rhetoric and power of olympic movement (quest 2011)

8/2/2019 Rhetoric and Power of Olympic Movement (Quest 2011)

1/14

352

Quest, 2011, 63, 352-365 2011 National Association for Kinesiology and Physical Education in Higher Education

The authors are with the University o Mlaga, Mlaga, Spain.

352

Rhetoric and Power:The Idealism and Philosophy of Life

of the Olympic Movement

Luis Javier Ruiz Cazorla, Jos Luis Chinchilla Minguet,and Ivn Lpez Fernndez

In this article we analyze rom a multidisciplinary perspective some o the philo-sophical oundations which underpin the theories on Olympism ostered by thecurrent Olympic institutions. We start rom the theory that Olympist idealism 1 isbased on social representations o the modern sport, implicit to which is the ideo-logical justifcation or the political and social practices o the Olympic Movement(OM) regarding the various historical episodes in which it has been caught up.This idealism has shaped an inherited view o the sport which has moved beyondthe ambit o the OM and into the realm o sports science, which has adopted andcontinues to adopt some o the postulates o the Olympist discourse when under-taking a critical review o the Olympic history and philosophy.

Analyzing the discourse 2 o past members o the OM and o institutionaldocuments such as the Olympic Charter contrasted with historical events and socialpractices represents a undamental step toward understanding the phenomenon o the OM in todays world. One o the main distinctive characteristics o the OlympicGames and the OM compared with other sporting events and institutions is thelegitimization o its social practices through a set o principles, values, and belie swhich are part o philosophy o li e which is repeatedly used as justifcation orthe positions it has taken in con ict situations a ecting Olympism. Furthermore,at no time in history have the Olympic Games been so deeply rooted in our globalculture and enjoyed so much popularity as they do now. Their social, political,and economic relevance in a postmodern context 3 urther justifes the relevanceo carrying out scientifc studies analyzing Olympism rom a multidisciplinary(Segrave & Chu, 1996), historical, anthropological, psychosociological, and edu-

cational perspective. We believe that an important objective o these studies shouldbe the way in which dominant social groups in society can control how the socialrepresentations o particular objects are defned (e.g., the Olympic Games, sport,human rights); how they control general sociocultural knowledge and peoplescommon sense, emotions, and attitudes with regard to controversial issues; and,more importantly, the ideologies, rules, and basic values which shape and controlsuch social representations o the public as a whole (Moscovici, 1986). There-


2/14

Rhetoric and Power 353

ore, we ocus on the aspects o the Olympist discourse typically associated withexpressing, confrming, reproducing or rejecting the social power o the leadersand theorists o the OM, in their capacity as members o the dominant groups(Van Dijk, 2009). Applying this authors defnition o power and discourse to ourpaper, we are re erring to members o the Olympic institutions, political leaders,scientifc journals, the sports press, education o fcials, and other agents that controlthe style and content o discourse on Olympism. This symbolic elite controls thetypes o discourse, the newsworthy topics, the type and quantity o in ormation, theselection or censorship o arguments, and the nature o rhetoric, thus establishinga hegemonic cultural fgure in society (Olympism over other sports fgures, suchas local and traditional sports culture).

In this article we contextualize this theoretical approach, reviewing the institu-tional rhetoric o the OM as regards the games history, with a particular ocus onthe standpoint adopted as regards the con ict surrounding the recent Beijing gamesin 2008. We have taken into account theories on sport and Olympism expoundedat institutional level and the discourse o some leading members o the OM, toreveal some o the belie s, values, and ideologies which make up their social rep-resentations o the sport and which guide their social actions with regards to powerstructures, o which the OM itsel orms part.

Epistemologically, our paper adopts an interdisciplinary approach, drawingon concepts rom philosophy, sociology, anthropology, social psychology, andhistoriography. Structural unctionalism, historical materialism, symbolic inter-actionism, studies o social in uence processes, and other schools o thought inthese disciplines are what have enabled us to approach Olympism as an institutionwhile at the same time as social action. Throughout our discussion we have tried toadopt an integrated approach that brings together di erent levels o philosophical,ideological, political, and cultural analysis o Olympism as a social phenomenon.This interdisciplinary approach is re ected in several aspects. For example, inconsidering the social unctions o Olympism in its ideological, political, andeconomic actors, in its role in social in uence processes, rom control to devia-tion, or rom preservation to social change, in the interpretation o Olympism associal representation or in the analysis o the discursive practices o the OM in thecontext o social communication. A more specifc example o this is provided romcultural anthropology by Thompson (1991). Applied to sport, this would meanseeing it as a means o reproducing the ideologies that encompass the values, socialpractices, and belie s o the culture concerned. Understood in this way, sport is asymbolic construct linked to socially structured and historically specifc processesand contexts, and analyzing it cannot be reduced to actions, objects, or meaning ul

statements, or to the power relationships in which these are ound. The enclosedbibliography o the sources we have used in our paper also o ers a clear exampleo this interdisciplinary yet inclusive approach, which we see as essential or a thor-ough study o complex social phenomena, such as Olympism and sport in general.

