Explaining Zidane:

A Deconstruction with
Adorno and Derrida

Lukas Kaelin

Abstract

In the 2006 World Cup Final of Football, the best player of

the tournament Zinedine Zidane was sent off in a crucial
moment of the game ten minutes from the end of overtime,
on account of an inexplicable head-butt given to an Italian
defender. “Irrationality” was the word most used to describe
the behavior of Zidane. However, this article will argue that
beyond this superficial view of Zidane losing his temper,
there lies a deeper logic; a logic that shows the rationality of
Zidane’s deed, and uncovers the truth given back to his own
identity and the essence of football. The aim of this article is
not only to give an alternative reading of this decisive moment
for world football, but also to show how a philosophy that
combines the approaches of Theodor W. Adorno and Jacques
Derrida can deconstruct the reality that usually is taken for
granted.
________

“If the game is lost, your earthly life is wasted.”

- Henrik Ibsen

Introduction

We all seem to know the facts. In a crucial moment of the most important
sport event on earth, the final of the 2006 World Cup of football, the French
player and half-god Zinedine Zidane rams, in a not so understandable and
irrational act, his head against the chest of an Italian defender. TV and
radio stations, and the newspapers were quick to judge this act as irrational.
Kaelin

However, it might be worth taking a closer look to understand and explain

what happened in these last minutes of the World Cup final. In order to
give an account and alternative interpretation of this event, we will need to
take a look at the framework—the football World Cup—in which the act
took place (2). But it is not only the structure of the World Cup that has
to be described, the build-up into the final and the coverage of the media
have to be considered as well (3). With this setup of the stage in mind,
we can describe the central event, the head-butt of Zidane against Mario
Materazzi (4) and the common interpretations put forward in the media
(5). However, this article does not agree with the common interpretation,
and argues that Zidane has regained his previously alienated identity
through his deed (6) and has rendered truth to football in reminding
us of the vital drives that are at the core of the game (7). The common
pattern that can be seen in his acts, that of regaining his identity and the
identity of football, is then is analyzed to show the meaninglessness of
Zidane’s revolt (8). However, that the meaninglessness of the act does not
have the last word is elaborated in a paragraph dealing with the point of
pointless action (9). Finally, the conclusion stresses the ability of dialectical
or deconstructivist thinking to give a different account of reality that goes
beyond the realm of philosophy (10).

The Setting of the Stage: The Football World Cup

For the majority of the world, which includes Europe, South America,
Africa and large parts of Asia, the football World Cup is by far the most
important sporting event of all. Taking place every four years, it shapes
public life for one whole month in the participating countries and beyond.
It is barely possible to take a taxi in any of these countries, as Umberto Eco
points out, without having to talk about football. Everybody—regardless
of how ignorant he might be about football in the rest of the four years—
will join in the euphoria surrounding this competition.
However, this huge public interest in a single sporting event, which
ultimately consists in thirty-two teams (each with eleven players) playing

����������������������������������������������������������������������������������
An account about the impossibility of taking a taxi at any time without having to
talk about football is given by Umberto Eco, who himself seems to hate football. (Umberto
Eco, Sämtliche Glossen und Parodien 1963–2000, trans. Burkhart Kroeber and Günter
Memmert [Frankfurt am Main: Zweitausendeins, 2000]). The title of his short essay only
confirms “In what sense football is a sexual perversion” (“In welchem Sinne Fußball eine
sexuelle Perversion ist,” 459–62). The problem of taking a taxi without being forced into
a discussion about football is explained in the ironical comment, “How not to speak about
football” (“Wie man nicht von Fußball spricht,“ 333–5).
120 Loyola Schools Review Vol. VI
 Explaining Zidane: A Deconstruction with Adorno and Derrida

one another, does not entirely spontaneously arise from the masses. It is
mediated through an ever-growing system of media that brings the news
of even the smallest detail of the World Cup to the remotest corners of the
world. The World Cup is accompanied by enormous advertising campaigns
of multinational companies that try to get the biggest share of the event.
This huge economic-media complex is facilitated by the influential and
allegedly corrupt international football association FIFA. The FIFA’s main
function is to organize this sport event. However, an organization of such
an event must deal with large costs, so the FIFA has to sell it as well. That is
how the FIFA became a major economic force with a turnover of billions.
The event is sold by presenting it as promoting fair play and international
understanding, more or less openly stating that with football we can make
this world a better place and promote world peace.
Through the mediation of the media, the World Cup emerges as a truly
“world” cup in which the largest part of the world participates. A totality
is generated, consisting of media, business, the FIFA, the participating
players and consumers, from which everyone profits. The media, especially
the TV stations, have top viewership; newspapers in Germany use extra
pages to report on the World Cup; the economic companies profit from
the world-wide coverage and the good reputation of the event; the FIFA


