Rhetoric,Materiality,and the Disruption of Meaning: The Stadium as a Place of Protest

Stadiums as Places of Public Memory

Stadiums play a significant role in the construction of public memory. Butterworth (2014) argued how mediated sport communicated public memorializing of the 10th anniversary of 9/11 through the terministic screens of never forget, support the troops, and unity. He argues that these screens created an illusion of democracy because of their over-reliance on creating a large-scale spectacle with respect to the remembrance of 9/11. Specifically, Butterworth contends that as long as mediated sport depends upon massive, militaristic tributes to events such as 9/11, it will inevitably lack an invitation to audiences to engage in a more humane, reflective approach to building and sustaining public memory that is devoid of neoliberal commercialization. The stadium has served as a marker of celebration and remembrance for many years, and 9/11 served to remind American audiences about the role sports plays in response to national tragedies. The significance of stadiums as places of rhetoric is clearly visible within these celebrations.

Similarly, sports stadiums serve as sites of public memory in response to community identity in crisis. Stadiums are important in the branding and commodification of public memory. Burroughs et al. (2019) asserted that the hashtag #VegasStrong was used by the Las Vegas Golden Knights of the National Hockey League as a rhetorical public memorialization strategy in response to the Las Vegas shooting. T-Mobile Arena in Las Vegas functioned as a space of memorialization, which is radically different when understood within the larger context of the commercialized and sanitized Las Vegas strip. The hashtag was used by the Golden Knights organization to effectively brand the team during their inaugural season while communicating locality to the Vegas community. This exemplifies the role of sports stadiums in responding to crisis.

Sports stadiums also serve to recreate a notion of liveness that is then disseminated to mass audiences. Gasoi (2017) argued how the reconceptualization of epideictic rhetoric functioned through the Kaepernick protests and prompts us to “analy[ze] the epideictic, and the response thereto, with an eye towards our constantly morphing relationship to liveness, we can better inform our understanding of the performative rhetorical discourses of neo-liberalism and protest” (p. 46). The mediated arena is a venue ripe with performances, and the “individualized, bodily discipline” that has come to characterize the singing of the national anthem before a game has ritualized the performance to prepare those very bodies to fight against each other in the field of competition, or battle (Gasoi, 2017, p. 42). As such, the stadium serves as a pivotal rhetorical force to amplify the messages of social justice discourse, to build consensus for a political movement, and to prompt discussion among sports fans who may not typically realize they are interacting with political messaging while attending a game.

Stadiums as Places of Restorative Hope

Additionally, sports stadiums also serve as symbolic places of restorative hope for communities. Grano and Zagacki (2011) argued how the reopening of the Superdome in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, home of the National Football League (NFL)’s Saints, had “implications of absolving racial guilt through visual and spatial purification rituals” (p. 202). Specifically, they state how the broadcasting of the 2006 Monday Night Football game between the Atlanta Falcons–New Orleans Saints attempted to heal the United States through a purging of post-Katrina catastrophe. However, as Grano and Zagacki (2011) remind us, Kenneth Burke’s “paradox of purity” informs us that as a speaker

tries to purge dirt, the more dirt has to be introduced as a dramatic antithesis in the ritual. Purification was circularly justified, then, in terms of filth…the Superdome reopening illustrates how purification rituals may lead to a visual forgetting or erasure of the very subjects the rituals seek to memorialize, effectively re-marking these subjects as invisible in the name of national healing. (Grano & Zagacki, 2011, p. 202)

Stadiums as Ideological Symbols

Similarly, the media communicated various tropes, narratives, and liberal and conservative ideologies that characterized the coverage of the Superdome in New Orleans during the immediate aftermath of Hurricane Katrina (Pfau, 2017). Sets of ideological meanings regarding racism and looting, racial hyperbole, and the Bush government response characterized liberal critiques of Katrina’s aftermath (Pfau, 2017). Conservative critiques included themes such as governmental failure, libertarianism and the Second Amendment, and racism (Pfau, 2017). These themes crafted distinct narratives about the Superdome that positioned the stadium as a scene of deranged deviant behavior, such as dead bodies located in the Dome’s basement, drug dealers living on the stadium’s fourth floor, and African Americans being met with violent resistance from police and citizens when fleeing the dire scene of the Superdome for refuge in surrounding areas. Pfau concludes by reminding us that the public memory of the Superdome was anchored in social disorder and conflict during Katrina. As seen in the Superdome during Katrina, the stadium can function as a scene of social struggle and racial injustice. Conversely, the semiotics of a stadium, like the Superdome, can become radically altered to communicate a sense of redemption and a recovery of the American spirit. This paradoxical meaning reinforces the material significance of the stadium in social justice discourse.

