I could not help expressing my opinion on the attention Octopus Paul managed to draw during the World Cup and after. Many were those, and this time round not only Maltese, who referred to this creature’s score predictions during the tournament. Besides, lately, Octopus Paul also found itself on Facebook. I have realised this, since, while scrolling on the main page I encountered what Octopus Paul predicted for some friends in my list.
Anyway, the debate on Octopus Paul’s correct “predictions” was particularly heated after it once again guessed the final match’s score. Indeed, several people referred to the octopus on blogs, through text messages and it also managed to make it to newspaper articles.
Personally, I think it is a matter of coincidence or, rather, a gimmick intended to deviate attention from more serious matters or even a way how to raise maximum audience and boost football gambling.
Other animals tried to make it to the World Cup prediction charts. I have heard of at least a parrot and a crocodile. But, like anything else, it’s a matter of luck and marketing because only Paul seems to have made it to the top.
But what really made me look deeper into this matter is the fact that, although in today’s life we are fully taken up by the process of rationalisation, yet fairy tales, magic, unpredictable puzzles and conspiracy theories still fascinate us. The question is: Have we become so rational in our thinking that we suddenly become spellbound when we become aware of something “irrational”? And do we still think it is a matter of luck rather than of logic in many things?
The 21st century is definitely characterised by a high level of rationalisation, inherited from the post-modern era of the 20th century. A social and thoughtful evolution that was elaborated upon by German sociologist Max Weber, who singled out rationalisation as the prevailing mode of action in post-modern societies, underlying the transformations of Western societies’ institutions, governments, businesses and the educational process.
In our everyday journey, rationalisation is expressible in a number of easily indefinable characteristics. Some examples:
1) calculability (like some years back we did not use mobile phones but now we also check the multi-media connectability before purchasing the devise).
2) Efficiency (as, for example, fast food restaurants with their main success dependent on their efficient minimum service package).
3) Predictability (where, in the case of Malta, many of those who are 60 years or over are likely to have been given birth at home with few scientific/technological interventions during the whole maternity process. Contrastingly, today, most of the mothers during pregnancy carry out regular tests, including ultra-sound and 4D tests. Besides, it has become convenient to know the sex of the newborn before birth, with the fitting excuse that parents can in this way customise the newborn’s room before birth. In a way, one does not blame the parents for carrying out as many tests as possible as we have become captivated with being able to predict, to plan and control).
4) Replacing humans’ active use of their brain with technology (the calculator, the computer and a chip in every domestic appliance to minimise human intervention and human errors are classical examples).
5) Control (control over uncertainties; in our homes we are installing intercoms with cameras when, again, some years back in Malta people used to keep the door key in the keyhole).
6) A series of irrational consequences with less space for improvising, for imagination and the magical. Examples include certain adverts and a number of political speeches, which excel in defying most rules of rationalisation.
This rationalisation backlash was explained by Weber as the progressive “disenchantment” with religious ideas and the practice of magic, coupled with the spread of technical efficiency, best expressed by the growth of bureaucracy.
And all this brings me back to Octopus Paul. Every World Cup event – from the opening to the closing match – was completely planned and executed by a large-scale organisation. FIFA collaborated with distinctive South African institutions such as the police, the media, the emergency services etc, with different work teams doing specialised tasks, ideally with the right technical competence (with referees being the most criticised category about the way they have done their job). All this was done with a lot of emphasis being made on time and, supposedly, with a high level of objectivity. Yet, even though Octopus Paul failed on all the aforementioned counts, it still made it with flying colours to the popularity charts.
In my opinion this somehow indicates that while we want to calculate, predict and rationalise, yet, on the other hand, we want to put our hopes and luck on illogical matters. In a way, it seems it is in our nature that we want to control the future but, deep inside, we like surprises; that we want security but every now and then we are after a challenge or some risks and that, even though we want to control, we like to play and try our luck at foolish games, which definitely are not rational!
rebecca@maltanet.net
The author is a sociology researcher.