The Super Bowl and its contradictions

 By: Ricardo Abud

The Super Bowl functions in the collective psyche as the most powerful civic ritual in the United States, a kind of modern public square where what is and is not part of the national identity is validated.

As the event with the largest audience and commercial reach, it transcends sports to become a barometer of culture; what happens on its main stage is perceived as the official version of "Americanness" in the eyes of the world.

When a Puerto Rican-American artist performs at halftime and uses Spanish, the act transforms into a profound political and cultural statement. It represents, above all, a claim to a space of legitimacy for a community that is a citizen by right but is often treated as peripheral. For the Puerto Rican artist, singing in his native language in this context is a way of affirming that Spanish is a national language and not a foreign element, reminding the audience that the United States is, de facto, a multilingual nation with Spanish-speaking territories integrated into its political structure for over a century.

Contemporary societies face the fundamental dilemma of balancing the celebration of cultural diversity with the need for shared symbols and spaces that generate national cohesion. 

This debate intensifies at large-scale events, such as the Super Bowl, which function as civic rituals that reinforce a sense of collective belonging. In a multicultural nation, the question arises as to whether shared identity should reflect a dominant tradition or the country's diverse demographic reality. 

Language acts as a powerful marker of identity, but its relationship to national unity is complex. While some countries opt for monolingualism, others like Switzerland or Canada thrive on multilingual models. 

The United States lacks an official language at the federal level, reflecting a pragmatic tradition, even though English operates as a vehicular language and Spanish is spoken by thirteen percent of the population.

Comparative evidence suggests that there is no direct correlation between linguistic diversity and social fragmentation. Puerto Rico introduces a particular complexity to this debate that warrants detailed analysis. As an unincorporated territory of the United States since 1898, its more than 3 million residents are U.S. citizens, eligible to serve in the armed forces (and have done so with above-average participation rates), subject to federal laws, and active participants in the U.S. economy. However, Spanish is the predominant language on the island, used in government, education, and daily life, with English as a second official language but of limited use in practice.

This reality raises fundamental questions about the relationship between language and national identity. If U.S. citizens in Puerto Rico live predominantly in Spanish without this calling into question their national status or loyalty, what then is the basis for arguing that Spanish is inherently "non-American" on the mainland? The existence of Puerto Rico demonstrates that American identity has historically coexisted officially with Spanish for over a century.

If a Puerto Rican artist expresses themselves in Spanish at a national event, they are not representing a foreign culture, but rather the language of their own territory. This reveals that the argument for authenticity based exclusively on English is historically untenable. 

The resistance to the visibility of Spanish in symbolic spaces reflects a hierarchy where certain cultural expressions are considered more legitimate than others, despite coming from the same citizens.

National events are spaces where identities are negotiated under constant tensions between demographic majorities and the inclusion of minorities, tradition versus evolution, and assimilation versus multiculturalism. 

The psychology of perceived threat plays a crucial role, as changes in the public visibility of other cultures can generate anxiety about loss of identity. However, cultures constantly evolve through the synthesis of influences; what is considered authentically American today is the result of this historical process. The current challenge is not to eliminate tension, but to manage it in a way that fosters integration.

The debate on cultural representation in national symbolic spaces has no simple solutions because it involves conflicting values: unity versus diversity, tradition versus change, historical identity versus demographic reality. What is clear is that successful societies find ways to negotiate these tensions without resorting to absolute exclusions or complete fragmentation.

The challenge is not to eliminate tension, but to manage it productively. National events can fulfill their unifying function precisely when different sectors of society see themselves reflected in them, not in a way that each group obtains proportional representation at any given time, but in a way that no one feels permanently excluded from the shared national project.

The fundamental question is not whether cultural change will occur, but whether that change will be managed through dialogue, gradual adaptation, and the search for shared symbols, or through conflict, imposition, and mutual resentment. History suggests that societies that thrive are those capable of evolving their symbols and identities without losing the fundamental values ​​that sustain them.

THERE IS NOTHING MORE EXCLUSIONARY THAN BEING POOR