Stadiums as Solutions to Societal Problems

New sports stadiums are also championed as solutions to political and social ills plaguing urban areas. Eckstein and Delaney (2002) argued local businesses do not directly benefit from the construction of stadiums, as this is more of a spontaneous correlation than causation. Sports also do not help poorer areas, and if they do, it is superficial in nature (Eckstein & Delaney, 2002). Arguments about the quantitative impact of sports stadiums on urban areas are misleading at best; instead, many advocates for new stadiums claim that new venues offer cities intangible social benefits, such as enhancing community self-esteem while “projecting the right image to audiences” (Eckstein & Delaney, 2002, p. 241), letting “outsiders know [we] are an important city,” and cultivating a shared identity among local citizens (Eckstein & Delaney, 2002, p. 242). The need for new sports stadiums is also framed in distinct ways to justify their construction. The Minnesota Vikings media campaign rallied support amongst fans and legislators for construction of a new stadium. Four qualitative benefits were significant among press releases disseminated to the public—increased community visibility, enhanced community image, stimulation of other development, and psychic income (Huberty et al., 2016). The media, in this case, play a pivotal role in mobilizing relevant stakeholders to build consensus for construction of new stadiums while helping to provide justification for such efforts. The public framing of these factors is crucial to the perception of sports in U.S. cities and their relationship to political, social, cultural, and economic issues impacting communities.

Understanding Place-as-Protest

Stadiums are significant places of meaning-making. One of the primary ways a protest is made meaningful is through the place in which it occurs. In their essay detailing a fresh approach to understanding rhetoric, space, and place, Endres and Senda-Cook (2011) argued that the rhetorical function of place in protest is frequently overlooked by communication and rhetorical scholars. Place-in-protest is a relevant concept for rhetorical scholars interested in examining how speakers in social demonstrations express themselves and create meaning for audiences.

Endres and Senda-Cook (2011) identified how place-in-protest is significant to rhetorical theory and criticism by situating the concept of place-in-protest as rhetorical artifact, material rhetoric, embodied rhetoric, ephemeral rhetoric, and experiential rhetoric. They contend that these notions help scholars understand how place-in-protest functions rhetorically and provide a theoretical framework to investigate the rhetorical significance of place-in-protest. Specifically, they identified that place-in-protest is a rhetorical artifact “both in its materiality and symbolicity” (Endres & Senda-Cook, 2011, p. 261).

Second, the authors explained that place-in-protest as material rhetoric is understood through the study of symbols that exist within material structures. They stated that “protest events encompass this fluidity between the material and discursive because they are held in places with symbolic meaning or are meant to alter or challenge the dominant meaning of a place” (Endres & Senda-Cook, 2011, p. 262). As they do, I turn to Blair’s (1999) understanding of materiality of physical structures as something that gains rhetorical force from its ability to move from symbolicity to creating material consequences. Thus, a protest has rhetorical features because it prompts people to express themselves in certain ways. When protests are held in front of physical structures, those structures communicate through symbols to prompt people to communicate rhetorically.

The authors then turned their attention to an explanation about the distinct characteristics of place-as-protest. First, place-as-embodied rhetoric provides critics with an awareness as to how bodies are constantly rooted, or located, in place (Endres & Senda-Cook, 2011). The symbiotic relationship between bodies and places is critical to the rhetorical meaning that is created as a result of the protest. When people gather in a place to protest, meaning occurs. The signs, symbols, chants, and movement of bodies in a place facilitates, invents, and legitimizes meaning. For instance, in Dallas, 90,000 fans attended the Giants-Cowboys game the night of the protest. The protest capitalized on fandom to amplify a message to an audience that may not have otherwise interacted with it. Thus, a symbiotic relationship existed that night between the protesters and the fans.

Second, place-as-ephemeral rhetoric is unique to protests. Unlike traditional speeches, the events and speech occurring at a protest is not always archived and recorded; in other words, it is short lived. The rhetoric of place in protest also functions as ephemeral “because places themselves are ephemeral. Places, although seemingly permanent because of their physical structures like buildings, streets, and the like, are actually quite fluid because they are constantly being reiterated, reinforced, or reinterpreted” (Endres & Senda-Cook, 2011, p. 263). The ephemerality of the protest outside of AT&T Stadium illustrates the stadium’s fluidity through its hosting of different events and the different people who may occupy it. Stadiums are not typically thought of as fluid places. However, the meaning of a stadium becomes altered depending on the signs and symbols attributed to it. In other words, a football game emphasizes the stadium one way, a concert emphasizes something else, and a political convention communicates a different meaning. The naming of the stadium also enables its fluidity. Similarly, an empty stadium not being used communicates a radically different meaning than a stadium full of people. The fluidity of a stadium should not be overlooked.

