How does the global game of cricket (re)produce the international political phenomenon of British colonialism - G Thompson

Candidate Number: 65165, Unit: POLI31378, Seminar Tutor: Professor Jutta Weldes, Word count: 3497, Chosen Question: How
does the modern global game of cricket reproduce the international political phenomenon of British colonialism?
1
The international political phenomenon of British colonialism (hereafter
‘colonialism’) is reproduced in the modern global game of cricket. This is because
global cricket, to a great extent, reproduces cricket’s conventional ‘colonial
ideology’. This ideology was popularised during colonialism, as it, with the
propagation of cricket in the colonies, comprised an important intellectual facet
of colonialisms’ civilising mission. However, in global cricket, reproduction of
conventional cricket ideology is not monolithic or complete. Incorporation of
cricket’s conventional ideological meanings into the global game faces resistance.
Colonialism’s reproduction is constantly contested. Continual counter-
hegemonic resistance challenges conventional cricket ideology and restrains the
extent to which conventional ‘colonial’ cricket ideology is reproduced within the
global game. However, despite this counter-hegemonic resistance, conventional
‘colonial’ cricket ideology persists in the global game, albeit incompletely,
imperfectly, and in a state of on-going contestation.

I understand both colonial and modern global cricket’s ideologies to be
constructed, and as such, having ‘anti-essentialist ontology and … anti-
foundationalist epistemology’ (Torfing, 2005: 13). While conventional ‘colonial’
cricket ideology may be characterised as a static set of narratives in a roughly
synchronically delineated time period, global cricket’s ideology is maintained
through the real-world articulated narrative of cricket. This understanding of
contemporary global cricket ideology is generated in an on-going iterative
process of ‘disarticulation-articulation’ (Mouffe, 1981) that fixes a temporary
meaning of ‘cricket ideology’ via a meaning-making process of cumulative
iteration (Derrida, 1978). Within this meaning-making process, global cricket
articulates a contested version of conventional cricket ideology, and thus
reproduces colonialism, through this ‘hegemonic’ (Gramsci, 1971) negotiation.

To illustrate precisely how global cricket reproduces colonialism in this paper, I
outline the contestations to conventional cricket ideology that are materialised
in global cricket. Specifically, I discuss the main counter-hegemonic challenges to
conventional cricket ideology, posed by: innovative cricket playing-styles,
proliferation of gamesmanship, and the expansion of new cricket formats. Before
doing so, I set out global cricket as popular culture; assert cricket’s ‘colonial’
conventional ideology; argue cricket’s critical role in psychological colonialism;
characterise cricket in relation to the concept of ‘hegemony’; and set out the
advantages of the English cricketing establishment in the contestations I proceed
to underline.
Popular Culture
Modern global cricket is a form of ‘popular culture’, as it is consumed by a large
mass of the global population. The ‘Indian Premier League’ (hereafter ‘IPL’) and
‘Big Bash League’ cricket leagues comprise two of the ten most attended sports
leagues globally by average match attendance (Barrett, 2016). Cricket boasts the
third most watched sporting event in history, with over a billion viewers (BBC,
2011). It ‘is played on five continents’ (Fletcher, 2011: 29) and is ‘diffused to
most but not all countries with close cultural ties to England’ (Kaufman and
Patterson, 2005: 82).

2
Cricket’s ‘colonial’ ideology
Conventional cricketing ideology has unique ‘values, norms and prejudices’
(Hughson, 2009: 73) derived from the games’ ‘system of ethics and morals’
(Odendaal, 1988: 196). This moral system of cricket is an ‘intrinsic
schizophrenia’, originated in the colonial era, (Nandy, 2000: 97) between the
‘quasi-legal provisions’ of ‘the laws of cricket’, and cricket’s ‘associated
normative expectations’, or the ‘spirit of cricket’ (Holden, 2008: 339).
Conventional values are primarily manifested in the games’ ‘higher order norms’
(Nandy, 2000: 37) or ‘spirit’. This ‘spirit’ is ‘utterly opposed to the … pursuit of
victory at all costs’ (Bourdieu, 1978: 825), and valorises ‘sportsmanship’ (playing
cricket the ‘right’ way). Cricket’s conventional ‘spirit’ values ‘unsporting victory
less than a sporting defeat … as if … success was not the goal of cricket,
sportsmanship was’ (Nandy, 2000: 38). Conventionally, if an action is not in
accordance with this ‘transcendent code of behaviour … [existing] beyond the
[the scope of the] explicit laws of the game’ (Marqusee, 2005: 74), colloquially, it
is ‘just not cricket’.

