A Critique of Violence - The UFC
Lawler v MacDonald II (2015)
The above image is, for me, the most compelling representation of violence in the world today. The image is of a Mixed Martial Arts (MMA) contest from 2015, depicting a Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) welterweight title bout. This particular UFC event had a live crowd of over 16,000 and earned over 1 million pay-per-view buys, highlighting the widespread appeal of MMA. This essay will analyse and discuss the reasoning behind my prior statement regarding the compelling nature of the image for representing contemporary violence. Ultimately, this image represents the blurring between the reality of physical violence and the curated images of violence disseminated in societies via literature, films, television and combat sports. This blurring poses significant ethical, moral, and political questions to individuals both as consumers and victims of violence. This essay is structured in the following way. Firstly, a brief history of combat sports and the emergence of modern MMA. Secondly, the subjectivity surrounding debates on defining violence will be identified and analysed. Thirdly, how violence has become a part of the spectacle that increasingly dominates contemporary societies. Fourthly, an in-depth analysis of the dangers of violence’s place within the spectacle for wider society. And finally, how MMA can be used to foster peace through sacrificial violence.
MMA is the product of an increasingly globalised world. All human civilisations have some experience with combat sports and there are currently around 170 recognised martial arts today, with countless other unrecognised. However, MMA stands alone in terms of the variety of techniques permitted during contests. Despite various MMA organisations existing globally, the core rules remain fairly consistent. The roots of MMA stem from 648 BC with Pankration featuring at the 33rd Olympiad (Buse, 2006). Pankration (‘all-powerful’) allowed the blending of boxing and wrestling to develop into freestyle combat contests. Over millennia, societies have developed unique combat sports for a multitude of reasons including entertainment and fitness. MMA today is a by-product of an increasingly interconnected and interdependent world that enables competition between different geographically and historically disparate techniques (Andreasson & Johansson, 2018). MMA, therefore, is the “embodiment of globalised sport and physical culture” (Andreasson & Johansson, 2018).
The above image commands attention for its visual depiction of violence and the wider implications that can be inducted from further analysis. This image depicts two professional fighters, Robbie Lawler and Rory MacDonald, engaged in an MMA bout. These men engaged in an organised and regulated fight for 21 minutes until MacDonald could continue no longer, suffering a technical knockout. This picture is taken during MacDonald’s descent to the mat having sustained numerous injuries including a broken nose and foot. This image commands our attention for two reasons. Firstly, it shows the physical aspect of fighting in great detail; blood, sweat, pain, and transient hypertrophy. And secondly, this violent exchange occurred in an organised setting for the entertainment of millions of spectators and monetary gain. Gladiator-style violence conducted in a developed societal setting appears paradoxical. The reduction in and condemnation of violence has been a hallmark of human progress following World War II (WWII). The contemporary period is the least violent in recorded history (Pinker, 2007) but the above picture epitomises the central position of violence within the human experience. The USA is currently one of, if not, the most advanced nation-state. The USA has been responsible for putting humanity on the Moon, forging an immense economy that pulled millions from poverty, and created a polio vaccine amongst countless other contributions to the betterment of humanity. However, the premier MMA organisation, the UFC, was founded in the US in 1993. Despite the ‘progress’ towards the elimination of violence from society, particularly in the Western world, violence continues to flourish.
Violence is a highly contentious issue with debate ranging from its definition to causes. Defining violence remains an ongoing and subjective process. The World Health Organisation’s (WHO) definition of violence is “the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, that either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment or deprivation” (WHO, 2002). This definition provides a comprehensive view of how violence can take many different forms and cause different results. However, this definition is arguably too inclusive and, therefore, fails to provide precision when defining exactly what constitutes violence. Debates surrounding the causes of violence also continue to rage. Some argue that humans have a biological predisposition towards violence as a result of evolutionary processes (Dart, 1961). Contrastingly, others argue that violence is the result of the environment in which humans have created over time and in which we now live (Ortega y Gasset, 1961). Whether humans have a genetic predisposition to violence or if violence is learned is an open and complex debate. These ongoing debates highlight how violence remains a complex and evolving topic. Nonetheless, violence remains a key aspect of the human experience that demands study.