Understanding the features of Endres and Senda-Cook’s place-as-protest prepares us to analyze how the Jean and Terry protests use AT&T Stadium to aid their message. First, the materiality of AT&T Stadium functions rhetorically through its ability to facilitate the enactment of the protest message. This material enactment is achieved by the stadium serving as a performative space that authorizes new meaning onto the stadium and surrounding space while heralding it as a champion marker of social justice. Understanding the protests as a performative display of social justice discourse acting on the fans attending the game emphasizes the rhetorical significance of the stadium. As Zagacki and Gallagher (2009) remind us, “[t]he move from symbolicity to materiality involves a shift from examining representations…to examining enactments” (p. 172). Thus, the material existence of the stadium works with and against sports to amplify discourse about Jean and Terry’s deaths in order to achieve legal and social justice while inviting onlookers to consider the effects police brutality and racial injustice have on their community. The protesters’ marching, their chants, prayers, behaviors, dress, and signs are all symbols that engage the fans’ senses and serve to connect the physical context of the stadium to the unconventionality of having a protest around a sports venue, albeit outside of “Jerry’s World.” As will be discussed, weighing the effectiveness between a stadium as a place of protest and the extent to which that message resonates with public audiences matters. There are challenges with articulating place-as-protest, and those challenges are addressed below.

Pre-Existing Meanings

Endres and Senda-Cook (2011) explained two elements to understanding place-as-rhetoric. First, place-as-rhetoric assumes that place is rhetorical by building on the pre-existing meaning of the place and second, through the temporary reconstruction of the place. Endres and Senda-Cook claimed that places which have hosted protests in the past are better suited to aid in associating the meanings of social movements with that particular place. The authors state how the National Mall in Washington, DC, “is not only physically located near Congress (the intended audience of many social movements), it is also symbolic of the nation’s values and ideals” (Endres & Senda-Cook, 2011, p. 266). This makes the National Mall a suitable place for protests because of the history of protests in that place and the social and political significance of Washington, DC. AT&T Stadium does not frequently host protests. However, understanding the stadium within the larger context of Dallas, the state of Texas, and the Cowboys as a team provides important contextual information about the prior meaning of AT&T Stadium.

The city of Dallas has a rich and complicated history of race relations and is also uniquely focused on sports. The Cowboys are the world’s most valuable sports franchise, worth $5 billion (Badenhousen, 2019, para. 3). The Cowboys have been hailed as “America’s Team” since the late 1970s, when the team’s 1978 season highlight film introduced them as “America’s Team.” The team’s dominance during the 1960s, 1970s, and 1990s propelled the love many Americans have for the Cowboys. Their games are nationally televised more than any other NFL team, and major sports publications such as ESPN and Sports Illustrated routinely classify them as “America’s Team” in their media coverage. The Cowboys hold the NFL record for most consecutive home and away sellout games, at 160, which lasted over nine straight NFL seasons. They are extremely popular and well known. Their fan base spreads across the country and world. Their legendary coaches have experienced enormous success—Tom Landry, Jimmy Johnson, and Barry Switzer, to name a few—and are prominent names within the NFL. They have had some of the most successful players in NFL history—Roger Staubauch, Mike Ditka, Ed Jones, Don Meredith, Tony Dorsett, Troy Aikman, Charles Haley, Emmitt Smith, Deion Sanders, Michael Irving, Tony Romo, and current players Jason Witten, Dak Prescott, and Ezekiel Elliott—and many of these players are in the NFL Hall of Fame or have made numerous All-Pro Teams. The franchise has also played in eight total Super Bowls, winning five of them. The Cowboys are embedded within the American consciousness and serve as a core civic institution.

In addition to hosting Cowboys’ games, AT&T Stadium has hosted Super Bowl XLV, the Big 12 Championship Football Game, College Football Playoff, Cotton Bowl Classic, the National Collegiate Athletic Association Men’s Basketball Four, CONCACAF Gold Cup, WrestleMania, and the NFL Draft, in addition to numerous concerts and other events. It is also home to one of the world’s largest high definition video screens, extending from 20 to 20 yard line (160 ft × 72 ft). Additionally, the stadium sells more alcohol than any other venue in Texas (Tinsley, 2017, para 8). Tailgating is extremely popular outside the stadium and occurs in the expansive parking lots in the surrounding area. Lots open 5 hours before kickoff and are populated by fans dressed in their Cowboy game day gear. AT&T Stadium does not prompt visitors to experience nostalgia similar to Fenway Park, Wrigley Field, Madison Square Garden, or even the Mercedes-Benz Superdome in New Orleans. Instead, the social meaning of AT&T Stadium represents the excesses that permeate American culture while also showcasing the Texas motto that “bigger is better.”