Cricket’s ‘colonial’ ideology and the colonial ‘civilising mission’
Despite its current mass following, cricket was not always popular culture. The
game and its’ ‘spirit’ originated with gentlemen players before cricket descended
the ‘cultural escalator’ (Hall, 2009: 514), as ‘membership in leading cricket clubs’
became less exclusive (Scalmer, 2007: 433). Cricket was only popularised
globally when imperialists adopted it as a ‘gospel of athleticism’ (Horton, 2001:
106), and its conventional ideological values were used for their ‘civilising
mission’.

The civilising mission was launched to impose ‘cultural control’ (Scalmer, 2007:
435) over the colonised. Conventional cricket ideology was a fundamental finger
on the ‘velvet glove of cultural imperialism’ (Hughson, 2009: 72). Lord Harris,
Governor of Bombay, hailed cricket as ‘not merely a game, but ... a great
educational medium’ (Allen, 2009: 465). Cricket’s ideology, in this era, contained
‘values, norms and prejudices’ that when instilled in the colonised to render
them ‘conducive to … rule’ (Hughson, 2009: 73). These colonial cricketing values
were: obedience to the imposed rules (Fletcher, 2011: 21), restraint (James,
1963: 50), and unquestioning deference to arbitrary authority or ‘bad luck’
(Holden, 2008: 350). In colonialism, cricketing ideology was thus partially
accountable for psychological colonialism, which ‘disfigure[d]’ ‘the past of the
oppressed people’ (Fanon, 2001:169). This colonial creation of psychological
dependence on the colonisers, helped to sustain the colonised ‘marginal to the
West’ (Saïd, 1980: 189). Cricket, as a dominant cultural purveyor of the moral
principles of colonialism, constituted part of the political ‘superstructure’
(Brohm, 1989: 47–48) of colonised societies. As such, it not only disfigured
incumbent moral values but proliferated a certain form of ‘common-sense'
(Parry, 1984: 75) conducive to colonialism’s maintenance. It fulfilled the ‘social
function of legitimating social differences’ (Bourdieu, 1984: 5). Accordingly it
legitimated the inequitable relations of colonialism’s unbalanced capitalist
modes of production and trading affairs.