The concept o ideology is a central theme in our paper and there ore meritsclarifcation. This is neither the time or the place to describe the di erent theorieso ideology in social science, although we emphasize that in our research we haveadopted a critical approach, which limits the scope o ideological analysis to theuse o symbolic fgures, in our case sport and Olympism, in contexts o dominationand legitimization (Ario, 2007; Thompson, 1991).


3/14

354 Cazorla, Minguet, and Fernndez

The Idealism and Ideological Endogamyof Modern Olympism

Historically, o fcial Olympism has adapted its philosophy to a model inherited rom19th Century German Idealism clearly reminiscent o Kant and Hegel. Coubertinhimsel , the ather o modern Olympism, said the ollowing in one o his lettersre erring to its principal institution:

I continue to view the ormation o the International Olympic Committee asexcellent, based on the principle which I would call inverted delegation, whichmeans that the mandate comes rom the idea in order to attract disciples, and

not rom the masses in order to create the idea. (1973, p. 5)The essential maintenance o these oundations in their conceptualization

o the sport and in the social unctions attributed to it, has led to three importantconsequences, which are as key to how the OM is shaped and developed as theyare to its social practices.

1. Ideological Endogamy and Resistance to ChangeThe idealist substratum which has historically underpinned the social representa-tions o the OM has caused it to idolise its own in uential authorities and tophilosophize about itsel , generating a sort o ideological endogamy, or resistanceto incorporating new ideas and perspectives that could alter the purity o theinstitutions o fcial philosophy, which has become dogma. This trait has hindered

the research, review, and updating o modern Olympism. This is despite settingup institutions such as the International Olympic Academy (IOA) and its nationaldelegations, and the Olympic Studies Centres, which were designed to be dedicatedto researching Olympism, but which are more concerned with its propagation andpreservation. The creation o the IOA in 1961 responded to one o the concernso Coubertin, who had already proposed in 1937 to the government o the ThirdReich the creation o an Olympic Studies Centre which would de end the whole-some pedagogy o the Olympic principles and preserve them rom any devianceswhich have already begun to be perpetrated against them (Durntez, 2002, p. 20).In the past, the OM has not exactly shown tendencies or sel -criticism, but on thecontrary has ignored evidence o social realities which con ict with its own world-view and has scorned any external questioning. As Hoberman reports, historicalinterpretations o the OM have generally taken the orm o either hagiographies orhagiolatries (1995, p. 4). We are reminded that Coubertin had already proclaimedOlympism beyond ideology and, by exaggerating the merits o the OM, someOlympic historians (e.g., Betancor, 2002; Cagigal, 1981; Diem, 1966; Durntez,2002, Gillet, 1971; Rodrguez, 2000) have given him a supernatural status, a haloo immunity to critical analysis which makes studying the OM di fcult and doesnot help us to understand its origin and signifcance. When the results o researchlead to interpretations o the OM which do not correspond to those o the IOC(International Olympic Committee), these are contemptuously viewed as a criti-cism (Hoberman, 1995, p. 4). It has even been suggested that there are conspiraciesdevised by dark agents outside the sports world, as Count Baillet-Latour (president


4/14


o the IOC in 1936) suggested to de end himsel rom the criticism he received orhaving allowed the games organized by Nazi Germany:

Sirs, you will all remember the success o the Berlin and Garmisch games[1936 Winter Games], the di fculties aced during their preparation and thee orts made to derail them.

Why did these di fculties disappear? Why were those attempts in vain?Because the International Olympic Committee applied the same meticulous-ness in de ending the Olympic principles as the German authorities appliedin respecting them. (Coubertin, 1973, p. 221)

2. Epistemological Isolation

An OM has been shaped which is largely impervious to the epistemological in u-ence o major philosophical thought in social science during the 20th Century, whichcould have enabled Olympism to update its postulates and emerge rom its idealistshell, to venture into the real world o postmodernity. In contrast to the modernistconception o a static and unchanging world based on universal principles to bediscovered through science, the postmodern paradigm currently adopted by thesocial sciences is based on three major assumptions that we believe have not beenconsidered by Olympism theorists: reality is constantly changing, knowledge is asocial construct and knowledge has social consequences. Accepting these assump-tions would entail a major change o perspective in studies on Olympism. (Cerratoand Palmonari, 2007).

