How the Brooklyn Dodgers Became the Brooklyn Dodgers:

Baseball and the Formation of Civic Identities in the US

before 1960.

Peter Marquis, Ph.D.University of Rouen,

France

PAC/ACA Conference, San Antonio, Texas, April 2011

The paradigm: Brooklyn-as-Dodgers-and-Dodgers-as-Brooklyn;a few quotes:

• “For some the Dodgers may have been a profit-making business but they were literally, the heart and soul of Brooklyn” (exhibition curator Shelly Dinholfer, 1987).

• “Rarely did one team and one city match so well that Brooklyn and the Dodgers” (sportswriter Stanley Cohen, 1992).

• “Few baseball teams had such an identity relation and such an impact on the community than the Dodgers in Brooklyn. (…) The fate of the home-team meant for many the fate of Brooklyn” (historian Steward Wolpin, 1996).

Guiding questions• how did the Brooklyn Dodgers become the Brooklyn Dodgers?

• How did one of many New York baseball teams end up embodying the spirit, values and public image of this one particular borough in the eyes of many observers then and now?

Argument• I argue that the Dodgers became the home-team not because, as many have surmised, their style of play, their social origin or even their rootedness were typical of a hypothetical Brooklyn spirit, but because of three main reasons:

– they were a financially successful business which allowed them to endure over the years.

– they were in tune with the preoccupations of their times so they resonated beyond the realm of sport.

– the social norms they conveyed engaged the body more than the mind, making them less doctrinal and, thus, more acceptable.

Four stages• 1883-1912• 1913-1937• 1938-1950• 1951-1957

1st phase. 1883-1912• Almost no civic enterprise

– Four New York businessmen drawn to Brooklyn by interest

– Local identity in shambles in the 1880s

• Good business results– 2nd best phase in franchise history– Growing audience, but socially exclusive

– Too dependent on location

2nd phase: 1913-1937 (a)• Rising civic enterprise…

– Ebbets Field: new ballpark, new start for Brooklyn

– Rise of a local style of fandom• But:

– Only during victorious years (1916, 1920, 1924)

– Effects of elite discourse is limited

Ebbets Field, ca 1913

Source: Brooklyn Historical Society

2nd phase: 1912-1937 (b)• Ambivalent business results

– Ebbets Field: immediately counterproductive

– The 1930s: Daffiness years not because of Great Depression but mismanagement

2nd phase: 1912-1937 (c)• In tune with the zeitgeist

– Ebbets Field as outgrowth of progressivism

– Stronghold of masculinity (car, drink)

– In tune with “democracy” rhetoric– Mirror of gender and race relations

– Temple of emotional and material consumption

= product and producer of the “American Creed”

3rd phase: 1938-1950 (a)• Revolutionary business

– Night baseball– Radio broadcast– Spring training at Vero Beach– Desegregation of Major Leagues

= good investments that pay off immediately (3 WS) and in the long-term (4 WS)

3rd phase: 1938-1950 (b)• Apex of civic identification

– History as invention of traditions– Brooklyn and “its” Dodgers– The parade of 1941, the 1947 WS, heartbreakers and popularity

– A new face: as the Dodgers embrace the war effort, Brooklyn becomes “America’s team”

– Hollywood portrayals step in = equation between Brooklyn and Dodgers.

4th phase: 1951-1957• Problematic civic identifications

– anti-Brooklyn portrayals – stigma appropriated– continued identification with leading causes of the times

– A conservative club with a progressive reputation

– The disconnect: rootedness yet no public mobilization before the 1957 move

« Four Little Brothers in Between »

Source; Brooklyn Eagle, October 1, 1952

4th phase: 1951-1957 (b)• Despite common assumptions, excellent results• Profits and average game attendance on the decline

• But, still leading in the National League and slowdown started under Rickey in the 40s

• Record average rank in league standings and average game attendance

• Yet out of step with • Capitalist business model,• “new” baseball… • and new modes of entertainment

Average game attendance, 1938-1957

Source: http://mtlexpos.tripod.com/attendance/htm

Average occupancy rate, 1938-1957

Method: ratio between seating capacity and average game attendance

conclusions• Civic identification was never a given, a slow, culturally-constructed process

• No clear correlation between business results and level of civic identification

• What matters most isn’t the reality of the identification but the extent to which Brooklynites believed in it.

• This allowed the Dodgers to play a social function beyond the realm of sport