3
On-going hegemonic incorporation
However, during colonialism, cricket ideology was not ‘merely handed down …
and compliantly absorbed by the local inhabitants of Empire’ (Hughson, 2009:
72). Analogous, I argue that conventional ‘colonial’ cricket ideology is not
monolithically incorporated into the current cricketing ideology of those who
engage with cricket globally. Accordingly it does not constitute current cricket
ideology’s complete meaning. I draw modestly from Gramsci’s argument of
hegemony in my understanding of how modern cricket ideology’s meaning is
generated in its on-going process of its societal incorporation, and thus in
understanding how ‘colonialism’ is reproduced through negotiation. Gramsci’s
concept of hegemony is ‘not the disappearance or destruction of difference … [in
a given incorporation of a societal ideology, but] the articulation of differences
which do not disappear’ (Hall, 1991: 58). The concept of hegemony is congruent
with the overt contestations of the ideology of cricket we observe between the
English cricketing establishment and ex-colonial countries. These overt
contestations are where the English cricketing establishment seeks to maintain
‘common consent’ to the conventional colonial cricket of ideals through a
‘process of (admittedly uneven) [hegemonic] negotiation’ (Rowe, 2004: 102-
103).
The establishment’s advantages
This is ‘a continuing work-in-progress’, in which the English establishment has
‘many advantages’ but does ‘cede ground to … [counter-hegemonic] resistance’
(Rowe, 2004: 103). The English cricketing establishment has quasi-legislative
authority over the ‘laws of the cricket’ via the Marylebone Cricket Club, who have
been self-appointed ‘guardians’ (Holden, 2008: 359) of the game since the
colonial era (Holden, 2008: 360). This allows the English cricket establishment to
assert legislative authority over the ‘laws’ of how cricket may be played, and
thus, to some extent, influence the scope for counter-hegemonic negotiation of
crickets’ core ideology. The International Cricket Council (hereafter ‘ICC’) is the
regulatory body tasked with practically enforcing these rules. The England and
Wales cricket board (hereafter ‘ECB’) are one of the ICC’s ‘Big Three’, having
even possessed ‘veto power’ on all ICC motions till 1992. The regulatory role of
the ICC is the main channel through which the English cricketing establishment
materialise their legislative, and also their regulatory and financial advantages,
to respond to counter-hegemonic resistance against conventional cricket
ideology.
Despite these advantages held by the English, the dominant conventional
ideological meaning of cricket is readily challenged, by instrumental use of
cricket as counter-hegemonic resistance, chiefly by ‘the West Indies and India’
(Holden, 2008: 339). This is because ‘people are not cultural dopes’ (Hall, 1991:
58). Ex-colonies’ participation in cricket is not equivalent to possessing false
consciousness (Marx, 1976) or blind ‘ideological conformism’ (Lazarus, 1999:
164).
‘Playing-style’ counter-hegemonic resistance
I argue that ex-colonies deploy the ‘cultural practice of the dominant group … as
a site of … [counter-hegemonic] resistance’ (Malcolm and Gemmell, 2015: 113),

4
by articulating an ‘ironic mimicry’ (Bhabha, 1994) of conventional ‘ideal cricket’.
The ‘resistance involved in … [this] ironic cricket’ (Malcolm and Gemmell, 2015:
114) is a playing-style of ex-colonial cricket that flouts conventional crickets’
accentuated importance on batting with a ‘perpendicular bat [, hitting] along the
line of the ball’ (Malcolm and Gemmell, 2015: 114). Ex-colonised nations’ cricket
has established a new batting-style of ‘hitting across the line’. In doing so, West
Indian batsmen play with distinct ‘flamboyance’ (Burton, 1998: 97), and Indian
batsmen have deviated so much from colonial ‘ideal cricket’ that they arguably
stylistically look ‘more Indian than English’ (Sandiford and Stoddart, 1998: 117).

Although it may not be ‘recognised by the [ex-]colonisers’ (Bhabha, 1994), this
resistance, ‘oppositional to that of the oppressor’s style … is ultimately anti-
hegemonic’ (Hughson, 2009: 73). These new playing-styles have ‘changed the
game’ (Scalmer, 2007: 438). New practices such as ‘hitting across the line’, which
do not preclude competitive success, are a fundamental deviation from
conventional ‘colonial’ playing-styles that have previously been asserted as
compulsory for victory. In adopting these alternative playing-styles nations have
enjoyed ‘the compensatory pleasure of defeating their bigger brothers’ (Hedetoft
2003: 71–2), but as part of an ‘effective reply to colonial exploitation’ (Rumford,
2007: 204).

Importantly for the negotiated meaning of cricket ideology, beating ‘the master
at his own game’ (Tiffin, 1998: 365), using a new playing orthodoxy, challenges
cricket’s value system. A system that is built upon the avowed necessity of
emulating the dominant playing orthodoxies of conventional, colonially-
originated, ‘ideal cricket’. This is because a change in nature of how global cricket
is played consequently changes the ideology it articulates. These playing-styles
challenge what ‘is cricket’. Employment of these alternative approaches to
cricket articulate alternative values to those of conventional ‘ideal cricket’, these
include: creativity, aggression, strength, and cunning. This articulation
represents ‘new confidence and will for cultural [re]construction’ (Pennycook,
1994: 67) of conventional cricket ideology by the ex-colonies, and thus a
challenge to the extent that colonialism is reproduced in global cricket.
First reactionary reassertion of hegemonic ‘colonial’ cricketing ideology
However, the conventional values of orthodoxy of ‘ideal cricket’ are powerfully
reasserted by the English cricketing establishment, through a suppression of the
articulated resistance represented by these counter-hegemonic playing styles.
The most fundamental way that this occurs is the prevention of expansion of
major cricket competitions to more national teams, so that minimal nations may
articulate alternative values to those of conventional ‘ideal cricket’, by
showcasing bespoke national cricketing orthodoxies on a widely observed stage.
This suppression is evidenced by the ICC’s failure to implement the suggestion
that ‘ICC events [be made] open to all, based on a fair qualification system’
(Woolf, 2012: 11). For example, currently only ten nations are permitted to
formally partake in international test cricket and there is no qualification
arrangement for new teams. Due to this, the counter-hegemonic resistance
expressed by alternative playing-styles is precluded for all but a small minority
of nations.