The problem we are alluding to does not lie in the Olympic ideals themselves(which, as in other felds o culture, have always guided human action), but in theuse o such ideals to mask the maintenance o the status quo in avor o dominantgroups. Hence, the Olympic ideals start to become an Olympist ideology. Forexample, the Olympic ideal o keeping the sport and the Olympic Games divorced

rom political pressure is desirable as a goal, but the use o this principle in crisissituations to legitimize a government or institution and to de-legitimize dissentingminorities, as occurred with the 1968 Mexico games and more recently in Beijingin 2008, trans orms this ideal into ideology, which when expounded by the Olympicinstitutions helps to uphold dominant groups. Our criticism o Olympism is notbased on the premise that it constitutes a manipulative ideology whose purpose isthe pursuit o power, prestige, and economic benefts (Arnold, 1996, pp. 93-94),and does not o er a deterministic thesis on the sport. This can be demonstratedby these same examples, whereby the Olympic ideals or principles could alsobe appropriated by other classes, groups or ethnicities against which they were

ormulated or or a wider social beneft that includes the needs o emerging socialgroups and categories. By making this distinction, we there ore reject any a prioridisqualifcation o Olympism, and we recognize its potential or social changeand or spreading and strengthening universal values. However, we believe thatthese qualities are not intrinsic to it, but in our view should be explored urtherby the OM itsel through rigorous and interdisciplinary social science research.This would stimulate sel -criticism, and the revision and updating o the Olympicprinciples and social practices without waiting or their hand to be orced by


5/14


6/14


such as economic or political interests, since its sole motivation is supposedly thegood o the institution and it goes without saying that its members, custodianso the Olympic essence, always make their decisions on the basis o the principlesthis represents. Reality shall subsequently prove them right. This strategy willdetermine the attitude adopted with regards to external criticisms, such as thoseexpressed in the con ict surrounding the 2008 Beijing Games. Thus, or example,as Juan Antonio Samaranch (junior), Spanish representative at the IOC, confrmedin statements to the EFE news agency:

Those protesting against the Games are not tarnishing something insignifcant,but the hopes and dreams o all the worlds athletes. The Games are their es-tival, their celebration, and I dont know why all these athletes now have totrain with the anxiety and worry o thinking about the protests which mighttake place in Beijing. In my view this is wrong, an injustice, but sadly I dontbelieve the pressure will go away, and the BOCOG (organizing committee)and the IOC are going to have to battle with it over the next fve months.

I have no doubt whatsoever that when on 8 August the whistle sounds to com-mence the frst competition, the strength o the sport and o the Games willsweep away all criticisms. This has happened many times. (2008, March 25,paras. 2-3)

The de ensive strategy has been the strategy most o ten used, also in academia,by the Physical Activity and Sports Sciences, where a surprising submissivenesshas been adopted regarding this inherited view o the sport. We are reminded o the rather paradigmatic words o Jos Mara Cagigal in the oreword to IdearioOlmpico de Pierre de Coubertin (The Olympic Ideology o Pierre de Coubertin)published by the Madrid National Institute o Physical Education in 1973, in whichcritics o the ounder o Olympism were discredited as ollows:

A small sector, the least erudite and least pedagogical o the guild o journal-ism, that is to say, that which is committed above all to sensationalism, hasdiscovered in this inspiring fgure [P. de Coubertin] a cause or easy criticism,sensationalist iconoclasm, a stance which gives the impression o personalityand independence o judgement to those who lack them. (p. 5)

The line o argument applied by Cagigal includes discursive strategies whichin social psychology are linked to attribution through imputation and the anchoringo social representations (Jodelet, 1986). They are cognitive processes but, sincethey have social dimensions, they become ideological. The narrator seeks motive

and thus, through anchoring, defnes the category to which individuals and eventsbelong. Instead o discussing the acts or arguments, hidden motives are sought,and to rein orce the scapegoat or conspiracy theory e ect they resort to per-sonalism with which they attempt to shi t the cause o the acts being judged ontothe subjects, rather than onto external circumstances. In the feld o the theory o communication and o political communication, this manner o operating is linkedto propaganda techniques (Dader, 1990).


