![]()
Well-known existentialist and sporting commentator Jean-Paul
Sartre was once heard to say, 'In football everything is
complicated by the presence of the other team'. And they say geeks
and jocks don't mix.
His phrasing got me thinking; we in the queer community are
often the proverbial 'other team'. In the case of football, our
presence seems to be a rather complicated issue, or, to put it more
precisely, our lack of presence. As top-flight football in the UK
is continually reprimanded for its lack of 'out' players, I wonder:
do we have an obligation as individuals to be open about our sexual
orientation in the workplace?
To a take a utilitarian stance, we should be pioneers for both
queers-present and queers-yet-to-come. Utilitarianism, as advocated
by such thinking-greats as Jeremy Bentham and John Stewart Mill
would have the good of the individual subordinated to the greater
good of society, or in sci-fi terms, 'the needs of the many
outweigh the needs of the few'.
In relation to our question, perhaps a gay footballer has an
obligation to not only other and future gay footballers but is also
in a prime position to help the queer struggle in general. Maybe
they are morally bound to publicly acknowledge their sexuality in
order to continue the fight for equality and
understanding? Had it not been for the activism of
queers-past, the LGBT community probably wouldn't enjoy the
freedoms it does today.
Then of course comes the counter argument: an individual is
primarily obliged to themselves and should do all they can to
secure their own flourishing. Aristotle stipulated that the highest
good for a human is the full utilisation of their strengths. On
this understanding, whilst it's nice to lend a hand, we should
prioritise what's in our own interest and helps fulfil our own
ambitions.
An extreme version of this argument would suggest that overly
compassionate behaviour is preoccupied with weakness whereas a
worthy individual is concerned with greatness. To act in a way that
is detrimental to our own success could be indicative of
nihilism.
In some professions, coming out could be tantamount to
professional suicide. Not only is altruistic behaviour not morally
admirable but perhaps deplorable. In the case of our hypothetical
footballer and dozens ofothers, should they compromise what they
have put their time, energy and skill into for the sake of what is
essentially the time, energy and skill of others?
Since 'you don't have to be gay to work here but it helps' could
be the company slogan where I work, I'm probably not the best
person to adjudicate between the two; as John Stewart Mill would
say, a competent judge has to have adequate experience of the
subject. But perhaps if, theoretically, we are at our best when we
are fully appreciated then perhaps we can't expect to feel fully
validated whilst a significant part of ourselves remains
hidden.
Whilst it's important to fulfil our own goals, in the long
run,denying or failing to stipulate our sexuality could be very
much an 'own-goal'.