5

Furthermore, even the resistance which exists is dynamically stifled. This occurs
as the sum of the actualised ‘iterative, phenomenological–hermeneutic sense-
making’ (Schwartz-Shea and Yanow, 2012: 91) made by all ex-colonial cricket
fans’ observations of counter-hegemonic playing-styles, is limited by the English
establishment. This occurs via the establishment’s influence over ICC decisions
regarding the coverage of national cricket events. This limitation ensues in a
process whereby prospective ‘readers’ of these resistant styles are ‘blacked out’
from ‘consumption of their [nationalist] cultural event[s]’ (Beckles, 1999a: 261).
The ICC, led by ECB, has ‘blacked out’ these readers from events by restricting
access to the physical sporting events and also their mediated representation
through TV. Physical access to events has been restricted by privileged
availability of tickets to live matches for ex-colonising nations’ fans. Tickets are
sold ahead of matches to corporate clients in the ex-colonial global financial
‘core’, and those that remain are often prohibitively expensively priced for ex-
colonial fans (Beckles, 1999b: 38). TV access has been constrained by the
prohibitively expensive pricing of official cricket TV subscriptions. For example,
News Corporation have previously enforced this sort of licensing, after buying
the TV rights for the 2003 and 2007 ICC World Cups from the ICC.

Moreover, although not directly implemented by the ECB or ICC, the counter-
hegemonic resistance posed by alternative playing-styles is suppressed as a
result of the financial incentives available in private trans-national cricketing
leagues. International-level cricketers are ‘lured away [from their nations] to the
core states’, in a ‘trade of sports talent from ‘peripheral’ countries to ‘core’
countries’ (Maguire, 1999: 19). ‘National loyalty’ is ‘bypassed’ ‘in the name of
media entertainment and fast economic benefits for players’ (Appadurai, 2005:
16). One such example of cricketers acting as ‘apolitical, transnational, global
professional[s]’ (Scalmer, 2007: 440) is the Bangladeshi cricket side, who in
2008 were almost disbanded when ‘12 of its international players’ departed to
play in a private league (Malcolm and Gemmell, 2015: 267), subordinating
‘nationalist concerns’ (Appadurai 2005: 108). Due to this transfer of players,
articulations of ‘playing-style’ counter-hegemonic resistance are less coherent as
they are less frequently expressed uniformly, and thus unambiguously, within
consistent national teams.
‘Gamesmanship’ counter-hegemonic resistance
‘Gamesmanship’ represents another counter-hegemonic form of resistance to
dominant ‘colonial cricket’ ideology. Conventional ‘colonial’ cricket ideological
doctrine valorises ‘sportsmanship’ over even the instrumental purpose of
victory. Contrary to this, ex-colonies’ national teams resistantly articulate
gamesmanship, a ‘win at all costs’ mentality, in their cricket (O’Brien Thompson,
1998: 177). This is where cricketers are ‘not prepared to go beyond the rules …
[but are] prepared to exploit the rules to their fullest extent in the interests of
winning … [and win] at any reasonable cost’ (Kingwell, 1995, 366), while
obeying ‘the letter of the law’ (Lazarus, 1999: 174).