This image is important because it demonstrates the intermingling of violence, capitalism and technology. In The Society of the Spectacle (1994, pp. ?), Debord argued that “in societies where modern conditions of production prevail, all of life presents itself as an immense accumulation of spectacles. Everything that was directly lived has moved away into representation”. The ‘spectacle’ is Debord’s label for the everyday manifestation of capitalist-driven phenomena such as television, film, and advertisement. The spectacle, therefore, substitutes reality with the “contemplation of the spectacle” as ‘being’ is replaced with ‘having’ and ‘having’ is replaced with ‘appearing’ (Debord, 1994). The “autocratic reign of the market economy” utilises these phenomena in order to distract and pacify the masses (Debord, 1994). It is worth noting that Debord initially theorised two types of spectacle: the concentrated and the diffuse. The concentrated reflects the totalitarianism based upon political power seen in particular societies such as Nazi Germany (Debord, 1994). And the diffuse refers to the totalitarian bureaucracy of the free market, capitalist Western societies like the USA (Debord, 1994). However, in his later work Debord (1998) synthesised both types into the integrated spectacle. The integrated spectacle has no central source of authority and has marked nearly all socially produced behaviour and objects (Debord, 1998).
Building upon Debord’s work, Baudrillard introduced simulation to explain the erosion of reality in contemporary societies. Reality is replaced with signs, symbols and models over time as the human experience morphs into a simulation of reality. Nonetheless, individuals continue to long for the ‘real’ and this is where MMA flourishes. In a time of relative non-violence, especially in developed countries like the US, individuals crave ‘real’ experiences, including violent ones. The current demand for combat sports is both a cause and consequence of violence’s central place within the human experience. MMA organisations in pursuit of profits market their competitions as both regulated and civilised, while simultaneously emphasising the very ‘real’ nature of the violence that occurs. MMA fight cards epitomise the blurring of reality and the imaginary; the reality of the participants' actions contrasts with the rules and regulations surrounding each contest. For example, the above image shows the real physical consequences of MMA bouts but also their carefully crafted nature. The rules of contests have been altered over time for the purpose of heightening the ‘right type’ of violence. Following its initial success, the UFC experienced issues as participants adapted their fighting styles in pursuit of success. Consequently, fights became increasingly wrestling based and lacked the spectacular violence of striking and knockouts which audiences craved, particularly in the US (Hirose & Pih, 2009). To overcome these ‘issues’ the UFC altered certain rules (a round system) and introduced cash prizes of $50,000 to incentivise fighters to engage in more entertaining violence. MMA is, therefore, designed to produce a heightened reality suitable for consumption by increasingly desensitised audiences seeking to escape the mundaneness of everyday life. Ultimately, MMA is the fastest growing sport in the world because it produces “a form of heightened reality or hyperviolence that forces human bodily interaction into a kind of cultural choreography of dramatic confrontation” (Downey, 2014).
The commodification of violence poses potential negative consequences outside of MMA. Building upon Debord’s work, Evans and Giroux (2015) argue that the commodification of violence leads to its sensationalisation and normalisation within an environment of militarism - the emphasis on strong military power. Evans and Giroux’s work is an important step in identifying and analysing how the spectacle of violence creates an environment in which individuals experience pleasure from violence while feeling incapable of challenging these developments. Furthermore, as the boundary between real and mediated violence becomes permeable and less significant, individuals and societies are potentially at risk of backsliding into greater violence. Multiple studies have identified links between the consumption of combat sports and increased ‘real world’ violence. Philips (1983) showed that heavyweight championship boxing fights led to increased homicides, especially if highly publicised. Furthermore, ‘MMA connoisseurs’ view and advertise MMA as an ‘aesthetic, technical and informative physical contest’ (Brett, 2017). The consequences of the aestheticisation of violence are important. Although aestheticisation seems harmless to MMA ‘insiders’, the social and political consequences could prove harmful “if this aesthetic principle permeates beyond the octagon” (Brett, 2017).