7/14


Ideological Foundations of Modern Olympism

Without underestimating other interpretations and perspectives o ideologicalphenomena, we shall ocus our attention on the meaning and the use which theOlympic institutions have attempted to apply to Olympism. From a cognitive-criticaltheory o ideology, it is clear that since its historical beginnings in the 19th Century,Olympism has been shaped as a system o doctrinaire ideas (Morin, 1992). Thisinterpretation is borne out by two traits which have particularly characterized it:rationalization and idealization. Both are mechanisms by which ideologies canhelp to legitimatize dominance and social inequality, according to Edgar Morin,who argues that ideologies are systems o doctrinaire ideas (i.e., that they claim to

be absolute and always have a mythical component). He there ore highlights thesetwo traits as essential eatures o ideologies. Through rationalization, everythingcan be explained according to its logic. Ideology orcibly integrates reality intothe logic o the system and it is believed that it possesses logic; through idealiza-tion it absorbs or itsel the reality it designates, re ers to, describes or explains.Newman fnds an example o legitimization through a strategy o rationalizationin the ideology o competitive individualism and meritocracy (a core ideologyin the social representations o sport), according to which hard work is alwaysrewarded with success. According to this ideology, poverty (also sports ailure)is a result o individual responsibility; not due to lack o opportunity but to lack o ability. There ore, competitive individualism provides an explanation or inequal-ity and supports our belie that the world is a air place (Newman, 1995, p. 307),encouraging individuals to believe that they can control their destiny. Edgard Morn(1992) makes a distinction between rationalization and rationality. Rationalizationis a logical system or explanation without empirical basis, while rationality strivesto link coherence with experience through critical, but also sel -critical, re ection.True rationality is open to and interjects with a reality that challenges it, due to aconstant interaction between the logical and empirical; it is the result o a reasoneddiscussion o ideas. True rationality is able to recognize its shortcomings.

Just as Hegelian philosophy viewed thought (conscience) as the essence orelement which reveals and creates reality, the principles o Olympism, and theactions o its institutions and leaders as regards the recent crisis surrounding the2008 Beijing Games, have made clear that the OM maintains a view and philosophyo sport which is anchored in outdated idealist presumptions.

Olympism is a philosophy o li e, exalting and combining in a balancedwhole the qualities o body, will, and mind. Blending sport with culture and

education, Olympism seeks to create a way o li e based on the joy o e ort,the educational value o good example and respect or universal undamentalethical principles. (Comit Olmpico Internacional, 2007, p. 11)

The rudimentary and deliberately ambiguous philosophy o li e proclaimedby the principles listed in the Olympic Charter, to which the Olympic leaders re errepeatedly to justi y their stances when these contradict social reality, suggests that

or the leaders o Olympism it is the thinking which determines and governs thebeing o reality, rather than the other way around. This theory is one o the basicassumptions o Idealism, or which the human being is undamentally spirit, a


8/14


spirit whose essence is governed by its sel -consciousness, a notion which derivesin turn rom an abstract and unreal view o the human being. This view waslater re uted by historical materialism with arguments which are still valid today,such as that the human being cannot be identifed by a general human essence ornature; the individual is historically conditioned by their interaction with theirphysical and social environment, by the requirements o productive work: they area social and socially-determined entity. Their nature is defned by the conditionso the society in which they exist. For this reason, idealism came to be seen asan ideological tool or the bourgeoisie, whose objective was simply to justi y theprevailing orms o exploitation.

From these idealistic premises, the social representations o the modern OM

incorporate an ideology that is contradictory in its approach to the relationshipbetween sport and politics. For example, the idealistic principle o absolute separa-tion between politics and sports, while classi ying real-world problems (inequality,exploitation, lack o reedom, human rights violations, etc.) as political issues,creates an Olympism that is transcendent to the evolution o social reality andisolated rom its surrounding historical context.

Olympism and Power:The Political Asepsis of the Sport

As was made patently clear during the con ict surrounding the 2008 Beijing Olym-pic Games, o fcial Olympism is seen as an ideal which, or its leaders, fnds itsel denied by the political and social reality. This represents an opposition between

Olympism and social reality, in which the latter represents pure negativity, andaccording to the directors o the OM should be brought into line with the principleso Olympism to acquire a positive ontological status without losing its idealistcharacter in the process. This is the philosophical basis or the political asepsis o the sport upheld by the OM. We interpret political asepsis as the procedures used bythe OM to keep sport and the Olympic Games ree rom the pathogenic in uenceo politics. The ideological nature o that stance and its implication or power anddomination relationships derives rom two actors: frstly, rom a misconception o sport, since as a social phenomenon sport is essentially political and cannot remainisolated rom its historical context; and secondly, rom the same application o theseprocedures to ensure the political asepsis o the Olympic Games. The historicalepisodes we have analyzed show that these procedures are applied in some casesbut not in others, according to patently political criteria.

At the root o the problem is the obsolete social scientifc theory regardingthe relationship between politics and sport that is used by the OM. All processeso social in uence, irrespective o the nature o those processes (social control,con ormity, deviance, social changes, etc.) or o the social agents involved (power,majorities, minorities, dominators, dominated etc.) are categorized under the genericand pejorative concept o politics. Admitting the existence o social in uence doesnot mean human being are victims o social ebbs and ows, nor that they mustexpress themselves through any type o imposition or coercion (in many cases itoccurs through subtle persuasive methods). In any case, as Canto (1994) warns,the di fculty o detecting these processes is the best sign o their e ectiveness.