The rumors about corruption in the FIFA are widespread: the BBC reported on the
corruption not only in the FIFA but also of the president of the organization himself. It
quoted Mr. Graham, a British member of the FIFA: “Then Blatter gets a landslide vote,
to me this indicates a high level of corruption at FIFA.” (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/
hi/sports_talk/2014218.stm, August 5, 2006) The Süddeutsche Zeitung, the largest qual-
ity newspaper in Germany, uncovered various irregularities in the governing body of the
FIFA. (See, e.g., Thomas Kistner, “FIFA—Ein Konzern wie ein Kegelklub,” in Süddeutsche
Zeitung, 4 May 2006. Kistner is arguing that even though the FIFA has a turnover of bil-
lions it still works much like a bowling club. Furthermore, he stresses the dependencies
that are at the core of the organization.) See also the critical commentary of Kistner, who
maintains that the FIFA has enormous power but lacks transparency. (Thomas Kistner,
Das System Blatter, in Cicero [March 2006]: 90.)

See a statement made by the president of the FIFA ahead of the World Cup: “We
live in a troubled world. I hope that this FIFA World Cup can bring some sense of
peace.” (http://www.FIFA.com/en/organization/president/index/0,4095,116859,00.
html?articleid=116859, accessed on August 5, 2006.) On “bbc.com” Blatter is quoted
with the statement that he wants to “make the world a better place for just one month.”
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/hardtalk/5049204.stm, accessed on 5 August
2006.)
�
What a bad reputation can do has been experienced by the biggest cycling event on
earth, the Tour de France, which was not able to evade a doping scandal. Only three days
after the end of the tour, the winner was discovered to have used illegal means to enhance
his performance.
Humanities 121
Kaelin

makes huge profits selling coverage rights and the exclusive marketing rights
to its main sponsors, and this money is partially passed on to the national
football federations of the participating teams. That such money is not
always passed on to the players could be seen in the case of the African
nation Togo, where the players went into a strike in order to claim the
money for themselves. Last but not least, the consumers watching the
World Cup profit due to the fact that the coverage includes every possible
detail not only of the games but also of the surroundings.

The Build-Up into the Final:

In the Tournament and in the Media

The French team, with its key player Zinedine Zidane, had a weak
start in the tournament. They just managed to pass the group stage and
enter the knockout stage. Before the World Cup started and even in its
first stage, the French team and especially their coach had to undergo
harsh critique. For one, the French team was deemed to be too old, having
an average age of over thirty. The backbone of the team consisted of the
players that won the World Cup eight years ago.
But this much-blamed team started to play better and better and
managed to go past the tournament favorites Spain, Brazil and Portugal to
enter the very last and decisive game: the final. Zidane played the central
role in these victories, finding back the form of his life, even surpassing,
according to some commentators, the form he had had eight years ago.
Without Zidane, by no means would France have managed to reach the
final.
And the media coverage changed. Skeptical at first, becoming more
enthusiastic later, the media eventually praised the team and their coach
for their game intelligence and for the tactical moves they made. All of a

On a more detailed account, however, the football players were claiming the money
for their qualification for the World Cup in October 2005. The football association of Togo
was reluctant to hand over the money even though the starting fee it received from the
FIFA would have been more than enough to pay its outstanding debts to the players.
��
The list of the profiting parties is not complete. One of the most important parties to
profit from the World Cup is the host nation, Germany, which has been given the chance
to present itself to the world and which plays a big role in the media coverage of the all
that happens beyond the football field. Because of the World Cup, the picture of Germany
has changed abroad, as explained in an article of the German journal Der Spiegel entitled
“From Humorless to Carefree in 30 Days.” The English Prime Minister Tony Blair is therein
quoted as follows: “The old clichés have been replaced by a new, positive and more fair
image of Germany.” (See http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,426063,00.
html, accessed on 2 August 2006.)
122 Loyola Schools Review Vol. VI
 Explaining Zidane: A Deconstruction with Adorno and Derrida

