When the Wayne Rooney scandal first broke - the original scandal, the sleeping with prostitutes scandal, I spent a little time trying to think of a defence, a defence beyond the "It doesn't affect his football, so it doesn't affect the way I view him," which seemed a bit of a cop-out. Anyway I eventually thought of the defence but one thing after another interrupted my resolution to write it and next thing you know he's demanding a transfer and acting like a proper prick.
What has made me return to the defence is, obviously, Rooney's return to the team to a "rapturous" reception. All the papers highlight the great reception he got. I wasn't at the game, so perhaps I'm wrong, perhaps over the TV it came across differently than in the ground. But to me it came across as half-hearted - a kind of begrudging "well, he is our player, we have to cheer and chant his name - don't we?" from a few sections of the ground -rather than a fully-fledged hero's welcome from all corners.
I based my defence of Rooney on the fact that he'd been sleeping with a prostitute, rather than having an affair. In this I argued, he was positing money as a way to avoid emotional attachment - he wasn't actually cheating on Coleen emotionally - it was a simple consumer transaction. In this I was following the lead of Jacques Lacan, who in his Seminar on "The Purloined Letter" argues than psychoanalysts avoid becoming involved in their patient's problems by virtue of the exchange of money:
I bring this back up because it also seems to explain his relationship with us - he doesn't have to care about the club because he's getting paid - there is no emotional attachment there - he is simply a prostitute.
Does this excuse his behaviour? In a way, it does, but only if we, as fans, on the other side of the equation, treat him in the same way - no emotional ties, he's a prostitute, plying his trade for us, giving us momentary pleasure, but afterwards, forgotten. My point being if Rooney wants to make a load of money off us, good luck to him, but we really shouldn't be applauding him for it, or chanting his name - he is after all just doing his job.
Perhaps, if he does his job well, he might end up as Julia Roberts to our Richard Gere (it's a long time since I've seen Pretty Woman so I can only hope this analogy works...), we'll fall in love with him again and persuade him to love us too and renounce prostitution, but until then - let's keep our relationship purely professional.
What has made me return to the defence is, obviously, Rooney's return to the team to a "rapturous" reception. All the papers highlight the great reception he got. I wasn't at the game, so perhaps I'm wrong, perhaps over the TV it came across differently than in the ground. But to me it came across as half-hearted - a kind of begrudging "well, he is our player, we have to cheer and chant his name - don't we?" from a few sections of the ground -rather than a fully-fledged hero's welcome from all corners.
I based my defence of Rooney on the fact that he'd been sleeping with a prostitute, rather than having an affair. In this I argued, he was positing money as a way to avoid emotional attachment - he wasn't actually cheating on Coleen emotionally - it was a simple consumer transaction. In this I was following the lead of Jacques Lacan, who in his Seminar on "The Purloined Letter" argues than psychoanalysts avoid becoming involved in their patient's problems by virtue of the exchange of money:
Is it not the responsibility their transference entails that we neutralize by equating it with the signifier that most thoroughly annihilates every signification - namely, money?Slavoj Zizek extends this to all exchanges:
In market exchange ... the act of exchange does not lead to a permanent social bond, but merely to a momentary exchange between atomized individuals who, immediately afterwards, return to their solitude. ... From this standpoint, money can be defined as the means which enables us to have contacts with others without entering into proper relations with them.And thus Rooney is better than John Terry et al. because he put the barrier of money between him and his "other woman."
I bring this back up because it also seems to explain his relationship with us - he doesn't have to care about the club because he's getting paid - there is no emotional attachment there - he is simply a prostitute.
Does this excuse his behaviour? In a way, it does, but only if we, as fans, on the other side of the equation, treat him in the same way - no emotional ties, he's a prostitute, plying his trade for us, giving us momentary pleasure, but afterwards, forgotten. My point being if Rooney wants to make a load of money off us, good luck to him, but we really shouldn't be applauding him for it, or chanting his name - he is after all just doing his job.
Perhaps, if he does his job well, he might end up as Julia Roberts to our Richard Gere (it's a long time since I've seen Pretty Woman so I can only hope this analogy works...), we'll fall in love with him again and persuade him to love us too and renounce prostitution, but until then - let's keep our relationship purely professional.
Posts
