Paper #3

Nicole Tai

Lydia Hearn

EWRT 2 Honors

17 March 2011

Conquering the Pool: American Culture as Reflected by Competitive Swimming

Music blares from the loudspeakers and the crowd cheers wildly as the eight contenders

for the 2010 U.S. ConocoPhillips National Championships in the 200-meter Individual Medley

walk onstage. Although the men don’t deign to acknowledge their audience, they are given a

standing ovation as they take their respective places by the pool deck and remove their

outerwear, beginning a studied routine of jumping jacks, arm swings, and dynamic stretches.

Meanwhile, the announcer begins an enthusiastic roll call over the intercom. “Lane number

one—let’s give it up for… Austin Sarkoff!” he shouts, before launching into a short description

of the swimmer’s career. “Lane number two, from the Hershey Aquatic Club—ladies and

gentlemen, it’s David Nolan!” The crowd cheers, but the loudest screams are reserved for Lanes

Three and Four: Ryan Lochte and Michael Phelps, two world-renowned Olympics veterans who

also happen to be fierce rivals.

Swimming might not be as widely followed a sport as football or basketball, but its

unique competition structure—as well as the fact that Americans (especially males) tend to

dominate in world championships—makes for a good case that swimming represents the

American values of individualism and equal opportunity. In addition, the nature of competitive

swimming creates a venue for Americans to symbolically take control of their environment in a

way that mirrors the mindset of modern capitalism.

In competitive swimming, individual effort is valued more highly than teamwork.

Swimmers from the same aquatic club or even the same nation will often find themselves racing

against their own teammates in an event. (Case in point: Phelps and Lochte both swim for the

USA, but fans are far more likely to remember that Lochte is a rival of Phelps than that they are

part of the same national team.) For each race, the objective is to get the fastest time possible—

no matter who else is in the pool. Moreover, the individual swimmer is almost always

distinguished from his or her team at the professional level. If one swimmer qualifies to compete

at the Olympics or any other national or regional championship, it doesn’t mean that the rest of

the team can attend the same event; each would-be competitor must individually swim a time

fast enough to be able to qualify. This set-up could stand for the American belief that success and

advancement on the career field should not be determined by one’s connections or social class,

but rather through personal effort and hard work.

Competitive swimming also draws many parallels with the ideal of the American dream.

The pool is divided into about a dozen equal segments—clearly demarcated by brightly colored

lane-lines—and each swimmer has his or her own lane for the event. Unlike in other sports, it’s

extremely difficult to cheat by sabotaging another swimmer (except in an event like open

swimming, which takes place in the ocean). A swimmer can only disqualify himself or herself by

not executing the proper technique. The structure of the playing field in competitive swimming

reflects the “American dream” as once expressed by writer Henry Truslow Adams:

that dream of a land in which life should be better and richer and fuller for everyone, with

opportunity for each according to ability or achievement. ... [It is] a dream of social order

in which each man and each woman shall be able to attain to the fullest stature of which

they are innately capable, and be recognized by others for what they are, regardless of the

fortuitous circumstances of birth or position. (qtd. in Library of Congress, American

Memory Fellows Program)

In order to achieve the American dream, the environment should be as fair as possible—that

way, it is clear that whoever rises to the top does so by his or her own ability, not by position.

This mindset is clearly demonstrated in the way the pool is set up for competition.

The same mindset, in both the pool and in America’s capitalistic economy, leads to a

symbolic competition for dominance as described by Darwin’s natural selection theory: those

who are the “fittest,” or best suited for the environment, have the greatest chance of success. In

swimming, competitors are weeded out through semifinal and final matches after the regular

heats have taken place; semifinalists and finalists are determined by the top times. At the national

and international level, this leads to increased attention on the performance of just one or two

swimmers.

Cut back to the scene of the 200 IM finals at the ConocoPhillips National

Championships. Once all the names have been announced, a shrill whistle sounds, signaling the

men to step onto the diving board. A man’s voice says coolly, “Take your marks.” Then the

buzzer sounds, and chlorinated water rains over the deck as the eight dive simultaneously into

the pool. Their bodies become streamlined silhouettes cutting through the water; then, one after

the other, the swimmers break through the surface and begin executing rapid butterfly strokes.