This instrumental purpose is incentivised by the motivation to beat the ex-
colonial master but also due to ‘unprecedented pecuniary reward[s]’ (Midgett

6
2003, 254), such as the $20million prize-money of the Stanford Super Series.
This gamesmanship exploits the ‘spirit’ of the game, going as close as possible to,
without breaking, cricket’s formal laws against: intimidatory play, ‘chucking’,
‘ball-tampering’, and ‘time-wasting’ (Rumford, 2007: 213).

For example, during the ‘West Indian post-1974 dominance of world cricket’
(Malcolm, 2001: 271), the team used a brand of aggressive fast bowling that
abused the scope of the ‘spirit’ of the game, in relation to intimidatory play and
time-wasting. They used ‘bouncers’, a form of bowling designed ‘to be
intimidating, but [not] … to [actually] try and hurt people’ (BBC, 2014). A tactic
that fell just short of breaking the contemporaneous ‘intimidatory play’ formal
cricketing law. They also fielded four immensely exuberant ‘all out’ fast bowlers
who, to enable their bowling style, exploited the maximum bowling-time
permitted by the contemporaneous cricketing law regarding ‘time wasting’. In
using these professional instrumentalist tactics, and dominating games as a
result, the West Indies articulated oppositional ‘ideal’ cricket tactics to the
conventional set of ideal tactics, which informally respect the ‘spirit’ of the game.
Gamesmanship, as such, poses counter-hegemonic resistance to modern
maintenance of conventional ideology cricket ideology in the global game, by
flouting convention successfully. Accordingly, this threat posed to convention
also challenges the extent of colonialisms’ reproduction, instantiated in
conventional cricket ideology.
Second reactionary reassertion of hegemonic ‘colonial’ cricketing ideology
This resistance through contravention of conventional cricket’s ‘unspoken codes’
of sportsmanship (Holden, 2009: 645) has given rise to retaliatory action by the
English cricketing establishment. In their privileged legislative role, enacted
through the ICC, they have invoked changes to the laws of cricket. Some of
cricket’s ‘conventions’ have been displaced ‘by rigid rules’ (Lazarus, 1999: 174)
for the purpose of outlawing the most pervasive gamesmanship tactics that
enable victory by flouting cricket’s colonial ‘spirit’.

For example, introduced laws restricting the West Indies’ bowling style
concluded the teams’ dominance. These were the 1992 ICC ‘Minor over rate
offence 2.5.2’ that precluded the low rate of bowling necessary for ‘all out’ fast
bowling, and the 1991 ‘one bouncer per over per batsman rule’ that virtually
disqualified use of ‘bouncers’. These changes were justified on the basis that they
would make cricket ‘more exciting’ again, through prevention of continuation of
the West Indies’ effective gamesmanship (Malcolm, 2001: 271). Sandiford and
Stoddart (1998: 132) claim that the laws were ‘designed to deprive … [the West
Indies] of power and influence’. In the case of the West Indies, the English
establishment have used legislative authority to prevent continuation of new,
alternative, ‘ideal’ cricket tactics that challenge conventional ‘cricket ideology’.
Through this procedure, as new gamesmanship tactics’ authorship continues,
conventional cricket ideology is reasserted.
‘New formats’’ counter-hegemonic resistance
The penultimate form of counter-hegemonic resistance I underline is manifested
in the newly popularised shorter-length cricket formats of ‘T20’ and ‘ODI’. These

7
formats are ‘more a paying entertainment than a game’ (Nandy, 2000: 41), and
have been derided by some as ‘pyjama cricket’ (Malcolm and Gemmell, 2015:
265). They embody an ‘unashamed commercialism’ that is entirely ‘antithetical
to what’ may be taken conventionally ‘to be cricket’ (Marqusee, 2005: 15). In
these formats, cricket is ‘moulded and packaged for [profit-making in]
broadcast’, and ‘old Victorian civilities … associated with cricket’ are unheeded
(Scalmer, 2007: 440). During colonialism, cricket was ‘shielded from the market
by aristocratic and imperial privileges’ (Marqusee, 2005: 256), with the
popularisation of these formats, this is evidently no longer wholly the case.