sudden the old age of the team was no longer regarded as a disadvantage,
but as one of their advantages. A different story was told, the story of an
experienced team at the end of their career being able to finish on top,
having the realistic chance of winning the World Cup for a second time.
In the middle of this story was Zinedine Zidane.
This central French player of Algerian background grew up in the
suburbs of Marseilles in a poor environment and turned out to be one
of the greatest football players in the past decade, having won every
important event in football. Due to his modest and silent way as well as
to his resemblance to a medieval monk, he served as a projection screen
for the media. Often he was seen as an artist or an aesthete that celebrated
football rather then a mere football player.
The media coverage centered on him. The big question asked in the
build-up into the final was not whether Italy or France would win the
World Cup, but rather whether Zidane would manage to end his career
on top, lifting the World Cup trophy for a second time. He announced
well before the start of the tournament that he would retire afterwards.
This announcement and the knowledge of him playing his very last game
of football gave the media coverage a dramatic note. The whole setting was
very far removed from a game of two teams of eleven players; it became a
truly dramatic event. The question was no longer whether this or that team
succeeds, but whether the hero leaves the stage as the winner or the loser.
The change of the focus from a team competition to the question of
whether Zidane would succeed was an adjustment initiated by the media.
Their interest focused on Zidane; they saw in him the potential for a
mythological story. In fact, they already made a mythological story out
of Zidane; a story that saw in him a hero—like Achilles. Zidane became
in the media a kind of half-god, rising above common human abilities.
However, it may be forgotten that it was only the media transformation
that was responsible for the equation of Zidane and Achilles. A false clarity
is achieved when we take the hero presented by the media for the human
being Zidane. In the words of Max Horkheimer and Theodor W. Adorno,
this is what a myth is about: “False clarity is only another name for myth.”
In the case of Zidane, this false clarity is achieved by the transfiguration
of this player.


See Bernard-Henri Lévy, “Zidane, chez Homère,” in Le Point, 13 July 2006, N°1765:
11.
��������������������������������������
Max Horkheimer and Theodor W. Adorno, Dialectic of Enlightenment: Philosophi-


cal Fragments, ed. Gunzelin Schmid Noerr, trans. Edmund Jephcott (Stanford: Stanford
University Press, 2002), xvii.
Humanities 123
Kaelin

This transfiguration through the media followed a human need

for transcendence in a seemingly enlightened world. This need for
transcendence is attached to popular figures transforming them into
something mythical. But this transformation was also put forward in
accordance with the economic interest: the marketing strategies of
the sponsors of the World Cup focused on a couple of key players,
all the others—equally important—hardly enter the pictures of the
advertisements. And of course, in the mythical story about Zidane sells
better, i.e., the media have an equal interest in sticking to this story line.
So the construction of the myth of Zidane had an underlying economic
reason as well.

The Final: The Genius and Tragedy of Zidane

It was under the conditions described above that the World Cup final
between France and Italy started. And it all seemed to go the way of the
mythological setup forecast by the media: within ten minutes France was
leading through a penalty goal by Zidane. Even though Italy equalized, the
longer the game went on, the more France seemed to become the better
team and the more likely to score the winning goal. The best chance for this
winning goal was Zidane making a powerful header that was saved by the
Italian keeper. A few minutes later, Zidane used the same head for quite a
different purpose. After the Italian defender Materazzi held Zidane on his
shirt, they walked next to each other exchanging some words. Zidane was
moving away already, when all of a sudden, he stopped, turned towards
Materazzi, and like a bull in a bullfight with a lowered head—not using
his arms—rammed his head forcefully against his opponent’s chest. The
referee, after consultation with his lineman, sent Zidane off. With a bowed
head, Zidane disappeared into the changing room, ignoring his coach and
the World Cup trophy.
The World Cup final had his ultimate signature. A signature nobody
expected beforehand. There was a rupture in the game. The last ten
minutes were played differently, and were especially watched by everyone
with transformed eyes, knowing that something completely unexpected
happened that changed pretty much everything. The final went into penalty
kicks and the Italians won. This win somehow fit in the logic of the game
after the dismissal of Zidane.

124 Loyola Schools Review Vol. VI

 Explaining Zidane: A Deconstruction with Adorno and Derrida

The Common Interpretation:

Zidane’s Irrationality

In the days after the final, the deed of Zidane took the same space
in the media coverage as the World Cup victory of Italy. Attention was
drawn especially to the fact that through this thoughtless action, Zidane
has destroyed a glorious (or at least decent) ending of his career. He left—so
the interpretation goes—the stage of world football like a beaten dog, or
a child excluded from a birthday party. At the center of all the analysis
was Zidane’s irrationality. A line of argument tried to make sense out of
Zidane’s action by stressing that there were several similar events in his
career and that he had been sent off already fourteen times in his career.
So his attack on the Italian defender was within the uncontrolled and
therefore irrational mentality of Zidane. A second interpretation stressed
the fact that only minutes earlier, Zidane has missed a very good chance
to decide the game through a powerful header. His head-butt was then
seen as a frustrated, and therefore irrational, action following his miss.
Finally, a third interpretation focused on the dispute that took place right
before the head-butt. Materazzi confirmed that he insulted Zidane, but did
not mention what he said. Zidane said that the Italian defender has said
serious things about his sister and mother. The insult of his mother then
led Zidane to his action. Again, his reaction to the insult is interpreted by
the media as irrational.

