Bruno: Please Stop Being Melodramatic......Violence as Biological rather than Religious

Original Blog Post #1: Focused on Tracy Trothen's article on Violence in Hockey


But I don't want you to catch a grenade for me...

I’d catch a grenade for ya 

Throw my hand on a blade for ya 

I’d jump in front of a train for ya 

You know I'd do anything for ya
I would go through all this pain,
Take a bullet straight through my brain,
Yes, I would die for ya baby

Bruno Mars, sudden Top 40 sensation and teenage heartthrob, is all over the radio with his latest hit single "Grenade". The lyrics and music video depict Bruno going through various modes of pain and suffering for the woman he loves. To profess the sincerity of his love, Bruno claims that he will go through any form of death, endure any pain, any torture - blades, grenades, trains, guns - you name it -  

The question is why and how, exactly, this would prove his love. Why is death romantic? Why is a man dying for a woman the ultimate test of love? See, ladies, the thing is... Bruno won't make much of a husband if he's dead. He won't be able to provide for the children, he won't be able to take you out on Valentine's Day, and ask any single parent or widow - it's really not that much fun to lose the one you love. 

This kind of glorification of death and suffering relates to Tracy Trothen's essay on violence in professional hockey. Trothen talks about Christian atonement theories and how they've embedded normative violence in popular culture today. Trothen focused particularly on pro sport and the excessive violence, self-sacrifice, and pain accepted by the NHL and hockey as a whole, and paralleled it to Jesus' violent death on the cross for the good of humanity. Bruno Mars, likewise, in his lyrics displays self-sacrificial tendencies for the good of love - in this case, though, for a particular woman and not for all of humanity. (Apparently Bruno aims a little lower than Jesus......underachiever.)

A man willing to take a bullet for the woman he loves is not a new thing - we see it in Romeo dying for Juliet, Jack for Rose, and so on. In popular culture, a man is expected to lay his life on the line to protect the woman he loves; further, when family is involved, both parents are expected to protect their children. Look at Lily and James in Harry Potter: both of them sacrifice themselves to Voldemort to protect little Harry. (Wouldn't be much of a story if they hadn't...) Similarly, though on a larger scale, Azlan lays down his life in the Chronicles of Narnia for the safety of the children and Narnia as a whole. The act of self-sacrifice for those you love is noble, heroic, honorable, and moving. 

In sport, your team becomes your family. In sport, you depend on your teammates and they depend on you. In sport, you win as a team and you lose as a team. In sport, your team becomes both your children and your parents - it is a tight-knit relationship of blood, sweat, tears, and reciprocity. In a biological family, your ultimate goal is survival and the pursuit of happiness. Thus, the only enemy is anything that gets in the way of that happiness: on a large-scale, increasing taxes or the loss of Dad's job; on a small scale, O'Doyle bullying little Billy at recess. The government becomes the enemy and O'Doyle becomes the enemy. In a sport like hockey, there is an enemy every week; like war, anyone not with you is against you. Teams in sport are similar in a sense to the mafia, an army regiment, or a streetgang: while not a nuclear family living in suburban America, these groups all embody a type of familial mentality that is in fact often far stronger than the biological family. While Susie might run away from home to be with Bobby (he has a motorcycle and looks like James Dean.....what do you expect?), a man in the mafia would rather be shot to death by the police than rat out his associates. 

All of this underscores Trothen's points about suffering and self-sacrifice being normative in various aspects of today's society. Suffering and self-sacrifice are not found only in sport, but in many societal structures: ones accepts violence and fights for his or her country in times of war; one - particularly men - accepts violence and fights for romantic love when a spouse or partner is threatened; one accepts violence and fights off burglars, racism, bullies, and death to protect their children.

What does this mean in relation to Jesus? Does society have this self-sacrificial mentality because of Jesus' death on the cross? Have the atonement theories been so ingrained into our minds that we accept death, suffering, and violence as a condition of love? While Trothen argues yes, I argue that our attitudes toward suffering and self-sacrifice relate far more to biology and the state of nature than to religion, Christ's death on the cross, and the atonement theories. 

Humans are animals. We have the same basic needs as an animal: food, drink, sex, survival. We have the same basic instincts as an animal, particularly the "fight or flight" rationale. We have a tribal or band mentality similar to those of the great apes, horses, and wolves. That is, we came together in tribes and bands - the earliest social contract - to mutually help preserve the human species. The tribal mentality has a code embedded in it. There is a clear leader - usually male, given male's superior physical strength to females - and a pecking order. When another band enters the same territory, it is immediately considered a threat. Whether it is animals or humans - even "advanced" humans in modern society - a power struggle must be confronted for order to ensue. Only when this power struggle has affirmed one's dominance over the other - either violently or nonviolently - can the pecking order be reestablished and order and stability remain intact. 