9/14


In the case o the Beijing Olympic Games, or example, ar rom stimulatingsocial change in the direction prescribed by the principles o Olympism, the OMhas acted as frewalls, helping to maintain the global structure o which it ormspart. Jaques Rogge stated the West should stop the human rights protests againstChina (Blitz, 2008). By the same token, during the controversy surrounding theroute o the torch and the protests against China, J. A. Samaranch (president o theIOC when China was awarded the Olympic Games in 2001) stated the ollowing:

We have to understand the Chinese in order to know how ar we can go in askingsomething or negotiating with them. They are very sensitive. Furthermore, theydo not need any lectures on international political relations. We hope that theroute o the torch, which cannot be changed now, ends as well as possible.When the Games begin it will all be orgotten. (2008, April 13, para. 2)

Note the meaning o the statement they dont need any lecture on interna-tional political relations. This discredits the right o the international communityto require a country to respect human rights and undamental reedoms, in additionto concealing behind the euphemism o international political relations an explicitre erence to the true ocus o the debate: human rights breaches by the ChineseGovernment and its lack o respect or its citizens undamental reedoms. Alejan-dro Blanco, president o the Spanish Olympic Committee (COE), also de endedthis position very clearly in an interview with a journalist be ore the 2008 Games:

J. Another point to be settled is whether athletes are allowed to demonstratetheir support or human rights during the Games.

I. There is a concern among athletes about what they can or cant do on thebasis o the Olympic Charter, and it is there ore necessary to set boundaries,in order to avoid a penalty or provoke controversy. Standardisation is good oreveryone. (Pano, 2008, paras. 8-9)

In any case, Olympist ideologists see human rights as a actor which contami-nates the immaculate purity o the sport. This apolitical-spiritual view o the sport,derived rom the principles o Olympism, justifes the OMs phobia o any signo social deviance in a sports context and places it alongside power in processeso social in uence, thus discrediting the Olympic institutions ability to act asmediators in the resolution o con icts which emerge regarding the Games or toact as promoters o education, as set out in the Olympic Charter. This consequencecan be easily illustrated by multiple quotations rom the Olympist discourse, but

the ollowing appears to us to be one o the most eloquent, due to the number o issues it covers:

I have always classed Olympic boycotts as a vulgarity. Staging a boycott meansknowing that the people doing it have no idea what they are doing. . . . Allthese manipulations by politicians are out o place and inappropriate. . . . Leavepolitics to politicians and the Games to the athletes. They should not inter erein the Games because [politicians] have enough ways o putting pressure oncountries, but they should not touch the Games, these are or young people.(Durntez, 2008, paras. 3-5)


10/14


The mani est contradiction between the principles o Olympism and the actionso Olympic institutions during the China crisis makes the Games a legitimizingagent o the inequalities and political restrictions in contemporary Chinese society.For example, the constant re erence by Olympic leaders to a vague theory o changewithout any empirical basis, China will be much more open a ter the Games(Samaranch, 2008, April 7, p. 21), has been o ered to people as a alse hope andused to demobilize social agents that demanded real change: they are a catalyst

or change, not a remedy or all illnesses. We believe that China will change onceit is opened up to the worlds gaze, through the 25,000-strong media attending theGames (Rogge, 2008, paras. 1-2).

The ideological contradictions o the naive idealism o Olympism and its social

consequences can be extended to other areas where the OM has tried to broadenits activities, as various authors have made clear, in the feld o peace (Reid, 2006),in education in values (McNamee, 2006), in environmental protection (Loland,2006) and in multiculturalism (Parry, 2006). In education, the consequences arequite clear. The attempts o Olympism to assert its in uence on Teaching and onPhysical Education have been clear since it began, and remain explicitly set outin the Olympic Charter: The goal o the Olympic Movement is to contribute tobuilding a peace ul and better world by educating youth through sport practisedin accordance with Olympism and its values (Comit Olmpico Internacional,2007, p. 13).

According to Binder (2001), despite his personal e orts, Coubertin had toacknowledge that in his fnal years the IOC was unable to promote an educationalprogram in practice. A similar criticism is made by Torres, who states that the theo-ries o the ather o Olympism are in some cases educationally inconsistent, such asthe contradiction between the principle o rewarding participation over results andthe Olympic motto itsel : Citius, Altius, Fortius (Torres, 2006). In any case, theIOCs traditional concern has always been more ocused on the technical and orga-nizational aspects o the Olympic sports, rather than on their educational potential.