The Hidden Truth in Zidane I:

Regaining His Identity

However, there are two empirical events that might lead one to
question the above interpretations and ask about the reason Zidane had
for his deed. Firstly, Zidane later indeed apologized to all the children
who had seen the game for what he had done; but he was reluctant to say
that what he did was wrong. He even seemed to insist that his reaction
was right. This is evidence that he not only acted out of emotions but
that there was more reflection going on than was commonly assumed.
Secondly, in an interview a couple of days after the final, the mother of
Zidane said that she was proud of her son, not despite of his head-butt,
but because of it.
In order to give an alternative account, we have to keep in mind the
media-business complex and the build-up into the final. This build-up

Humanities 125
Kaelin

transformed Zidane into a sort of a half-god, like a mythical figure going

out for a final battle. The person was transformed into a mythical figure,
and his history into a myth. This transformation done by the media in
order to have a good story, and by the economic substructure in order to
sell their products, ultimately alienated Zidane from his very own identity,
an identity that consists in the continuity of his life, a life that started in
the suburbs of Marseilles. Zidane was in danger of being not only alienated
from his identity, but also exploited beyond limits. The media used him as
a figure for their mythical stories, which barely had anything in common
with the person Zidane. The economic machinery exploited him in order
to generate as much profit as possible out of this carefully constructed and
preserved mythical figure.
In view of this consequent and uniform alienation from himself that
Zidane suffered, only through a powerful act out of despair might he be
able to repossess his identity. And this repossession of his identity—the
identity consisting in a continuity of his life—was performed by giving a
head-butt to Materazzi. This twofold violent reaction to the insult of the
Italian reestablished the continuity of his life that started on the streets
of the suburbs of Marseilles, and refuted the myth built around him. It
was a powerful rejection of the exploitation he suffered from the media,
who made out of him a mythical figure beyond human dimensions, and
a refutation of the objectification by the economic powers that wanted to
shape Zidane according to their needs. The violent reaction was twofold as
the violence was directed physically toward the Italian, and in a mediated
sense toward the repossession of his identity. He regained his identity
by reestablishing the continuity of his life. His reaction to the insult of
Materazzi was the reaction of a true street football player who trusted his
impulses and just knew that there is nothing that justifies an insult directed
at one’s mother. By trusting his own impulses he stated his reluctance to
play according to the rules dictated by the media-business complex.
In a powerful final statement that left everyone in the stadium and
those glued to the screens speechless, he signed his career by reestablishing
his proper identity and refuting the objectification imposed on him.10

�
The French philosopher Bernard-Henri Lévy interprets Zidane’s behavior along the
following lines. He compares Zidane with the Achilles in the Homeric account of the
battle for Troy, with Zidane refusing to participate in the role that was arranged for him.
(Lévy, 11.)
��
For the idea of signature, see Jacques Derrida, “Force of Law: The Mystical
Foundation of Authority,” in Jacques Derrida: Acts of Religion, ed. Gil Anidjar (New York/
London: Routledge, 2002), 293.
126 Loyola Schools Review Vol. VI
 Explaining Zidane: A Deconstruction with Adorno and Derrida

He refused the negative non-identity11 imposed on him and declared his

identity by expressing his solidarity with all those street football players
among whom he once was, before he became the myth Zidane. The
question of whether this refutation of the alienation has been successful
must be left open for the moment though it will be discussed later.

The Hidden Truth in Zidane II:

Rendering to Football its Very Core

By using his head to knock the Italian defender down, Zidane had
not only rendered truth to himself, but also reestablished the dialectic
identity of football. To understand how Zidane managed to give back
to football its identity, we have to see how football is transformed into a
product by the media-business setting of the World Cup as supervised by
the powerful FIFA.
The World Cup is a business with various participants who all want
to have a slice of the cake. But—to stay in the metaphor—the cake needs
to have a certain quality in order for it to be enjoyed. In regard to football,
the product football needs a certain image in order for the participants
like the media, the sponsors and the FIFA to profit. That a cake can well
become unappetizing for the party involved, for the media and for the
sponsors, was demonstrated by the Tour de France, which got embroiled
in doping problems that started with the exclusion of the main favorites
at the beginning of the race and ended with the probable disqualification
of the winner.12 The problem of doping makes this sport unattractive for
a lot of companies and seriously threatens its existence.
As mentioned above, football is presented by the FIFA mainly as an
event to promote fair play and international understanding. Through
personal statements, the president of the FIFA insisted on the promotion

