous life would guarantee world leadership and far more. Roosevelt predicted no less than a global cultural revolution. He offered an imperial vision of a world converted to the American way of life. Sports, he argued, could shape not only a vital American culture but transform world culture as well. Eleven years later, in 1910, shortly after Roosevelt had finished his second term as U.S. president, the American philosopher William James offered a pacified version of Roosevelt's gospel of the strenuous life as “the moral equivalent of war.” In his essay, James reluctantly admitted that history had indicated that war, more than any other social force, had provided the necessary glue for binding cultures and nations into successful entities. He even stipulated that war produced moral and noble human behaviors—courage, honor, and sacrifice for the common good—that were absolutely necessary for progressive civilization. Yet war and militarism repelled James. The horrific destructiveness of martial endeavors tilted the balance sheet against war. He feared that modern technological combat might even destroy humankind. But he also suspected that the eradication of war would remove the positive behaviors it produced, thus destroying devotion to duty and sacrifice for the commonwealth. James worried that the simple elimination of war, the dream of many of his pacifist allies, would siphon the energy from modern society. To escape this philosophical paradox James called for a humane substitute for war. As an alternative way of energizing the “stable system of morals and civic honor” that fueled progressive civilizations, James suggested a national devotion to the strenuous life—a different strain of the same miracle cure advocated by Theodore Roosevelt. Like Roosevelt, James believed that the sporting practices of the strenuous life could form culture. But James was also one the leading U.S. anti‐imperialists. He decried Roosevelt's burgeoning American empire. Instead, James envisioned an “American century” much different than Roosevelt's. An American‐inspired global reformation shaped by ideas dedicated to wholesome and pragmatic approaches to human problems was the only “empire” to which James would subscribe. In his philosophy, James endorsed if not the Enlightenment's old empire of reason then at least an empire of common sense and pragmatic ideas. The strenuous life, described by James and Roosevelt as athletic endeavors and illustrated in their political essays by the language of the gymnasium and playing field, nevertheless served starkly different purposes. James believed the strenuous life could prevent war, militarism and imperialism while Roosevelt believed it could prepare the U.S. for inevitable war, military action, and world leadership. While their view of the role of sports in American foreign policy differed radically, Roosevelt and James both viewed sports as a culture‐making tool that could revitalize the American nation. They each offered strenuous sports as antidotes to the sterility and artificiality of modern life. They each believed the physical and mental prowess gained on the playing fields would generate dynamic individuals, strong communities, and a thriving United States. They identified sports as a tool for adapting a modern nation to the fallout of urbanization and industrialization. Sports, they argued, could teach immigrants American civic values and provide natives with a refresher course. Sports and games could revitalize the eroding commitment to public virtue that was threatening turn‐of‐the‐century America. The views of James and Roosevelt illustrate the complexities of American conceptions of sports, culture, and empire. Their conflicts display the contentious visions surrounding the very idea of an “American century.” Most important, Roosevelt concluded that national devotion to sports could guarantee American success in the wars for twentieth‐century global supremacy while James believed that sports could replace war as the most important system for organizing human behavior.