In the current historical context, Olympism su ers rom in exibility anddisconnection with the reality o its own stereotypes. In a pioneering paper onthe theory o communication in 1922, Walter Lippman rather eloquently linkedthe philosophies o li e to the various consequences which can stem rom thepremises o these philosophies, particularly when outlining stereotypes whichin uence social action. His theory could be borne in mind as a starting point

or a review o Olympisms philosophy o li e, particularly when ormulatingstereotyped ideas and in preparing or a change o philosophy according to aparticular social reality:

What is really important is the nature o the stereotypes and the degree o credulity with which we apply them. . . . I our philosophy tells us that eachhuman being is a small part o the world and that his intelligence is only capableo capturing a limited number o phases and aspects within a narrow rangeo ideas, when applying our stereotypes we would have to accept them orwhat they are and give them the consideration they deserve, and be preparedto modi y them. We would also have to detect, with increasing clarity, whenand where our ideas originate, how we arrived at them, and why we decidedto accept them. (Lippmann, 2003, p. 88)


11/14


With regards to the relationship between knowledge and social action, betweenOlympism as an idea and the social unctions o sport, there is a lesson or the presentwhich we can extract rom the criticism Marxism once made o Hegelian idealismand which is per ectly valid or the Olympist philosophy o li e and its attitude tosocial con ict. Only through scientifc understanding o a particular social reality(i.e., making the essence o the object which conditions them intelligible) does thesocial being have the real possibility o succeeding historically in conceiving andachieving a new world, thus arriving at an understanding o themselves.

In short, these are two premises which are today ully assumed by all socialscientifc schools o thought (Ruiz, 2008), but which sometimes seem to be ignoredby the OM. Firstly, individuals capacity or re ection (we are not sheep in the hands

o institutions or o power), and secondly the reciprocal, nonmechanical nature o the social-sport interaction, since in uence processes in sport, as in other socialspheres, are multidirectional. This is true even when there is an unequal powerrelationship, in terms o ability to in uence the other, as is the case or a minorityin uence seeking innovation and social change (e.g., dissident groups at the 2008Beijing Olympic Games). When the minority e ect is con ronted with the apparenthomogeneity and uni ormity o the targets it seeks to in uence, on gaining theirin uence through con ict resolution this usually comes to nothing, and almostalways with a delayed or even an unconscious e ect (Canto, 1994).

ConclusionsThe idealist oundations o modern Olympism have been its stumbling point, pre-

venting it rom adapting to social change and restricting its capacity to respond tothe di erent historical con icts with which it has been con ronted (we have re erredto the most prominent o these, the 1936 Berlin Olympic Games, the 1968 MexicoGames and the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games).

Olympisms potential to spread and promote universal values such as humanrights, ecology, solidarity and respect or cultural diversity is enormous, but itis not something which comes automatically, but which depends on how theseideals are used and on the specifc strategy o universalisation. In essence, thisstrategy consists o promoting the individual interests o an institution, or a socialgroup, such as the general interests o society, the country or the world as a whole.It can be interpreted as a strategy o mystifcation and upholding dominance asan ideological mechanism that helps to legitimatize relationships o control andsocial inequality. However, it can also be used by the dominated or emerginggroups, as seen in the 1968 Mexico Games, or more recently at Beijing 2008. The

act remains that whichever group rames their own interests within a universalperspective will be a ected by this Universalist logic. For example, undamentalclassist values such as reedom, justice, and raternity, advanced in the late 18thCentury by the revolutionary bourgeoisie, were not explored exhaustively by thisparticular origin. On the contrary, the act that the values (or Olympic principles inthis case) were presented as universal values implies that they can be appropriatedby other classes or ethnic groups, even against those whom they were ormulated,and or a wider social beneft, and that there is no limit to their application by an


12/14


institution or specifc regimen, but that they are potentially open and available toinclude emerging social categories and needs.

Ideologically, the OM and Olympism have ulflled a social unction o main-taining the social structure and the dominant political and economic groups o each historical period. Analysis o the discourse used by the OM, particularly intimes o con ict, reveals clear use o rhetorical strategies such as rationalization,idealization, and universalization to ulfll the a oresaid maintenance unction.Proselytism and propaganda in schools, universities, and the media are habituallyused to legitimize their social practices. The most commonly used strategy in theirsocial communications is that o re erring to the sources and arguments whichreassure them, avoiding or discrediting those which question or re ute their own

postulates. All this aims to rein orce attitudes which have already been shaped orto confrm choices already declared in their idealist interpretation o the sport ando social reality.