11
The concept of non-identity is central to the philosophy of Adorno. He maintains
that there is in contemporary society a pressure for identity, and takes party for everything
that manages to escape the totality of the system. However, the concept of non-identity is
not undialectically positive. The non-identity imposed on the individual due to their be-
ing forced into playing roles in society is regarded as an alienation of the individuals from
themselves. (See: Theodor W. Adorno, “Society,” in Critical Theory: The Essential Readings,
ed. David Ingram and Julia Simon-Ingram [St. Paul: Paragon House, 1992], 64.)
12
�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������
Jan Ullrich and Ivan Basso, the tour favorites, among other top cyclists were banned
from participating one day before the tour started. Three days after the end, the winner
Floyd Landis was discovered to have used illegal substances. Whether he was to be disquali-
fied, had not been decided at the point of the writing of this article (9 August 2006).

Humanities 127
Kaelin

of peace through football.13 In other words: the FIFA stresses the taming,
civilizing elements in football, and the need to behave according to the
rules. Of course, this stress is in accordance with the economic interest
of the sponsors. It would be more difficult to address a large public, if
football had a more ruthless, archaic image.
However, at the heart of football lies exactly this archaic, vital force.
At the foundation of this sport lies the fundamental question of “us or
them.” Without the moment of fight that knows no mercy, football
would not exist. Not accepting this moment of archaic, vital fight at the
foundation of football would mean to cut its root. This is exactly what
the one-dimensional account of the FIFA in accordance with the media-
business machinery tries to do: To present football as something detached
from the vital drives, from impulses and from its archaic foundations,
ignoring the fact that these very drives and impulses precisely make this
game possible.
When the World Cup was at its peak in the final match, which was
perfectly orchestrated by the FIFA as an everlasting party of international
understanding, Zidane reminded us of the foundation of football. He
rendered truth to football by showing that it cannot be dissolved into
pure fair play and understanding, and that it is beyond mathematical
calculation and instrumental reason. It essentially consists in impulses
that are not predictable. It is only through the dialectic of the archaic and
vital moment of the fight on the one hand and the taming moment of the
rules on the other that keeps the game of football attractive. The moment
of fight cannot be limited from the beginning; rather it tends to ignore its
limits and rules as far as it can. Any attempt to cut one of these moments
would necessarily lead to the end of the game.
But the negation of the vital moments—which can be identified
in Nietzschean terms with the Dionysian—belongs to the logic of our
time, in which control and predictability is central, and that cannot

13
The president of the FIFA, Joseph S. Blatter, maintained the football can bring
about peace: “The occasion gives me the opportunity to convey a message: football can
help bring about peace. It cannot secure peace by itself, but it can contribute towards it.”
(http://www.FIFA.com/en/comp/index/0,2442,102949,00.html?comp=OLY&year=200
4&articleid=102949, accessed on 2 August 2006) There are several statements like that by
the president of the FIFA stressing football as a means to achieve peace and international
understanding. That might also explain why he was named “International Humanitarian
of the Year” by the International Humanitarian League for Peace and Tolerance, and why
he received the “American Global Award for Peace.”

128 Loyola Schools Review Vol. VI

 Explaining Zidane: A Deconstruction with Adorno and Derrida

accommodate unpredictable vital impulses.14 The rules, the pattern, the

predictability—identified with the Apollonian—express the spirit of
our time. Zidane’s impulse directed towards the chest of his adversary
underlined the impossibility of annihilating the unpredictable impulses.
At the same time, it shows as well that this suppression would lead to the
death of football, because all the impulses Zidane expressed in favor of the
game are equally utterly unpredictable and evade the rules of the game.
The cutting of the vital roots would make football impossible. It is
more than a big party for international understanding and economical
profit. Zidane reminded us of the tension-filled dialectic that is inherent in
football. However, as in the paragraph above, we do not know yet whether
his powerful statement will be heard.15

The Common Pattern: Impossibility of Breaking

through the Cage16

In both cases, Zidane is powerful and powerless at the same time.

