Phillips 1

Cody Phillips AMS 101 Emma Benetendi 3 March 2015

Baseball and American Exceptionalism To create a baseball suitable for major league play, a carefully-rounded core or rubber

center is wrapped with up to a mile of thin yarn, covered in two carefully cut white pieces of

cowhide, stitched together with two hundred and sixteen individual red stitches, and intricately

lettered in royal blue. Millions of the best-made baseballs are selected every year by Major

League Baseball for use in its 2,430 regular season baseball games. Only the best will do. The

intricacy of a baseball’s construction and the patriotism of its color scheme certainly demonstrate

the importance of this game in American society, but the complexity represented by this object

certainly doesn’t stop at its design. Although baseball carries the title of “America’s pastime”

and historically has played an important piece in creating unity and establishing American

exceptionalism, it’s place in American identity has been clouded by a history of exclusion and

lack of access.

In his piece “American Exceptionalism Revisited,” Daniel T. Rodgers discusses the

history of American exceptionalism, as driven by cultural identifiers, social norms, and a shared

sense of national identity. This identity has largely been fashioned in contrast to the rest of the

world, as exceptionalist nations thrive on separating themselves from norms of “everywhere

else,” because by definition, “an exception is a deviation from the rule” (23). Therefore, all

aspects of American society that build into the establishment of an exceptionalist identity create

a sense of unity by defining themselves apart from others. As Rodgers, puts it, “the same acts

that generate a ‘we’ also generate a ‘them’” (23). This, in many ways, is the strength of baseball

as a national symbol and national game. By nature of it being a competition between two distinct

teams, baseball creates a sense of “we” versus “them” that brings individuals together around a

Phillips 2

central goal. People from all races, classes, backgrounds and creeds come together at every MLB

game, united by their commitment to a specific “we” and by their dislike for a specific “them.”

Besides providing common ground for coalition building, which can lead to a shared sense of

identity beyond merely a team, baseball provides opportunities for unification around a national

understanding of “we” versus “them.” One can see this in action at the beginning of every

baseball game across the nation, when every individual—fan, player, umpire, coach—rises and

stands to face the greatest symbol of American identity, the American flag, as the national

anthem rings out across the stadium. This moment clearly demonstrates the greater “we” that is

at play here. Baseball provides common ground for national identification by effectively

bringing people into this collective “we.” This is especially the case for individuals in American

society who for social or political reasons have been cast as “outsiders.” Particularly, recent

immigrants, who Rodgers says “become migrants with complex and multiple destinations and

complex and multiple identities” (36), can find acceptance and identity in this exceptionalist idea

of a collective “we.” Coming from a background of such difference and mixed identities,

immigrants benefit greatly from being able to rally around one central identifier like baseball.

For at least a few hours in an afternoon, Americans from all backgrounds and walks of life can

come together to share a uniquely American experience.

This unity of experience and connection to a national “we” is most easily demonstrated

by the September 21, 2001 baseball game between the New York Mets and Atlanta Braves held

at Shea Stadium in New York. Ten days earlier on September 11, 2001, American security and

identity had been rocked by the terrorist attacks in New York City. This game was the first major

sporting event to occur after the tragic events. Although historically bitter rivals, the Braves,

Mets and their fans came together on this night united around a strong national identity. The

Phillips 3

game provided common ground for pursuing a sense of normalcy, while also pointing to a

stronger national tie, a stronger identity than any individual or local allegiances. Ultimately, this

game served as a celebration of America in the face of an affront to this identity by outsiders. By

coming together around a shared love of baseball, every American could draw strength from

being able to say, “’we’ are stronger than ‘them.’”

The nationalist sentiment that baseball engenders, Benedict Anderson writes in Imagined

Communities, is more complex even than this, as it is largely imagined because “the members of

even the smallest nation will never know most of their fellow-members” (Anderson 15). Because

the millions of Americans experience what it means to be an American in millions of different

ways, they are never able to share these experiences with the majority of their national brothers

and sisters. Nationalist sentiments, images and motifs, therefore, serve as essential elements to

provide a shared sense of identity, because “regardless of the actual inequality and exploitation

that may prevail in each, the nation is always conceived as a deep, horizontal comradeship” (16).

Yet, the inequalities that have prevailed for most of baseball’s history cloud it’s ability to serve

as a truly unifying national symbol, as baseball as an institution worked to exclude a vast portion

of American society from being able to share in this sense of national identity via systematic

segregation. Rather than creating a national exceptionalism, baseball has a history of promoting

racial exceptionalism. Since it’s organization and institutionalization in the 1860s, Major League

Baseball and its predecessor organizations worked to keep baseball a white man’s game by

excluding African-Americans from participating in any of its organized events. Black players

had to form their own teams in the Negro League in order to play high-level baseball until World

War II, when a shortage of baseball players encouraged Branch Rickey of the Brooklyn Dodgers

to break the color barrier in baseball by signing Jackie Robinson in 1946. Such exclusion rings

Phillips 4

consistent with Rodgers definition of exceptionalist thought as he states, “exceptionalist ways of

imaginatively constructing the nation all radically simplify the world outside…they stamp it with

an inverted projection of the imagined national self” (44). By pursuing racial exceptionalism and

defining baseball as a white man’s game for the majority of its history, white Americans created

an in-group, a “we,” by defining African-Americans as unworthy and athletically inferior. This

creation of an identity around an imagined superiority enabled the white majority who had

created baseball to retain control and define American baseball in white terms.

Although baseball has become a significantly more inclusive national organization in the

21st century, its standing as a national symbol of American exceptionalism is stained by decades

of exclusion. Although MLB teams reflected the American population significantly better in

2015 than in previous years (with a player composition of 29.3% Latino, 8.3% African-

American, 1.2% Asian and 58.8% white), baseball continues to struggle with the issues of

diversity and inclusion (Bloom “Sports Business News”). Black Americans continue to spurn

baseball for other sports and international players continue to struggle with problems related to

assimilation and acceptance. Therefore, in order to effectively function in its capacity to

stimulate a sense of shared identity and community, baseball must continue to fight racial or

class exceptionalism and pursue a more inclusive American exceptionalism.

Phillips 5

Works Cited

Bloom, Howard. "Sports Business News." 2015 Major League Baseball Racial and Gender

Report Card. Sports Business News, 15 Apr. 2015. Web. 02 Mar. 2016.

http://www.sportsbusinessnews.com/node/26907

Rodgers, Daniel T. “American Exceptionalism Revisited,” Raritan, 2004. 21-47.

Anderson, Benedict. “Concepts and Definitions,” Imagined Communities: Reflections on the

Origin and Spread of Nationalism. London: Verson, 1983. 5-8.