The markets’ enactment of these commercial formats has caused neglect for the
conventional colonial cricketing values of stoicism, restraint, and compliance.
The market demands cricket to be ‘more obviously thrilling, combative and
decisive’ (Nandy, 2000: 3) due to the ‘scale of the earnings to be made from … the
international game’ (Woolf, 2012: 4) that are reliant on the game being view-
friendly. The aforementioned conventional values are not enshrined within these
newly created formats because the formats are ‘arbitrary … [and are defined] by
spur-of-the-moment mistakes and accidents rather than the long maturation of a
complex balance of collective strengths and weaknesses’ (Marqusee, 2005: 149),
that initially articulated and gave rise to conventional cricketing ideologies’
associative values. The market’s pressure is applied by the TV and gambling
industries. The IPL is ‘cricket’s biggest money-spinner of all time’ (Malcolm and
Gemmell, 2015: 265) having earned around ‘$1bn in broadcasting revenues’ in
its first year (Mustafa, 2013: 77). Potential profits like these incentivise
proliferation of T20 and ODI, which meet ‘the requirements of television’
(Williams, 2003: 105). Indeed, the US$360billion gambling industry relies on a
high frequency of ‘match events’, and binary wins/losses for customers to bet on.
The more frequent occurrence of these ‘events’ in T20 and ODI has led to betting
companies sponsoring these formats’ proliferation, as opposed to test cricket,
where a draw is ‘the most likely outcome’ (Malcolm, Gemmell, and Mehta, 2009:
436) and match ‘events’ are infrequent.
Third reactionary reassertion of hegemonic ‘colonial’ cricketing ideology
The recent trend, particularly amongst ‘Indian capitalists’, to ‘aggressive[ly]’
seize ‘the potential of cricket for commercial purposes’ (Appadurai, 2005: 16) by
popularising new cricketing formats, has inflicted considerable harm on
conventional understandings of what constitutes ‘cricket’. Subsequently it has
impaired articulation of conventional cricketing ideology, and if unfettered,
potentially further injury. Nonetheless, the English cricketing establishment
currently predominantly rebuts this resistance posed by new commercialised
cricket formats (Scalmer, 2007: 440). They refuse to fully endorse and thus
partially boycott the formats. The ECB was the only national board not to have
allowed players to join international T20 leagues by 2008 (Malcolm and
Gemmell, 2015: 268). Indeed, in 2016 the ECB continue to deliberately prevent
full participation of English county players in the IPL by scheduling some of the
English domestic cricket season during the IPL season (Malcolm and Gemmell,
2015: 268). This has meant that English players haven’t been able to ‘take the
format too seriously’ (Malcolm and Gemmell, 2015: 267) if seeking international
test cricket careers. Participation in the domestic county championship is a

8
necessary precursor for international selection.
Conclusion
To conclude, the current ideology in the global game of cricket is dominantly
articulated as conventional ‘colonial’ cricket ideology, but counter-hegemonic
resistance challenges this ideology’s ascendancy. As such, the modern global
game of cricket reproduces colonialism through a process of on-going hegemonic
contestation. This resistance is manifested in alternative cricket styles,
gamesmanship, and new cricket formats. However, the ‘unwillingness of the
English establishment … to ‘cede their dominance over the game’ (Mustafa, 2013:
67) and their ability to largely refuse to do so, due to their incumbent legislative,
regulatory and commercial privileges, has meant this resistance is
predominantly countered. Although conventional colonial ‘ideological protocols
of cricket … [are] rebelled against and’ are to some extent ‘refashioned’ by
contemporary counter-hegemonic resistance, they are ‘not overthrown’
(Lazarus, 1999: 163). Colonialism is thus meaningfully reproduced by the global
game of cricket through the contested negotiation I have outlined.

