Serena, the US Open, and the Anatomy of a Conflict
My wife and I are fans of professional tennis, so we were watching the Williams-Osaka match when things went completely off the rails, that is, when Serena reacted to a series of umpire's decisions -- some questionable, some not -- by having what can only be described as a meltdown. Even her supporters would have to admit that.
This event spurred a stupendous amount of press and public reaction, much of which I have imbibed. The reactions have mostly been hot takes that either are "for" or "against" Serena. Personally I think it's a real stretch to praise and thank her, as Billie Jean King did, for standing up against sexism in tennis. Whether or not the charge of sexism is true, Serena was completely out of control, and the person most hurt by it was neither her nor the umpire, Carlos Ramos, but her young opponent, Naomi Osaka, who is also a woman of color.
What's most interesting to me is the way all this played out in public, with millions watching. What we had, was the opportunity to see how conflicts escalate. It was so instructive in this regard, classes in conflict analysis and resolution could show this as a case study.
Here are some of my thoughts in this regard.
1. It started with a misunderstanding. Serena was assessed a penalty for coaching on the part of her coach, Patrick Mouratoglou, who was indeed coaching. Apparently Serena didn't even see his gestures. So the penalty seemed unjust to her. However, she knows what the rules are, which is that any coaching at all, received or not, counts as a point penalty. Knowing this, she could have assumed this was the case and reacted with stoicism. She didn't.
2. She reacted as she did because the call touched a nerve, or nerves, relating to resentments she has stored up over many years about what she has perceived to be unjust treatment in professional tennis competition. She has also expressed publicly that she has had concerns about whether she is a good mother, and this call seemed to attack her integrity or self image, which was already on shaky ground. Thus, she wasn't reacting to the call itself, but to many years of frustration and personal concerns about herself. This is why the response was asymmetrical. The thing is, this doesn't make Serena a bad person; we all do this. We are often baffled by a response to something we have said or done, because the reaction is pointed at something much larger or deeper than the matter at hand. It's probably a good idea to assume that when someone has an issue with us, it truly is in many ways not about us.
3. By escalating the situation verbally, Serena probably increased the odds that the umpire was going to dig in his heels. The question is whether the umpire then reacted in ways he wouldn't with men. The jury appears to be out on this. We can't know for certain, though it's plausible, perhaps even likely. Serena can be right about this, while also admitting that the way she handled it makes it difficult for the tennis community to reach consensus here and deal with the sexism that does exist.
4. All of this frustration was compounded when Serena allowed Osaka to break back and in so doing seize the momentum of the match and make her eventual victory likely. The result was a broken racket on Serena's part, which is an automatic penalty. At this point we're nearing what is known as a "cluster." Again, this is all fairly normal. Most competitors have broken a racket or slammed a club at some point. But it's the context that amplified the import here.
5. Now Serena chose -- perhaps chose isn't the right word -- to escalate things verbally even more with Ramos. The result, another penalty, which cost Serena the game and in essence the match.
6. Here's where the umpire's behavior is most questionable. Though he was technically "right" in all his decisions, it is also a matter of gospel in sports that a major sporting event should not be decided by a referee's or an umpire's call. Take that whistle out of your mouth and let them play. The thing is, umps and refs make this mistake all the time, and blow the whistle. In team sports the coach or manager then goes ballistic and get tossed. However, the team can carry on without that person. In tennis it all comes down on the player. After the tournament was over, Djokavic pointed to this as the umpire's big mistake. Discretion is the better part of valor, right?
7. The umpire's decisions here go to debates we have about nature and limits of authority and the extent people should adhere to legalisms. The divided opinion that emerged from the whole debacle relates closely to how people feel about authority. So, again, the opinions are not about the event itself, but about entire worldviews that clash.
8. Could it be that both Serena and Ramos were both right and wrong at the same time? Yes, it can. And in fact, this, quite often, is our lot in life.
This event spurred a stupendous amount of press and public reaction, much of which I have imbibed. The reactions have mostly been hot takes that either are "for" or "against" Serena. Personally I think it's a real stretch to praise and thank her, as Billie Jean King did, for standing up against sexism in tennis. Whether or not the charge of sexism is true, Serena was completely out of control, and the person most hurt by it was neither her nor the umpire, Carlos Ramos, but her young opponent, Naomi Osaka, who is also a woman of color.
What's most interesting to me is the way all this played out in public, with millions watching. What we had, was the opportunity to see how conflicts escalate. It was so instructive in this regard, classes in conflict analysis and resolution could show this as a case study.
Here are some of my thoughts in this regard.
1. It started with a misunderstanding. Serena was assessed a penalty for coaching on the part of her coach, Patrick Mouratoglou, who was indeed coaching. Apparently Serena didn't even see his gestures. So the penalty seemed unjust to her. However, she knows what the rules are, which is that any coaching at all, received or not, counts as a point penalty. Knowing this, she could have assumed this was the case and reacted with stoicism. She didn't.
2. She reacted as she did because the call touched a nerve, or nerves, relating to resentments she has stored up over many years about what she has perceived to be unjust treatment in professional tennis competition. She has also expressed publicly that she has had concerns about whether she is a good mother, and this call seemed to attack her integrity or self image, which was already on shaky ground. Thus, she wasn't reacting to the call itself, but to many years of frustration and personal concerns about herself. This is why the response was asymmetrical. The thing is, this doesn't make Serena a bad person; we all do this. We are often baffled by a response to something we have said or done, because the reaction is pointed at something much larger or deeper than the matter at hand. It's probably a good idea to assume that when someone has an issue with us, it truly is in many ways not about us.
3. By escalating the situation verbally, Serena probably increased the odds that the umpire was going to dig in his heels. The question is whether the umpire then reacted in ways he wouldn't with men. The jury appears to be out on this. We can't know for certain, though it's plausible, perhaps even likely. Serena can be right about this, while also admitting that the way she handled it makes it difficult for the tennis community to reach consensus here and deal with the sexism that does exist.
4. All of this frustration was compounded when Serena allowed Osaka to break back and in so doing seize the momentum of the match and make her eventual victory likely. The result was a broken racket on Serena's part, which is an automatic penalty. At this point we're nearing what is known as a "cluster." Again, this is all fairly normal. Most competitors have broken a racket or slammed a club at some point. But it's the context that amplified the import here.
5. Now Serena chose -- perhaps chose isn't the right word -- to escalate things verbally even more with Ramos. The result, another penalty, which cost Serena the game and in essence the match.
6. Here's where the umpire's behavior is most questionable. Though he was technically "right" in all his decisions, it is also a matter of gospel in sports that a major sporting event should not be decided by a referee's or an umpire's call. Take that whistle out of your mouth and let them play. The thing is, umps and refs make this mistake all the time, and blow the whistle. In team sports the coach or manager then goes ballistic and get tossed. However, the team can carry on without that person. In tennis it all comes down on the player. After the tournament was over, Djokavic pointed to this as the umpire's big mistake. Discretion is the better part of valor, right?
7. The umpire's decisions here go to debates we have about nature and limits of authority and the extent people should adhere to legalisms. The divided opinion that emerged from the whole debacle relates closely to how people feel about authority. So, again, the opinions are not about the event itself, but about entire worldviews that clash.
8. Could it be that both Serena and Ramos were both right and wrong at the same time? Yes, it can. And in fact, this, quite often, is our lot in life.
Comments
Post a Comment