He is therein the archetype of our time, in which humanity has amassed
enormous power and has left the individual completely unprotected from
these powers. Adorno diagnosed this state of being about forty years ago,
when he referred to the individual and his “omnipotent impotence.”17
Horkheimer and Adorno diagnosed that already in the beginning of
14
���������������������
Friedrich Nietzsche, The Birth of Tragedy, in Basic Writings of Nietzsche, trans. and
ed. Walter Kaufmann (New York: The Modern Library, 2000), 33: “We shall have gained
much for the science of aesthetics, once we perceive not merely by logical inference, but
with the Apollonian and Dionysian duality.” And we might add that not only might we
learn something about the science of aesthetics, but also about our life in general. This
view can seek Nietzsche’s support, since aesthetics and art are at the core of his life and
thinking: “Art, and not morality, is presented [i.e., in The Birth of Tragedy] as the truly
metaphysical activity of man.” (Ibid., 22)
15
It
�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������
could even be said that Zidane also renders truth to France. Zidane, as already
mentioned, comes from Marseille, the town that lends its name to the French national
anthem. The text of the Marseillaise is about the victory of bloody and powerful France.
Ignoring the rules and using the basic, elementary forces, Zidane used the same forces
that once allowed France—if even only for a very short period under Napoleon—to
dominate Europe.
16
The picture of the cage we are trying to escape is borrowed from Wittgenstein. He
often uses it in order to emphasize the desire and at the same time the impossibility to
go beyond language. (See e.g. Ludwig Wittgenstein, “A Lecture on Ethics,” Philosophical
Review 74 (1965): 3–12, here 12�.
��
Theodor W. Adorno, Negative Dialectics, trans. E.B. Ashton (London: Routledge,
1973), 34.

Humanities 129
Kaelin

European civilization in the story of Odysseus. And almost three millennia

later, this dialectic of domination is still alive: the accumulation of power
of mankind is paid for with the complete impotence of the individual.
Odysseus is powerful, as he manages to pass the sirens using his boat on
the way back to his hometown Ithaca. But at the same time he is powerless,
as he is tied to the mast of the boat and cannot follow his innermost
desires.18
Zidane is as powerful a player in football one can get, but nevertheless
he still is powerless. His veto against the myth that is built around him
and against the undialectic perception of football without the Dionysian
element is in vain. Both times he fails due to the overwhelming power of
the media-business machinery.
He cannot overcome the fact that he became a mythical figure. His
powerful rejection does not set an end to it. A myth is replaced by another
myth. The newspapers do not tell the story of a hero winning the World
Cup for a second time in the very last game of his life; rather they tell the
story of a man growing up in a ghetto, who manages to get out of the
ghetto. However, the ghetto stays within him. The logic behind such an
account that is no less mythical than the first one is that you might get a
man out of the ghetto, but not the ghetto out of the man.19
The escape from media heteronomy is impossible for Zidane. He is no
longer understood as a hero, but as an impulsive character, who destroys
the fruits of his own work. In other words, when the mythical figure of a
hero falls, he still stays within the mythical realm, but only gets a negative
connotation.
The powerful attempt of escape fails as well in the case of football.
Even though football is in nine out of ten cases at home on streets rather
than on multifunctional stadiums like the ones of the World Cup, it is
the few broadcast matches that determine the style of the game. The
power of interpretation stays with the powerful media and the forces of
economics. The football players on the streets do not have the possibility
of influencing the game; they are influenced by a couple of stars on TV
who are within the media system. The influence of the few, broadcast on
television, is experienced by the mass as something inevitable. “What is
done to all by the few always takes the form of the subduing of individuals
18
Horkheimer and Adorno, Dialectic of Enlightenment, 26ff.
19
An
�������������������������������������������������������������������������������
account and a critique of this “wisdom” can be found in Peter Hartman, “Ham-
let unter dem Kirschbaum: Zinedine Zidanes hirnrissiger Tabubruch im WM-Final,” in
Neue Züricher Zeitung, 21 July 2006. This account is often used to describe the lifestyle of
American heavyweight boxers especially of Mike Tyson, who might have gotten out of the
ghetto through boxing, but never overcame the rules of life he learnt in the ghetto.
130 Loyola Schools Review Vol. VI
 Explaining Zidane: A Deconstruction with Adorno and Derrida

by the many.”20 Thus, the experience of the millions of football players on

the streets is being overwhelmed by the few football stars in the media.
And Zidane’s outbreak does not change this structure. Even though he
tried to break through the belief of football as an Apollonian affair, he
cannot break the power of interpretation by the media-business industry
that keeps football, as an international business, running.
Football is—if we follow and generalize Nietzsche’s analysis of our
time—just another symptom of the negation of the vital forces of life.
It is a negation of the Dionysian elements that detains us from a proper
analysis of the forces that are responsible for our social reality. One
commonly thinks that it is governed by rational choice, but forgets the
vital impulses that govern these rational choices. The concentration on
the Apollonian moment in football shows that a completely inadequate
picture is mediated of the game of football that serves as a mirror of life.
Or even more, as the quote of the former Liverpool manager Bill Shankly
indicates: “Some people believe football is a matter of life and death. I’m
very disappointed with that attitude. I can assure you it is much, much
more important than that.”21
We have seen that even the most powerful individual in football is
unable to change the structure that determines the rules of the game:
Zidane cannot break out of the mythical figure he had become, and he
cannot change the common view of football as a game that serves peace
and international understanding. Therefore, we can conclude that Zidane’s
action was meaningless. Does the account just given mean that it was
useless? My answer is: Not at all.