Political figures globally have capitalised upon the spectacle of society to pursue certain political aims. Within the spectacle, the commodification and aestheticisation of MMA’s violence has been co-opted by political figures globally in order to craft a particular public image. Public perception is a key component of political success. Ontologically human beings are highly visual by nature; from prehistoric paintings to ‘selfies’, humans use images in order to comprehend the world around them. Consequently, political parties, movements and figures are deeply concerned with curating a particular public image. Nonetheless, public images are not monolithic and universal but are simultaneously individual and collective. For example, an individual may view a particular politician as inept and corrupt whereas many others hold opposing perceptions. In the build up to the 2016 US presidential election, Trump and Clinton battled to create public images that would result in their electoral victory. One interpretation of Trump’s public image was one of a successful businessman bent on clearing ‘the swamp’ of corruption and inefficiency that Washington DC and American politics more generally epitomised. However, more importantly for this essay, Trump has and continues to carefully brand himself as a strongman and leading a vanguard against the so-called ‘radical left’. A significant part of this image is a result of his relationship with MMA, more specifically the UFC. Following the acquisition of the UFC by Dana White and the Fertitta brothers in 2001, Trump has been increasingly intertwined with the organisation. For example, Trump arranged for the first couple of UFC events to take place at his hotel/casino and a number of prominent fighters have been outspoken supporters of Trump. The use of MMA for political means is not limited to Trump, with many political figures becoming involved in MMA and combat sports more generally, for example, Chechnya leader Ramzan Kadyrov. These leaders associate with MMA in order to craft their image as radiating strength and power. Social media exacerbates image creation, with MMA organisations and politicians alike using platforms to present themselves to the public. Trump’s rise to political power was fuelled by social media platforms (Morales et al, 2021). Social media exemplifies Debord’s spectacle with users substituting reality for appearance or image (Briziarelli & Armano, 2017). The spectacle of society enables political figures, like Trump and Kadyrov, to create particular public images for their own political objectives with the violence of MMA used as a tool used by figures to curate a particular hyper-masculine public image.
The politicisation of MMA’s spectacle of violence within the wider spectacle of society poses risks to physical reality. Trumpism has been categorised as representing a new form of fascism, with the older components of fascism being “recycled, modified, and updated” (Giroux, 2021). “Trumpism is a mix of a capacious authoritarian ideology, a right-wing propaganda machine, and a fascist ethos” (Giroux, 2021). The risks posed to reality by contemporary forms of fascism are severe. For example, the 2021 Capitol Riots in the US exemplified how Trump’s lies, use of language and veneration of violence can escape the spectacle and explode into the ‘real world’. Giroux (2021) cites the Capitol Riots as “another example that the United States no longer lives in the shadow of authoritarianism and has tipped over into the abyss”. Following his electoral loss in the 2020 presidential election, Trump called upon his rally crowd to express themselves through violence (Pilkington, 2021). Trump successfully tapped into, exacerbated and unleashed the growing discontent amongst millions of Americans - 74 million people voted for Trump in 2020 (Gessen, 2020). The causes of this discontent are debatable and difficult to accurately pinpoint. However, Campbell (2018) cites the decades-long trends in the US economy, ideology, race relations and partisanship as the macro-causes of the palpable discontent within the American populace. Trump utilises the key fascist notion of friend-enemy distinction (Schmitt, 1932) while encouraging supporters to express their discontent through action and violence. Violence offers people definitive winners and losers. In the increasingly grey world of politics, violence offers people a sense of definitiveness and realness that appears to be lost as societies move further into the realm of spectacle and simulation.