AT&T Stadium is also known by its nickname, “Jerry’s World,” in reference to notorious Cowboys owner, president, and general manager Jerry Jones. Jones is perceived around the league as a controlling owner and is heavily involved in all aspects of his team’s administration. Most importantly, Jones frequently thrusts himself into the national spotlight about NFL-related issues, social concerns, and player contracts. Jones is one of the most visible nonathletes in the NFL.

In fact, Jones and the Cowboys were one of the most outspoken teams regarding the national anthem protests. In 2017, Jones knelt with his players before the national anthem during a nationally televised Monday Night Football game. Then, they went to the sideline, stood, and locked arms during the playing of the anthem while the American flag stretched out over the field at University of Phoenix Stadium in Glendale, AZ, before the Cowboys played the Cardinals. In the days after the game, Jones and President Donald Trump spoke over the phone, with Trump tweeting out a message saying how much he respected Jones and that “players will stand for Country!” (Trump, 2017). Jones then commented after that game by stating, “But if there is anything disrespectful to the flag then we will not play. You understand? If we are disrespecting the flag then we won’t play. Period” (George, 2017, para. 4). A season later, after the NFL owners backstepped on a policy mandating all players stand for the anthem, Jones again expressed his concerns when he stated the Cowboys players must stand “with toes on the line” (Jones, 2018, para 2). Similarly, quarterback Dak Prescott has also been outspoken about athletes kneeling during the anthem. On more than one occasion he has stated,

I’d never protest [during] the anthem, and I don’t think that’s the time or the venue to do so. The game of football has always brought me such a peace, and I think it does the same for a lot people—a lot of people playing the game, a lot of people watching the game…so when you bring such a controversy to the stadium, to the field, to the game, it takes away. It takes away from that. It takes away from the joy and the love that football brings a lot of people. (Jones, 2018, para 8)

Temporary Reconstruction of Place

The second element of place-as-rhetoric is the temporary reconstruction of the place, which the protest attempted at A&T Stadium. As Merritt stated, “We are symbolically bringing them [Jean and Terry] to this game to disrupt this occasion” (“Protesters Demand Justice for Botham Jean,” 2018). While the protest may not have disrupted the game to the extent Merritt claims, the demonstrators did carry two caskets over their heads to symbolically “bring” Jean and Terry to the game, as Merritt said. Many of the participants wore typical black funeral dress and silently marched. “Black Lives Matter” signs were held by some protesters. The protesters reconstructed the space of the stadium into a site of memorialization for the two men while amplifying a larger public remembrance of both men that was on full display throughout the march. As Pastor Haynes proclaimed during the march, “In honoring his [Jean] legacy, we stand against any attempt to assassinate his [Jean’s] character” (“Protesters Demand Justice for Botham Jean,” 2018). The stadium-as-remembrance is something ordinarily reserved for inside the stadium, when the public address announcer narrates the return of a U.S. military member who has come home while the crowd stands and cheers. In this case, Pastor Haynes narrates the scene while protesters carry caskets representing Jean and Terry to the public.

The protest outside the stadium is also an enactment of the position Black Americans occupy in society—they are historically located on the periphery. As Kaepernick’s protests illustrate, any attempt to speak out on issues impacting Black people inside the public sphere, or stadium, may be removed because it is perceived as a threat to the social order. However, permission is granted to occupy a physical space outside of the stadium so long as it does not interrupt the ritualized practices of fandom inside the walls of the stadium. After all, “Jerry’s World” has rules and order, and any resistance to that will be dealt with accordingly. The built environment of the stadium did not prohibit the protests and the attention that came from it, but it did prevent the protesters from establishing a foothold that would have caused a larger disruption to the game.

As the protesters marched around the space of AT&T Stadium, they convened around the statue of legendary Cowboy coach Tom Landry. The demonstrators took a knee around the statue for the purpose of, as WFAA Channel 8’s Matt Howerton stated, “denouncing how NFL owners outlawed protests during the national anthem about police brutality” (“Protesters Demand Justice for Botham Jean,” 2018). The act of kneeling served as a strategy of solidification amongst the group while marking the space of the Landry statue with bodies performing a symbolic speech act to signify their display of social justice. Marking the space of AT&T Stadium in this way established a visual connection with onlookers, and those who were informed about the protest through news and social media. Viewers were forced to observe the protesters and contemplate the actions of other NFL players who knelt during the playing of the anthem. This act temporarily reconstructed the space, or as Endres and Senda-Cook (2011) explained, “the place itself is temporarily reconstructed to challenge dominant (and oppressive) meanings and replace them with places of safety and empowerment” (p. 268). The demonstrators kneeling challenge the “no politics in sport” assumption by replacing it with a non-violent but empowering meaning.

