Elite Hatred and the Enforced Knee-Taking of the Aware ‘Class’

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I do not usually give this positive of a review.  This is an important paper that addresses political policy that has adversely affected sport in the World.  The paper will be controversial to many, but I believe the authors have validly argued their point and the point needs to be made.  The references are not formatted consistently.  This is a problem that exists today especially if references are collected and inserted.  Please review your references and make sure that they are consistent by book, journal, or web site. 

Author Response

The references have been re-formatted. There are also a few additional passages that have been added related to Race Defaced, sections in Third Wave anti-racism, New Politics (Arendt) section, the start of The deplorables, the Abstract has also changed and a short connclusion added.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a lively, interesting and engaging idea for a ‘think piece’.  It presents a particular view and seeks to make some theoretical and conceptual connections. The evidence is marshalled intelligently, and a wide range of sources has been consulted.

To enhance the manuscript there are some substantive considerations and some matters of detail.

I don’t think that the 'golden thread' that binds together the entire discussion is as coherent or explicit as it might be. This is something that might be addressed with some careful sign-posting of the argument – starting in the abstract and then in the introductory section. For example, the abstract captures the essence of what follows in the full paper, but not in a way that enables the reader to follow the logical flow of the overall argument. It is not clear from the abstract what kind of paper this i.e. philosophical, empirical. Data are cited in the paper (i.e. Google Ngrams) but not captured in the abstract.

There are two other substantive issues:  

- Structurally, I think it would help with the clarity of the discussion if section 6 (The Deplorables) was divided with two sections - the second being a conclusion or summary of the argument presented.

- Importantly, the 'take home message' from this paper should be more than a re-statement of the argument presented by Dixon et al. (2022).

 

More specifically, there are conceptual leaps in the discussion that would benefit from some elaboration:

The connection in section 2 between new elites and loss of class-based football (the letter is asserted, not argued) to Let's Kick Racism out of Football.

173-179 – the narrative moves too quickly through the new class to the morality of protecting the vulnerable.

184-189 – It has not been explained (though it could be), why the political and moral vacuity of technocratic governance came to rely on moralising around racism (rather than anything else).

203-205 – I'm unclear what purpose is intended or benefit derived from the old Testament anecdote.

206-217 – anti-racism as understanding and awareness to ritual gestures (taking the knee).

There are some points raised that would benefit from further elaboration / explanation – especially for an international audience:
- Was football in England really 'transformed (23)? If so, how?

- Explain that Gareth Southgate was the senior England men's team manager. (415)

- Is it being suggested that ‘taking the knee' is only “to some extent” linked to the actions of Colin Kaepernick? If so, from when else has it been derived?

- How is Lineker's remark tautological (495-496)?

Presentation

23         Black Lives Matter (BLM) protests

90         the Anywhere being...

103       For the purposes of this paper, we will

137       groups': often, identity-based

196-205             Is this a quotation ? If. so, it should be indented.

273-275             Delete final 'not'.

486       'The chief sportswriter...' or 'chief sportswriter for the Guardian, Barney Ronay, argued... '

522-526             This quotation is Evans et al. (as citation indicates) and is from p. 188.

577       ff Dixon reference should be Dixon et al.

References

BBC, 2020 and BBC, 2020 – should be a and b in the list and cited in the text

Gibbons 2021 – should be listed in alphabetical order

705       Nattrass

Author Response

All of the issues raised have been addressed. The abstract has been changed and a short conclusion added. Clarification has been given to the page number questions raised; a section Race defaced has been added to help explain race issues raised, and small sections have been added to Third Wave anti-racism, New Politics (Arendt point), and The Deplorables, again to make the general discussion clearer. Thank you for your time and effort reviewing this.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

This resubmitted paper has the same virtues of being interesting and engaging as the previous draft – I will not repeat the positive comments in this review, though they all apply.

There were 3 substantive issues raised in my previous review.

(1) The structural point re. The Deplorables has been addressed.

(2) The 'take-home' message in the conclusion is now more than a re-statement of Dixon et al. (2022). The emphasis of the overall argument seems to place Gareth Southgate more centrally as a key actor, and this is asserted robustly but not argued persuasively.

(3) There is a new section, 'Race defaced', but this does not seem (to me, at least) to help with the overall coherence of the article.

Some of the specific points have also been' addressed by removing the cause for concern raised by me and others with explanation / elaboration.

A new point has emerged from the material that has been added to the previous draft. Is there a risk of 'false universalism' in' generalising about booing and rejection of taking the knee? If further changes were considered necessary, it would be worth considering this amongst them.

In relation to the new material:

9-10     Either 'or not' or 'or not' is unnecessary.

155-156            Noun (significance) and verb (are) agreement.

229       McWhorter (2021) is not 30 years after Lasch (1995).

306       The reference is to McWhorter, but this should be explicit.

504       Gareth Southgate was the manager of the senior England men's team.

519       Hyter should be Hytner (as in the references)

746       Who else has argued that 'educating yourself' is a form of self-actualisation? And if it's the author's own argument that's being advanced, on what basis?

774       Dixon et al. (2022)

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

As a matter of style, I find some of the sentences to be long and/or complicated (e.g., 160-164, 181-186, 267-270). Mindful that some of the readers of the article may not have English as their first language, a thorough copy-edit for simplicity and clarity in the writing would be a useful exercise.

 

Author Response

In reverse order: I have changed the complicated sentences, shortened them and hopefully made them clearer.

I have addressed all of the 'In relation to new material' points and taken out the self actualisation point.

I have gotten rid of the Race Defaced section but kept the opening and closing paragraphs (which now sit at the start and end of the other sections). I have kept these paragraphs to help link the elites section to the issue of anti racism and to open the discussion about modern anti-racism respectively.

I have changed the conclusion and it now acts as more of a summary and an attempt to link some of the wider theoretical and political-sociological points to the discussion about knee taking. I have also suggested some areas where further research could be developed in terms of the new elites.

I think this makes it a better paper. Thank you for your time.

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I will not repeat earlier comments on the merits of the manuscript - they are all still present and have been strengthened by some of the editing that has been undertaken.

My key reservation previously was that the overall coherence of the argument was not as 'tight' or explicit as it might have been. The re-drafted conclusion addresses this effectively and is an engaging way to summarise in a thought-provoking and interesting way.

I appreciate the effort and constructive way that the author has addressed comments on previous drafts. I think the paper has been enhanced as a result.