This is a natural function of the human species. Stallions duke it out violently in a herd to determine who will lead. The loser accepts his place in the pecking order. Leadership, dominance, and winning is coveted in animals and humans alike; it is a sign of strength and respect. An NHL team is like a tribe. They confront other teams to establish a pecking order. Though they do it in a completely different way, the basics of the game are incredibly natural and animalistic. Men display physical dominance and aggressiveness to establish their leadership over the other tribes. The gain is not merely the Stanley Cup - it is what the Cup represents. 

In other aspects of pop culture, too, suffering and self-sacrifice can be traced to biological tendencies. Bruno Mars, for instance, is willing to catch a grenade for Janet Jackson because it asserts his strength and masculinity. Women, in turn, are biologically attracted to the alpha male, the most masculine of men. If Bruno were to say, "Listen, Janet, I really do love you but I simply don't think I can catch that grenade and die for you." it shows fear, timidity, and a signals to the woman that this is not a suitable mate. Women inherently realize that men are superior to them in sheer size and strength, and need those attributes in a male to ensure the protection of their young. A man who displays a lack of willingness to die for her protection is not an ideal mate. Thus she will look to Jay-Z or another man who is willing to protect her at all costs, and Bruno Mars will probably spend a fortnight eating Ben & Jerry's and crying himself to sleep. 

In regards to hockey, then, I disagree with Trothen that Christianity and Jesus' death on the cross has anything to do with the normative violence of the sport. As mentioned above, humans as a whole have a fight-or-flight instinct, and men especially have an intrinsic need to determine a pecking order through shows of physical strength and dominance (blame the testosterone). Thus in a closed arena like a hockey rink, the flight instinct is cancelled out and the players are left with one option: fight. Self-sacrifice in terms of playing through pain for the good of the team is, to me, more a show of tribalism and loyalty to the herd than a moral statement related to Jesus' death on the cross. 

I do agree with Trothen that violence is encouraged not only as an outlet of aggression but as a means of garnering profit and viewers, and to be frank I'm repulsed by that aspect of hockey. Growing up in a hockey-centered family, I have always been accustomed to the violence in a game. Like anyone else, my adrenaline began racing when the gloves came off - fights were exciting, a spectacle, entertainment. 

My brother has been playing competitive hockey since the age of five. Like many Canadian boys, he was on the ice as soon as he could walk, and it is on the same ice that he grew from a boy into a man. He was a promising and dedicated athlete who rose quickly through the ranks until he was the captain and leading scorer of a AAA team. He had OHL dreams, NHL dreams, Ovechkin dreams, Crosby dreams. He had his hockey heroes and their words of inspiration postered all over the walls of his room. He had on-ice practices several days a week and off-ice work-outs when he wasn't at the rink. His teammates and coaches were family. The actual families of the players become an extension of the team, the supporters. We cheer at their wins, groan at their penalties, cry at their losses. 


Last year my brother suffered his fourth concussion somewhere in the middle of a game. He got up off of the ice and continued to play. In fact, he continued to play - and played well - until the final buzzer of that game. He did not remember this. He did not remember coming back into the locker room. He did not remember going home. 


My brother could not graduate high school when he was supposed to. He could not read a book, even a sentence or two, without severe pain in his head. He could not listen to music, watch television, or understand basic concepts. We had to speak slowly and quietly to him and repeat instructions many times. He was confused as to when Christmas was coming, despite it being March. He could not run, play sports, go to any public location, attend his own prom, or go to university the following year. He spent most of last spring and summer in bed with the lights off, thinking about the death of his NHL dreams. 

I should really stop being such a downer - my brother has recovered quite well and, though he will never step on the ice again, he's going to university next year and has regained full cognitive function. He is completely back to his old self in all ways, a pesky little brother just like any other. This is lucky, though - it is a privilege that for those few months looked like it had a slim to none chance of occurring.  


There is definitely a reason why violence in hockey needs to be addressed. I am not naive. Like it is in life, some degree of violence is an unavoidable part of the game. Whether it derives from the natural tendencies of humans or from Christianity's atonement theories is debatable. What is not debatable is that the violence encouraged in all levels of hockey - not just professional leagues - needs to be given some serious attention and scrutiny by society.