The problem o the objective value which can be attributed to o fcial Olympismdoes not represent a theoretical problem (nor a philosophical one), but a practicalproblem o a political nature. It is in praxis that Olympism must demonstrate itsprinciples, such as the real-world applicability o its philosophy o li e. Knowl-edge o the social world must take into account a practical knowledge o that worldwhich preexisted it and which must be included in its purpose. Those who abandonthe active aspect o knowledge to idealism orget, as Pierre Bourdieu stated, theconstructivist dimension o knowledge about the social world:

. . . and that among the conditions or existence and the practices or representa-tions there is also the structuring activity o the agents which, ar rom reacting

mechanically to mechanical stimulus, respond to callings or threats rom aworld whose meaning they have helped to create. (1998, p. 478)

The ambitious trans ormative objectives expressed in the Olympic Charterrequire Olympism to be permanently in touch with social reality, and or there to bea rethinking o the strived or but impossible goal o the political asepsis o sport.This principle has now emerged as being too vague and generic. It is an ideologicalcocktail where, through sport, political propaganda is placed on the same level asthe de ense o human rights. The OM should re ormulate its approach, conducting areview o its concepts, objectives, and limitations, rom a critical, interdisciplinaryperspective that is open to all political and social stakeholders.

We have re erred to the historic lack o uid communication between sportsscience and social science, and we want to end by re ecting on this issue, an area inwhich we believe there is much that remains to be done. Anthropology, Psychology,Sociology, and Sports History have an interesting feld o research in the adaptationand application o theories and methodologies rom their sister sciences to the studyo the sports phenomenon. Social representations o sport and o Olympism, howordinary people build their knowledge o sport; di erences in discourse on sportbetween institutions, the media, and educators, its implications or social practiceson health, inequality, violence or human rights, the in uence o the internet andnew communication technologies on sport as a cultural phenomenon; the impact o globalization on local and traditional sports culture; the ideological implications o


13/14


sport on social and political con icts, their connections with economy and consump-tion, etc. These are some examples which we believe can open up promising areaso uture research rom a interdisciplinary and multimethodological perspective,the results o which could revolutionize the theory o sport and generate signifcantchanges in the sports policies o governments and institutions, such as those o which the OM orms part, and seek to serve the interests o society as a whole.

Notes1. The qualifer Olympist rather than Olympic was seen as more appropriate, since it betterre ects the proselytizing tone the OM gives to its postulates.

2. Our defnition o discourse is in line with Iguez (2006), who defnes it as a set o linguisticpractices that maintain and promote certain social relationships. According to this defnition,discourse analysis involves exploring how these practices operate in the present by maintainingand promoting these relationships: highlighting the power o language as a key and regulatingcomponent.

3. Postmodernity is a periodizing concept popularized in social science rom the 1960sonwards. It tries to correlate the emergence o new ormal traits in culture with the emergence o a new type o social reality and a new economic order: what is known variously as postindustrial,consumer or media society, or simply as globalization.

ReferencesArio, A. (2007). Ideologa, sistemas de creencias y representaciones sociales. In J. Cerrato

& A. Palmonari (Eds.), Representaciones sociales y psicologa social: Comportamiento,

globalizacin y posmodernidad (pp. 138153). Valencia, Spain: Promolibro.Arnold, P. (1996). Olympism, sport and education. Quest, 48 (1), 93101.Betancor, M.A. (2002). Pierre de Coubertin y la pedagoga olmpica. In Actas del Congreso

Internacional Historia de la Educacin Fsica (pp. 79-85). Madrid, Spain: Gymnos.Binder, D. (2001). Olympism revisited as context or global education: Implications or

physical education. Quest, 53 (1), 1434.Blitz, R. (2008, April 26). IOCs Rogge asks or more time or China. Financial Times.

Retrieved April 26, 2008 rom http://www. t.com/cms/s/0/ac69a7b2-1325-11dd-8d91-0000779 d2ac.html

Bourdieu, P. (1998). La distincin. Criterio y bases sociales del gusto . Madrid, Spain: Taurus.Cagigal, J.M. (1981). Oh deporte (Anatoma de un gigante) . Valladolid, Spain: Min.Canto, J.M. (1994). Psicologa social e infuencia. Estrategias del poder y procesos de

cambio . Mlaga, Spain: Ediciones Aljibe.Cerrato, J., & Palmonari, A. (2007). Representaciones sociales, psicologa social y posmo-

dernidad. In J. Cerrato & A. Palmonari (Eds.), Representaciones sociales y psicologa

social: Comportamiento, globalizacin y posmodernidad (pp. 139). Valencia, Spain:Promolibro.Comit Olmpico Internacional. (2007). Carta Olmpica . Laussane, Switzerland: Comit

Olmpico Internacional.Coubertin, P. (1973). Ideario Olmpico . Madrid, Spain: Instituto Nacional de Educacin

Fsica.Dader, J.L. (1990). La personalizacin de la poltica. In A. Muoz, C. Monzn, J.I. Rospir,

& J.L. Dader (Eds.), Opinin pblica y comunicacin poltica (pp. 351366). Madrid,Spain: Eudema.