Remaining Ruins: The Point of Pointless Actions

Meaning, if we shift to an existentialist account, does not consist

in achieving a different state of the world that surrounds us. According
to the Algerian-born French philosopher Albert Camus, who shares his
national identity with Zidane, objective meaning cannot be achieved.
Rather meaning consists in performing an objectively meaningless action.22

20
Horkheimer and Adorno, Dialectic of Enlightenment, 16.
21
www.shankly.com/lifeanddeath.htm and www.plainenglish.co.uk/updates.html,
accessed on 9 August 2006.
22
Camus
������������������������������������������������������������������������������������
shares with Zidane not only the Algerian background, but also the passion for
football. He played as a goalkeeper for Algeria, where he learnt everything about ethics: “All
that I know most surely about morality and obligations, I owe to football.” (http://www.
redpathalbion.co.uk/Philosophy_Page.htm, accessed on 2 August 2006.)
Humanities 131
Kaelin

Drawing attention to the myth23 of Sisyphus, Camus explains that even

though Sisyphus had been punished by the gods to push a stone up the
hill ever and ever again, he must experience his action as meaningful.
Sisyphus is the archetype of man: He lives his life consisting of the same
action without being able to achieve anything that would have some
sort of objective meaning. However, even though there is no objective
meaning achieved, the Sisyphus of Camus’ interpretation gives his actions
a subjective meaning.24 Therefore, Zidane’s action does not have to be
meaningless for him. In performing this powerful-powerless action, he
even gained some independence from the determination from outside.
That it was subjectively meaningful was asserted by Zidane himself, when
he refused to apologize and instead maintained that he did what he had
to do.
But this explanation does not give the full account that can be given
to Zidane. Two further interpretations of the meaning of Zidane’s deed
can be given: one by consulting the moral philosophy of Adorno, the other
by drawing attention the deconstruction of Derrida.
Adorno stresses the impotence of man in our time to break through
the determination by society. This even makes a proper moral behavior
impossible: “There can be no good life within the bad one.”25 Within
this dominating and manipulating society, a morally correct life becomes
impossible. However, even though a good life is not possible, a limited
autonomy within the present conditions is achievable through a moment
of spontaneity that breaks through the ruling instrumental reason; a
spontaneity that is seen as an impulse before the ego. It reminds us of the
chaotic concept of freedom. “The dawning sense of freedom feeds upon
the memory of the archaic impulse not yet steered by any solid I.”26 In this
interpretation of Adorno, Zidane reintegrates the chaotic pre-ego impulse
23
�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������
Earlier in this essay, I noted Horkheimer and Adorno’s critical account concerning
myth. This account has to be corrected in as far as they stress the dialectic of myth and
enlightenment: “Myth is already enlightenment, and enlightenment reverts to mythology.”
(Horkheimer and Adorno, Dialectic of Enlightenment, xviii.)
24
Albert Camus, The Myth of Sisyphus and Other Essays, trans. Justin O’Brien (New
York: Random House, 1991), 123: “The struggle itself toward the heights is enough to
fill a man’s heart. One must imagine Sisyphus happy.”
25
Theodor
�������������������
W. Adorno, Problems of Moral Philosophy, ed. Thomas Schröder, transl.
Rodney Livingstone (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2001), 1. Adorno refers here
to an early quote of his that became quite famous in the Minima Moralia. However, there
it is translated as: “Wrong life cannot be lived rightly.” (Theodor W. Adorno, Minima
Moralia, transl. E.F.N. Jephcott (London: NLB, 1974), 39, § 18). The German original
reads: “Es gibt kein richtiges Leben im falschen.”
26
Adorno, Negative Dialectics, 221.
132 Loyola Schools Review Vol. VI
 Explaining Zidane: A Deconstruction with Adorno and Derrida

into his life, without which freedom would be impossible. He thus regains
the dialectic of his identity consisting not only of instrumental reasoning
and acting but essentially also of fundamental impulses located prior to
the manifestation of the self.
When we try to explain the action of Zidane with Derrida, then
the access is slightly different. This account takes as its starting point
the concept of a ruin. Zidane is deconstructing himself quite literally by
throwing the head-butt. He destroys the monument that he has become.
But the transformation of the monument into a ruin is nothing negative;
rather it enables him to regain his finiteness.27 And with his finiteness he
gains back the freedom that a monument does not have. A monument is
something static, something very far removed from our human existence
and its identity: “One cannot love a monument ... except in an experience
itself precarious in its fragility: it has not always been there, it will not
always been there, it is finite.”28 Through his head-butt, Zidane becomes
himself a ruin. But it is the ruin that makes him regain his identity that was
alienated by the media. Being a ruin, Zidane is more true to himself than if
he had accepted the heteronomous determination of being a monument (or
a myth). And this deconstruction, this becoming a ruin in himself cannot
be negated by the power of interpretation wielded by the media.