As the race begins, the announcer proclaims, “That’s right, ladies and gentlemen…you’ve got

the two best swimmers in the world… Phelps and Lochte, swimming side by side! Lochte set the

world record last year… he was out there 24.72 [at the 50-meter mark], Phelps is out there

24.76—just four one-hundredths of Lochte’s world-record pace!”

Even though there are typically eight to twelve competitors in the same heat of an event,

the audience (and media commentators) tends to focus on the “big guys,” as seen in the

commentary provided by the announcer at the 200 IM event. Although all eight reached the wall

at the other end of the pool within a narrow time frame, the announcer focused only on the two

who were most likely to win. In addition, the fastest swimmers are traditionally placed in the

middle lanes (generally Lanes Three, Four, and Five), which are considered the best lanes to

swim in. The waves created by swimmers turning at the walls tend to flow back toward the outer

lanes, meaning that the swimmers in Lanes One and Eight are at a further disadvantage.

Conveniently, this placement also allows for a more aesthetically pleasing camera shot once the

top contenders pull ahead during the race. This focus on the biggest names parallels the structure

of capitalism in America: the largest corporations are the most likely to succeed, and therefore

are given the most attention and privileges at the expense of smaller firms. The reality of

competition somewhat distorts the optimism of the American dream, both in the American

economy and the sport of swimming.

Ask any swimmer at the professional, collegiate, or even high school level, and many of

them will tell you that, while they may not necessarily like the pain they endure from sprinting

all-out in a 100-meter freestyle event, they love the feeling of accomplishment that comes from

beating a personal or international record at an event. For many, swimming is all about achieving

things that others consider impossible. Phelps enacted that idea when he won eight gold

medals—a world record in not just swimming but the entire field of sports—at the 2008

Olympics in Beijing. “I wanted to do something nobody ever did,” Phelps said to the New York

Times (Crouse). “This goes hand in hand with my goal of changing swimming… If you dream as

big as you can dream, anything is possible.”

“Competitive swimming is an environment geared towards winning gold at the Olympic

Games,” said swimmer Tyler Clary in Splash, the official publication of USA Swimming (USA

Swimming). “Your career is very finite so you have to take advantage of every opportunity

you’re given.” He went on to say that “[o]f course there’s a huge macho factor [in swimming an

event like the 400 IM]. You’re doing what others can’t.”

This makes sense, considering that the sport of competitive swimming takes place in an

environment unfamiliar to humankind. Water has long served as a natural barrier between

different lands, preventing groups of people from moving past geographic boundaries. Getting

into the water and racing in it figuratively shows that men and women have control over their

fate—not the environment or God.

“When you come out and swim fast times, people realize that it can be done,” Grant

Hackett, a three-time medalist in the 1,500-meter freestyle, said to the New York Times

(Crouse). “You set that bar a bit high and people are going to come with you.” Interestingly, his

comment contradicts Clary’s statement about the “macho factor” in swimming—another

example of the symbolic clash between the American dream and capitalistic competition.

However, there are still many inequalities in the swimming arena. Minority

representation is noticeably lacking on the national-level swimming ranks, presenting a

disturbing image of swimming’s “America”. Swimming is considered a sport for the privileged

at the youth level because participation can require up to $1,000 per child per year. On the other

hand, women have performed almost as well as the men in competitive swimming; despite the

fact that swimming requires athletes to wear body-hugging swimsuits, they haven’t been subject

to as much of the objectification as women in other sports. The focus during a women’s event is

on the fastest time, not on whose body shape is best showcased by her suit (female swimmers

tend to have similar body types to their male counterparts, and they wear minimally-styled

swimsuits so as not to hamper their performance times).

On the last leg of the 200 IM, the crowd’s cheering amplifies in volume as the announcer

shouts, “Lochte’s going to take the lead into the final turn! Phelps is a half-second behind!” All

that can be seen of the swimmers is a trail of white water behind them as they swim furiously

back to the starting place. Lochte wins by half a body length; Phelps takes second, and a

relatively new entry in professional U.S. swimming, Tyler Clary, finishes closely in third. As the

announcer reels off the final times and cameramen swoop into the deck for a closer shot, the two

rivals in Lanes Three and Four hang on to the lane between them and casually clasp hands.