The above image highlights the complexities and nuance of violence’s role within the human experience. Attempting to identify, summarise and analyse the violence encountered in the contemporary political moment is futile. This is for a multitude of reasons such as defining a contemporary political moment and what constitutes violence itself. However, the above image and analysis situates the violence humans continue to encounter within the spectacle of society that is becoming increasingly all encompassing through the advancement and proliferation of technology. Despite the steady decline in violence globally, particularly in more developed countries, technology enables violence to be spectacularised for an increasingly global audience. Violence’s place within the spectacle is both a cause and consequence of its aestheticisation and commodification. The film industry and combat sports epitomise these concurrent processes. Violence is aestheticised to increase the tolerance of audiences and therefore, to increase consumption. In line with the work of Evans and Giroux (2015), the dangers of violence’s aestheticisation and commodification are profound as individuals and societies renegotiate their understanding and relationship with violence. Individuals increasingly sacrifice their moral and ethical codes in the constant pursuit of arousal and stimulation. MMA can therefore be interpreted as a microcosm for these processes. The general decline in violence has opened a market for its aestheticisation and commodification. The curation of violence for mass consumption is driving the renegotiation of violence’s place within the human experience on both micro and macro levels globally. Ultimately, what the end point, if one exists, of this renegotiation is frightening. However, if the spectacularised violence from across the globe is to provide any indication of the results of fluctuations in our moral and ethical positions concerning violence, they would appear negative.
The violence of MMA may provide positive benefits to individuals and societies. MMA can be viewed as a form of sacrificial violence in service of maintaining public order. Girard (1972, pp. 8) believed sacrifice “serves to protect the entire community from its own violence; it prompts the entire community to choose victims outside itself”. If left unappeased, violence will accumulate within the community until it consumes everyone, so “the role of sacrifice is to stem this rising tide of indiscriminate substitutions and redirect violence into 'proper' channels” (Girard, 1972, pp. 10). Girard thought that sacrifice can exist in many different forms but they all contain a unifying factor - the position of the sacrificed as “exterior or marginal individuals, incapable of establishing or sharing the social bonds that link the rest of the inhabitants” (Girard, 1972, pp. 12). Sacrificial victims have varied over time and space, for example, ranging from slaves to kings (Girard, 1972). The rise of nation-states and religion’s decline within European societies following God’s death (Nietzsche, 1882), ushered in new sacrificial victims - soldiers. The development of the tactics and technology of modern warfare has reduced the presence of pitched battles with large casualties. These societies, therefore, required new sacrificial victims to control violence. Combat sports athletes, therefore, may represent a modern iteration of sacrificial victims. MMA athletes voluntarily agree to engage in extremely violent contests, which serves to isolate them as suitable for sacrifice. Through the organised and contained violence of MMA contests, societies may keep widespread violence in check.
MMA provides the most compelling contemporary representation of violence within the spectacle of society. This essay has identified, explained, and analysed how violence has become central to the spectacle of society in pursuit of satisfying the demands of consumers and capitalists alike. A single UFC event can earn the organisation millions of dollars while satisfying the demands of millions of spectators. The blurring of real and simulated violence within MMA occurs through numerous mechanisms. For example, monetary fight bonuses are used as motivation for fighters to engage in the ‘correct’ type of violence such as seeking to knockout opponents using striking techniques. This blurring poses untold dangers to the wider world as violence is both aestheticised and normalised. Consumers may increasingly compromise their moral and ethical positions concerning violence in pursuit of arousal and stimulation; with evidence showing increased violence following highly publicised combat sport events. More importantly, the co-optation of MMA by political figures poses a greater threat as politicians, like Trump and Kadyrov, who associate with MMA organisations and competitors use these links as another weapon in their political arsenals that espouse many fascist features - like the veneration of violence and friend/enemy distinctions. However, the violence of MMA is not wholly negative. The voluntary sacrifice of MMA competitors potentially controls the violence within societies and allows this violence to manifest itself within the correct space and time. Interpreting the choreographed violence of MMA as a form of contemporary sacrifice highlights how the problem of violence remains morally and ethically ambiguous.
References:
Enquire for more information