Furthermore, the stadium is a place of disciplined bodies, and as Gasoi (2017) argued, a site of idealized performance where bodies clash with one another. However, this clash does not occur until the tribute to the nation is complete through the playing of the national anthem. The kneeling by the demonstrators disrupts the intended meaning and purpose of the stadium—which is to provide a place for disciplined performances of athletes adhering to strict rules which govern the game. Kneeling, especially by protesters outside the stadium, resists this intended purpose to communicate a distinct message rooted in the pursuit for social justice.

As Pastor Haynes spoke, he invited the protesters to take a knee, and as Howarton stated in his local news coverage of the demonstrations, “[a]fter tonight’s game, the score won’t matter for those here” (“Protesters Demand Justice for Botham Jean,” 2018), alluding to the idea that the protestors quest for racial justice does not end with the close of the game; rather, their pursuit is ongoing and continues regardless as to who wins the game. While the demonstrators stood and knelt around the Landry statute, Pastor Haynes invited Cowboys owner Jerry Jones join them, as he stated, “And so we’re saying Mr. Jones, use your platform, since you told your players they cannot protest, use your platform now…to speak out against the vile and vicious murder that took place” (“Dallas Demonstrators, Protest Outside Cowboys’ Stadium,” 2018). Additionally, calls to both Jones and Prescott and the Cowboy’s organization were invoked by demonstrators “to join in fight for justice to make sure these tragedies do not continue to befall our community” (“Protesters Holding Caskets March Near AT&T Stadium For Police Shooting Victims,” 2018). Haynes is clearly contesting the meaning of the space while rejecting the ostensible purpose of the spectacle taking place inside the stadium and supporting Endres and Senda-Cook’s (2011) previous point about place-in-rhetoric challenging dominant and oppressive meanings (p. 268).

Specifically, Haynes has asked Jones to take action about social justice issues affecting the Black community before. Only a little over a month prior to the protests, and before Jean and Terry were killed, Haynes spoke at his church in a speech titled, “An Open Letter to Jerry Jones,” in which he called on Jones to take action to prevent the horrible injustices plaguing the Black community in Dallas (Rock Newman Show, 2018). The appeal to Jones and evocation to the stadium is a direct contradiction to and repurposing of, notably, an edifice which had only a few years earlier elicited largely negative connotations to the reference of “Jerry’s World,” the elaborate, incredibly expensive stadium associated with ostentatious displays of established NFL money and power.

Haynes’ call to Jones and Prescott also allows for a reimagining of the local community that can help solve for the tragedies that are impacting it. By enlarging the scope of community, the demonstrations invited Jones and Prescott to get involved and play a central role in offsetting these life and death issues plaguing the Dallas–Fort Worth communities. The protestors' attempt to forge a new path allows for a connectedness between the stadium, the team, the city, and the role sports rhetorically play in helping solve issues of racial and social injustice. The protests are an example that local sports celebrities are agents who can heal the social and cultural struggle experienced by many minority groups, especially within their own communities.

However, Merritt and Haynes’ messages, while important, were also disparate. Where Merritt calls for inclusion, Haynes asks the Cowboys organization to act as a core civic institution to enact change. This lack of consistency within the protest message itself is emblematic of the larger protest. The protest’s use of the stadium represents the challenges with place-in-protest. Specifically, the material significance of a sports stadium does not guarantee public acceptance or endorsement of the message.

The stadium and its surrounding space help facilitate the amplification of a protest message, but the degree to which that amplification is impactful is uncertain. Place-in-protest is meaningful because it gives force to protest messages and attempts to resonate that message with various audiences. The extent to which the Jean and Terry protests outside AT&T Stadium were purposeful is unclear. The protest was intended to cause disruption. Instead it authorized new meaning onto the stadium, but may have fallen short of articulating a clear reverberation throughout Dallas and the country. It is obvious that articulating social justice messages within and through sport reach different audiences. Perhaps the critical question is to consider how place and sport can work together to create purposeful messages that are sustained over time. As Endres and Senda-Cook (2011) argued,

repeated temporary constructions of place may result in long-lasting additions to the meaning of a place…. The presence and memory of bodies at the National Mall has, over time, associated that place with protests and marches. (p. 270)