Monday, 23 May 2011

Toxic Subjects


More early-'90s footy consumer porn.

I can't help thinking there's something Parnell-esque about this current "bringing low" of Giggs. It reminds me of that Zizek thing about the enforcement of "human, all too human" characteristics on people, the removal of a public figure from their collective significance by subjecting them to ridicule for private misdemeanours.

For what it's worth, Giggs's public "meaning" - I reckon - was that he communicated a sort of anachronistic model of permanency, poise, and quiet articulacy, just as the corporate interests in the modern game furiously attempted to get rid of all those qualities, to drain the game of value and turn footballers into risible, self-interested monsters.

Now Giggs is just another one of those monsters, and who wins? Certainly not the fans.

And the fact that Cameron was apparently in favour of revealing his identity is perhaps telling, isn't it?

3 comments:

W. Kasper said...

Cameron probably wanted to take the heat away from any friends using injunctions. That's probably the level of concern at cabinet meetings these days: "Lord X needs a favour. It's a national priority! Call Rupert."

champ said...

Interesting coming together of the Cameron/Mail traditionalist(?) view of the 'family' and it's importance, with the celebrity tittle-tattle devouring 'guilty-pleasure' of the guardianistas that eventually ended in the rat being smoked out.

Left and right united to expose another adulterous kernt that thought he could buy his way out of bother.

Gareth Barry next please!

W. Kasper said...

Was it just me, or wasn't there "a leading A.V. campaigner" having several affairs? Not hearing much about them lately.

And why all this 'campaigning' to go after footy players, when there's always been loads of injunctions and writs protecting corporations?