Military Discourse Community Essay

Elevated by unsurpassed boxing skills and athletic prowess, Muhammad Ali’s iconic status is decorated with an Olympic gold medal, the title of heavyweight champion, and global stardom. However, although his exploits in the boxing ring are praiseworthy, his legacy transcends sports through his civil disobedience. Ali, using his domineering persona and allure to openly criticize racism and militarism speaks to the subversive power of his discourse – it invites us to make a connection between the mass culture of boxing ring violence and civil disobedience to work against the ideological state apparatus and the inconspicuous oppression it entails. Thus, Ali played a pivotal role in radicalizing the civil rights movement in both the black freedom struggle & the antiwar movement through the boxing ring. His fights were more than simply bouts against his adversaries in the ring - with each hook and jab he gave and received, he showcased his ability to evoke a form of public counter-discourse that challenged & resisted the American government.

Quintana states that the 60s raised a sociopolitical climate that was underscored by the civil rights movement and rampant racism in the United States (Quintana, 177). Ali mobilized a strategic discourse of blackness to bolster his fight against racism & his anti-war stance, thereby exemplifying the sociopolitical fight inherent in the shift from nonviolent civil disobedience to militant actions that were present at the time (Harrison, 2). This transformed Ali into what both Harrison and Quintana refer to as a “lightning rod”, a symbol whose discourse as a boxer enables us to tussle with the irony of violence in nonviolent civil disobedience (Harrison, 8). This contradiction is borne out of Ali’s nonviolent activism, which is a strategic use of violence to spur nonviolent social justice. Boxing was the symbolism that spurred nonviolent social change through the implication of violence outside of the ring, providing a counter-discourse against the cultural ideological state apparatus, and subsequently creating political conditions to foster social justice.

Save your time!
We can take care of your essay

• Proper editing and formatting
• Free revision, title page, and bibliography
• Flexible prices and money-back guarantee

Place an order

According to Foucault, discourse neither acts against nor upholds power. Though it can mobilize acts of power, it can also be a “point of resistance” for rhetoric that is contrary to certain institutionalized norms through counter-discourse (Foucault, 352). Ali illustrates this as a symbol of black power & anti-Vietnam war sentiment, and his subsequent counter-discourse elucidates America’s racism & militarism. Ali’s mode of thinking challenged & resisted a longstanding institutionalized discourse through the medium of boxing where historically, boxing has been a sport for marginalized groups – the first being American slaves. Boxing became the first sport to be desegregated so that boxing promoters who were predominantly white could continue to exploit black people and make money from the deep-seated racism in America (Zirin, 54). This speaks to the hierarchical nature of mass culture, where boxing was promoted and distributed for profit to white people. The boxing ring is akin to what Hall refers to as the arena of consent & resistance, wherein popular (mass) culture is the battlefield in which the “struggle for and against a culture of the powerful is engaged” (Hall, 487).

Ironically, however, these fight promoters created a space where black boxers like Ali could destroy white supremacist ideas of society & hierarchy. The sport of boxing became the conduit for expressing anger directed at a society that was deeply racist – a discourse Ali used by going beyond resistance, mobilizing the boxing ring as a vehicle for social justice and change (Zirin, 57). Ali’s rejection of oppression was influential, whether its form was legal in fighting his military draft, significant in his acceptance of Islam as his religion, or symbolic through his name change from Cassius Clay to Muhammad Ali (Zirin, 63). Even though his behavior was nonviolent, it gave the impression of the threat of violence because it challenged norms, changed expectations, and engendered fear. As Malcolm X stated, “You might see these negroes who believe in nonviolence and mistake us for one of them and put your hands on us thinking that we are going to turn the other cheek – and we’ll put you to death just like that” (Zirin, 60). However, Ali’s belief in nonviolence was at odds with ideologies like the one Malcolm X purported; when he suggested African Americans form rifle clubs, Ali was staunchly against it, citing his belief in nonviolence as a key tenet to social change (Harrison, 2).

Because Ali reminded Americans of the implications of war and the violence the ideological state apparatus allowed for in America’s racist & class based political system, it is necessary to outline the role of the ideological state apparatus in showcasing the ways racism and militarism operated in the 1960s, and how this disciplined Ali. The ideological state apparatus, according to Althusser, functions primarily through ideology, particularly one perpetuated by a ruling class, and involves private institutions, including but not limited to churches, parties, families, and culture (Althusser, 337). The ISA consists of social institutions that are dispersed (they do not work together) and enforce the ideology of the ruling class through informal methods. These utilize social and cultural power rather than legal power and work to influence the people within a society in different ways. Yet Ali’s domineering identity as a boxer in American culture and politics distinctively enabled him to manifest signs that showcased the contradictions of the ISA and the necessity of civil disobedience in not only revealing the ways it influences & persuades people, for the means of attaining justice.