Diem, C. (1966). Historia de los deportes (Vol. I). Barcelona, Spain: Luis de Caralt.


14/14


Durntez, C. (2002). Filoso a y pedagoga del Olimpismo. In Actas del Congreso Internac-ional Historia de la Educacin Fsica (pp. 15-24). Madrid, Spain: Gymnos.

Durntez, C. (2008, April 18). El presidente de la Academia Olmpica cree una ordinariezolmpica el posible boicot a los JJOO. Soitu.es . Retrieved April 18, 2008 rom http:// www.soitu.es/soitu/2008/04/17/in o/1208449479_753211.html

Gillet, B. (1971). Historia del Deporte . Barcelona, Spain: Oikos-Tau.Hoberman, J. (1995). Toward a theory o Olympic internationalism. Journal o Sport His-

tory, 22 (1), 137.Iguez, L. (2006). Anlisis del Discurso. Manual para las ciencias sociales . Barcelona,

Spain: UOC.Jodelet, D. (1986). La representacin social: Fenmenos, concepto y teora. In S. Moscovici

(Ed.), Psicologa social II: Pensamiento y vida social. Psicologa social y problemassociales (pp. 469494). Barcelona, Spain: Paids.

Lippmann, W. (2003). La opinin pblica . Madrid: Langre.Loland, S. (2006). Olympic sport and the ideal o sustainable development. Journal o the

Philosophy o Sport, 33, 144156.McNamee, M. (2006). Olympism, Eurocentricity, and transcultural values. Journal o the

Philosophy o Sport, 33, 174187.Morn, E. (1992). El mtodo IV. Las Ideas . Madrid: Ctedra.Moscovici, S. (1986). Psicologia e Sociedade, XXX, II Pensamiento y vida social. Psicologa

social y problemas sociales . Barcelona, Spain: Paids.Newman, D.M. (1995). Sociology. Exploring the architecture o everyday li e . London,

England: Pine orge Press.Pano, R. (2008, April 10). Interview with Alejandro Blanco, president o the Spanish

Olympic Committee. La Voz de Galicia .es. Retrieved April 10, 2008 rom http://www.lavozdegalicia.es/mundo/2008/04/10/0003_6720841.htm

Parry, J. (2006). Sport and Olympism: Universals and multiculturalism. Journal o the

Philosophy o Sport, 33, 188204.Reid, H. (2006). Olympic sport and its lessons or peace. Journal o the Philosophy o Sport, 33, 205214.

Rodrguez, J. (2000). Historia del deporte . Barcelona, Spain: Inde.Rogge, J. (2008, March 23). Rogge: China cambiar al abrir el pas a la mirada del mundo.

Elmundo.es . Retrieved March 23, 2008 rom http://www.elmundo.es/elmundode-porte/2008/03/23/masdeporte/1206291156.html

Ruiz, L.J. (2008). Funcin social del deporte espectculo: las Carreras de Carros en la Antigua Roma. Unpublished doctoral thesis. Mlaga, Spain: Universidad de Mlaga.

Samaranch, J.A. (2008, March 25). La tensin est poniendo como rehenes a ms de 10.000atletas. As.com. Retrieved March 25, 2008 rom http://www.as.com/masdeporte/ articulo/samaranch-tension-poniendo-rehenes-10000/dasmas/20080325dasdasmas_1/ Tes

Samaranch, J.A. (2008, April 7). China se abrir tras los juegos. El Pas , p. 21.Samaranch, J.A. (2008, April 13). Si se quiere castigar a China, no es justo utilizar los

Juegos. Lavanguardia.es . Retrieved April 13, 2008 rom http://www.lavanguardia.es/premium/publica/publica?COMPID=53455297617&ID_PAGINA=22088&ID_FORMATO=9&turbourl= alse

Segrave, J., & Chu, D. (1996). The modern Olympic Games: A contemporary socioculturalanalysis. Quest, 48 (1), 5766.

Torres, C. (2006). Results or participation?: Reconsidering Olympisms approach to com-petition. Quest, 58 (2), 242254.

Thompson, J. B. (1991). La comunicacin masiva y la cultura moderna. Contribucin a unateora crtica de la ideologa. Versin : Estudios de comunicacin y poltica, 1, 43-74.

Van Dijk, T. (2009). Discurso y Poder . Barcelona, Spain: Gedisa.

rhetoric and power of olympic movement (quest 2011)

Documents