9
Bibliography:

Allen, D. (2009) South African cricket and British imperialism 1870-1910. Sport
in Society, 12(4), pp. 464–481.
Appadurai, A. (2005) Modernity at large: cultural dimensions of globalization.
New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Barrett, C. (2016) Big bash league jumps into top 10 of most attended sports
leagues in the world. Available at: www.smh.com.au/sport/cricket/big-bash-
league-jumps-into-top-10-of-most-attended-sports-leagues-in-the-world-
20160110-gm2w8z.html#ixzz48TWb2sGI [Accessed: 16 May 2016].
BBC. (2011) Cup semi grips India and Pakistan. Available at:
www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-12903246 [Accessed: 16 May 2016].
BBC. (2014) Phillip Hughes death: Australia’s Sean Abbott ‘holding up well’.
Available at: www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/30228827 [Accessed: 16 May 2016].
Beckles, H. (1997) West Indian Nationhood and Cricket in the 21st Century. The
Integrationist Caribbean. Available at: www.theintegrationistcaribbean.org/wp-
content/uploads/2014/09/Hilary-Beckles-West-Indian-Nationhood-and-
Cricket.pdf [Accessed: 16 May 2016].
Beckles, H. (1999a) Whose game is it anyway? West Indies cricket and post-
colonial cultural globalism. In Skelton, T. and Allen, T. (eds) Culture and Global
Change. Routledge, London. pp. 251-259.
Beckles, H. (1999b) The development of West Indies cricket volume two: The age
of nationalism. United Kingdom: Pluto Press.
Bhabha, H. K. (1994) The location of culture. New York: Taylor and Francis.
Bourdieu, P. (1978) Sport and social class. Social Science Information, 17, pp.
819-840.
Bourdieu, P. (1984) Distinction: A social critique of the judgment of taste.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Brohm, J-M. (1989) Sport: a prison of measured time. United Kingdom: Pluto
Press.
Burton, R. D E. (1995) Chapter 5: Cricket, carnival and street culture in the
Caribbean. In Beckles, H. and Stoddart, B. (eds) Liberation cricket: West Indies
cricket culture. United Kingdom: Manchester University Press. pp. 89-106.
Derrida, J. (1978) Writing and difference. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Fanon, F. (2001) The Wretched of the Earth (Penguin Modern Classics). United
Kingdom: Penguin Books Ltd.
Fletcher, T. (2011) The making of English cricket cultures: empire, globalization
and (post) colonialism. Sport in Society, 14(1), pp. 17–36.
Gramsci, A. (1971) Selections from the Prison Notebooks of Antonio Gramsci. New
York: International Publishers.
Hall, S. (1991) Old and new ethnicities. In Smith, A. (eds) Culture, globalization
and the world-system. London: Macmillan.
Hall, S. (2009) The rediscovery of ideology: the return of the repressed in media
studies. In Storey, J. (eds) Cultural Theory and Popular Culture: A Reader.
Harlow: Pearson Education.
Hedetoft, U. (2003) The global turn: national encounters with the world. Aalborg:
Aalborg University Press.
Holden, G. (2008) World cricket as a postcolonial international society: IR meets
the history of sport. Global Society, 22(3), pp. 337–368.