In this sense, Ali was disciplined in his fight against the United States' attempt to conscript him into the war efforts against Vietnam (Quintana, 180). His decision to resist the draft came down to the fact that the draft during the Vietnam War was a racist endeavor, citing it as a “white man's war” and stating, “no Vietcong ever called me a nigger” (Harrison, 6). Ali understood that the United States government was ultimately trying to co-opt his influential image as by enlisting him, the government could further rally support for the war. Although the military could be considered as part of the repressive state apparatus, Althusser states that the military functions by ideology to perpetuate the power & control that is used by the RSA, and that the ISA and RSA are thus intertwined. Often, this is the way the ideological state apparatus operates – it masks the ideology of the ruling class, and thus the ruling class's agenda is discreet (Althusser, 337). Because the ISA functions predominantly through ideology, the government needed to discipline Ali by silencing him and forcing him to submit to their desires - his significance led the United States Congress to extend the draft four more years and incriminated the desecration of the flag. His insubordination cost the United States government $2 billion a month and the death of 100 soldiers daily due to the draft extension, making his fight against racism & militarism “visible, audible, attractive, and fearless” (Zirin, 67).

When Ali refused to accept his draft orders as a conscientious objector in April 1967, he was indicted by a Federal District Court, sentenced to five years in prison, had his passport revoked, and was fined $10,000 (Harrison, 5). His claims of being a conscientious objector stemmed from the fact that he was a minister in the Nation of Islam who spent most of his time conducting ministerial activities, and secondly, his Islamic faith would have made his war efforts a “holy war”, which could only be conducted by an Islamic country (Harrison, 4). This was contested by the Kentucky Selective Service appeal board and continuously denied (Quintana, 181), and though an appeal kept him out of prison, his heavyweight title was rescinded, and he was banned from boxing (Harrison, 5). Despite the consequences, Ali did not falter - he willingly gave away his title, fame, and wealth to defy the submissiveness expected in the American political system, which sought to oppress marginalized groups that Ali simultaneously symbolized and mobilized (Quintana, 186). In so doing, Ali bolstered opposition to the war by informing Americans and showcased the government’s attempts to hamper the black power organization, thus bringing to light the inconspicuous agenda of the ideological state apparatus (Harrison, 4).

Ali, after appealing his 5-year sentence to the Supreme Court, ultimately won his fight against the government in Clay v. United States, thereby abrogating his sentence (Zirin, 69). He aided in setting the standards that a draft registrant must uphold to meet the requirements as a conscientious objector, establishing that objections must be rooted in religious, moral, or ethical beliefs, must be consciously opposed to all wars, and that the objection must be earnest (Quintana, 193). In highlighting racism and its connection to the war efforts, Ali stated ‘‘If I thought goin’ to war would bring freedom, justice, and equality to 22 million Negroes, they wouldn’t have to draft me, I’d join tomorrow” (Zirin, 66). In this sense, Ali utilized the power of discourse in analyzing the race-based oppression the ISA peddled, whilst using the power of counter-discourse to intercede against it. He mobilized his “lightning rod” symbol to harness the power that boxing gave him, outside of the ring. In Ali’s avoidance of conscription to the war efforts, he readily conscripted into the black freedom struggle.

Ali’s success as a legal-political activist was encumbered by his religious beliefs, the color of his skin, and the persuasive nature of the ideological state apparatus. However, his discourse shed light on the ways the ISA operates inconspicuously, informing fellow Americans about the racialized nature of the war, and ultimately leading to legal revisions in what constitutes a conscientious objector. Though his legal case was riddled with hindrances from various actors such as the Kentucky Appeal Board, the United States Congress, and the Federal District Court, his struggle signifies the ability of civil disobedience as a radicalized mode of social justice, and the human body as a medium of social argumentation in a public, televised, and marketed setting – the boxing ring. This is significant because it showcases the power of the boxing ring as one that speaks to morality and social reform, empowered by both the mass culture that sport commands and justice found in legal courts.

References

1. Andres F. Quintana, “Muhammad Ali: The Greatest in Court,” Marquette Sports Law Review 18:1 (2007): 171-204
2. Benjamin T. Harrison, “The Muhammad Ali Draft Case and Public Debate on the Vietnam War,” Peace Research 33:2 (2001): 69-86
3. Dave Zirin, “Rumble, Young Man, Rumble: Muhammad Ali and the 1960s,” What’s My Name Fool: Sports and Resistance in the United States (Chicago: Haymarket Books, 2005): 53-72