Conclusion

Derrida is reported to have said: “Beyond the touchline, there is

nothing.”29 Applied to football, it might well be that when the game is
over, there is still something to be said, i.e., an interpretation to be given
that shapes the way we see reality and interact with the world.
We have seen that the common interpretation of the most famous
head-butt of modern times can be challenged. The focus shifts from
Zidane’s alleged irrationality to the truth he, through his action, gives to
his identity and to the identity of football. He reminds us of the dialectical
nature of this sport, which is unthinkable without its archaic and vital
drives. However, his powerful action proved to be impotent: He does not
manage to break the power of interpretation held by the media-business
complex. However, his action can still be given a meaning by drawing

27
“Ruin is not a negative thing. First, it is obviously not a thing.” (Derrida, “Force
of Law,” 278.)
28
Ibid., 278.
�����������
29
http://www.redpathalbion.co.uk/Philosophy_Page.htm, accessed on 9 August
2006.
Humanities 133
Kaelin

attention to the philosophies of Adorno and Derrida. With Adorno, we

have seen that the integration of the archaic impulses is indispensable for
human freedom; through this we see that Zidane has regained his freedom
through his head-butt and renounced the instrumentalization imposed
on him. Similarly, we can see in the account given by the philosophy of
Derrida that Zidane has won back his freedom in the act of deconstructing
the monument he had become. Finally, paying attention to Nietzsche’s
distinction between the Dionysian and the Apollonian, we can say that
Zidane has given back to football its dialectic identity.

134 Loyola Schools Review Vol. VI

 Explaining Zidane: A Deconstruction with Adorno and Derrida

Bibliography

Adorno, Theodor W. Minima Moralia. Translated by E.F.N. Jephcott. London: NLB,

1974.

________. Negative Dialectics. Translated by E.B. Ashton. London: Routledge, 1973.

________. Problems of Moral Philosophy. Edited by Thomas Schröder, translated by Rodney

Livingstone. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2001.

________. “�������������
Society.” In Critical Theory: The Essential Readings, ed. David Ingram and
Julia Simon-Ingram, 61-68. St. Paul: Paragon House, 1992.

Camus, Albert. The Myth of Sisyphus and Other Essays. Translated by Justin O’Brien. New
York: Random House, 1991.

Derrida, Jacques. “Force of Law: The Mystical Foundation of Authority.” In Jacques Derrida:
Acts of Religion. Edited by Gil Anidjar. New York/London: Routledge, 2002.

Eco, Umberto. Sämtliche Glossen und Parodien 1963–2000. Translated by Burkhart Kroeber
and Günter Memmert. Frankfurt am Main: Zweitausendeins, 2000.

Hartmann, Peter. “Hamlet unter dem Kirschbaum. Zinedine Zidanes hirnrissiger

Tabubruch im WM-Final.” In Neue Züricher Zeitung, 21 July 2006.

Horkheimer, Max and Theodor W. Adorno. Dialectic of Enlightenment: Philosophical

Fragments. Edited by Gunzelin Schmid Noerr, translated by Edmund Jephcott.
Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2002.

Kistner, Thomas. “Das System Blatter.” In Cicero (March 2006): 90.

________. “������������������������������������������
FIFA – Ein Konzern wie ein Kegelklub.” In Süddeutsche Zeitung, 4 May
2006.

Lévy, Bernard-Henri. “Zidane, chez Homère.” In Le Point, 13 July 2006, N°1765.

Nietzsche, Friedrich. The Birth of Tragedy. In Basic Writings of Nietzsche. Translated and
edited by Walter Kaufmann. New York: The Modern Library, 2000.

Wittgenstein, Ludwig. “Lecture on Ethics.” Philosophical Review 74 (1965): 3–12.

Internet sources (for exact information consult footnotes):

BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk
FIFA: http://www.FIFA.com
Der Spiegel: http://service.spiegel.de
http://www.redpathalbion.co.uk
www.plainenglish.co.uk
www.shankly.com

Humanities 135