10
Holden, R. (2009) International cricket: the hegemony of commerce, the decline of
government interest and the end of morality?. Sport in Society, 12(4-5), pp. 643–
656.
Horton, P. A. (2001) Complex creolization: the evolution of modern sport in
Singapore. In Mangan, J. A. (eds) Europe, Sport World. Shaping Global Societies.
London: Frank Cass, 2001. pp. 77-104.
Hughson, J. (2009) The middle class, colonialism and the making of sport. Sport in
Society, 12(1), pp. 69-84.
James, C. L. R. (1963) Beyond a boundary. United Kingdom: Hutchinson.
Kaufman, J. and Patterson, O. (2005) Cross-national cultural diffusion: the
global spread of cricket. American Sociological Review, 70(1), pp. 82–110.
Kingwell, M. (1995) Keeping a straight bat: cricket, civility, and post-colonialism.
In Cudjoe, S. and Cain, W. E. (eds) C. L. R. James: his intellectual legacies.
Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press. pp. 359-87.
Lazarus, N. (1999) Nationalism and cultural practice in the postcolonial world.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Maguire, J. A. (1999) Global sport: identities, societies, civilizations. Cambridge:
Polity Press.
Malcolm, D. and Gemmell, J. (2015) The changing face of cricket: from imperial
to global game. United Kingdom: Routledge.
Malcolm, D. (2001) ‘Its not Cricket’: colonial legacies and contemporary
inequalities. The Journal of Historical Sociology, 14(3), pp. 253–275.
Malcolm, D., Gemmell, J., and Mehta, N. (2009) Cricket and modernity:
international and interdisciplinary perspectives on the study of the Imperial Game.
Sport in Society, 12(4-5), pp. 431–446.
Marqusee, M. (2005) Anyone but England: an outsider looks at English cricket.
United Kingdom: Aurum Press.
Marx, K. (1976) Contribution to the critique of political economy. Peking: Foreign
Languages Press.
Midgett, D. (2003) Cricket and calypso: cultural representation and social history
in the West Indies. Culture, Sport, Society, 6(2-3), pp. 239-268.
Mouffe, C. (1981) Hegemony and ideology in Gramsci. In Bennett, T., Mercer, C.,
and Woolacott, J. (eds) Culture, Ideology and Social Process. Milton Keynes: Open
University Press
Mustafa, F. (2013) Cricket and globalization: global processes and the imperial
game. Journal of Global History: London School of Economics and Political
Science, 8(8), pp. 318–341.
Nandy, A. (2000) The tao of cricket. New York: Oxford University Press.
O’Brien Thompson, L. (1995) Chapter 10: How cricket is West Indian cricket?
Class, racial, and color conflict. In Beckles, H. and Stoddart, B. Liberation cricket:
West Indies cricket culture. United Kingdom: Manchester University Press. pp.
165–178.
Odendaal, A. (1988) South Africa’s black Victorians: sport and society in South
Africa in the nineteenth century. In Mangan, J. A. (eds) Pleasure, profit,
proselytism: British culture and sport at home and abroad 1700–1914. London:
Frank Cass. pp. 193–214.
Parry, S. J. (1984) Hegemony and Sport. Journal of the Philosophy of Sport, 10,
pp. 71-83.
Pennycook, A. (1994) The cultural politics of English as an international

11
language. New York: Longman Publishing Group.
Rowe, D. (2004) Antonio Gramsci: sport, hegemony and the
national-popular. In Giulianotti, R. (eds) Sport and modern social theorists.
London: Macmillan. pp. 97–110.
Rumford, C. (2007) More than a game: globalization and the post-westernization
of world cricket. Global Networks, 7(2), pp. 202–214.
Saïd, E. W. (1980) Orientalism: western concepts of the orient. New York:
Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Sandiford, K. A. P. and Stoddart, B. S. (1998) The imperial game: cricket, culture
and society. Manchester: St Martin’s Press.
Scalmer, S. (2007) Cricket, imperialism, and class domination. Working USA,
10(4), pp. 431–442.
Schwartz-Shea, P. and Yanow, D. (2012) Interpretive research design: Concepts
and processes. United Kingdom: Routledge.
Tiffin, H. (1995) Chapter 21: cricket, literature and the politics of de-colonisation:
the case of C. L. R. James. In Beckles, H. and Stoddart, B. Liberation cricket: West
Indies cricket culture. United Kingdom: Manchester University Press. pp. 356-
369.
Torfing, J. (2005) Discourse theory: achievements, arguments, and challenges. In
Howarth, D. and Torfing, J. (eds) Discourse theory in European politics: identity,
policy and governance. Basingstoke: Palgrave. pp. 1-32.
Williams, J. (2003) “Paki cheats!" postcolonial tensions in England—Pakistan
cricket. In Bale, J. and Cronin, M. (eds) Sport and postcolonialism. Oxford: Berg.
pp. 91-105.
Woolf, H. (2012) An independent governance review of the international cricket
council an independent governance review of the International Cricket Council.
Play The Game. Available at:
www.playthegame.org/fileadmin/documents/Good_governance_reports/DOC_6
E43A6280C922ABC51A9C6AB55AA58E1_1328155148580_481.pdf [Accessed:
16 May 2016].

How does the global game of cricket (re)produce the international political phenomenon of British colonialism - G Thompson

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (6)

Similar to How does the global game of cricket (re)produce the international political phenomenon of British colonialism - G Thompson

Similar to How does the global game of cricket (re)produce the international political phenomenon of British colonialism - G Thompson (20)

How does the global game of cricket (re)produce the international political phenomenon of British colonialism - G Thompson