The Olympic Ideal and the Multiple Agendas of the Games Introduction
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
The Olympic Ideal and the Multiple Agendas of the Games Renford Reese Cal Poly Pomona University The Olympic Games are often viewed as an ideological, geo-political sporting battleground. The nuanced relationships between nation states and their respective sporting structures and organizations are played out on the global stage of ‘The Games’. The stage offered by the International Olympic Committee (IOC) through their four- year cycle of celebration of sporting prowess is universally recognized as ‘more than just a Games’. Sport has become not only a means of bringing people together but also of emphasizing difference, thus it has become impossible for sport to distance itself from world issues. By staging the ‘greatest show on earth’, the Olympic movement becomes a worthy area of investigation into this relationship between sport and international politics and offers a different lens through which one can offer a view on global politics and international relations. No other event in the history of the world has the type of universal appeal of the Olympic Games. It is this very universality that is the focus of this paper. The investigation is based on observations, interviews, and written sources. It will briefly examine the significance of the Games in the context of broader Olympic politics, international relations, nationalism, racial harmony, and the self professed humanistic ideals of the Olympic movement itself through this small scale, observational study. Key words: Olympics, Olympic politics, Olympic movement, Olympic Games, International Olympic Committee. Introduction At the level of international politics it is impossible for sport to distance itself from the political questions, which beset the world, especially questions relating to the recognition of states. This applies to all kinds of international sports organisations, but the necessary engagement with politics is especially obvious and important within the Olympic movement because of the extraordinary interest generated worldwide by the Olympic Games, the great amounts of money involved and the movement’s aspiration to universality (Hill, 1996). The core of this paper is based on observational analysis and small-scale sampling interviews from two Olympic Games--Atlanta and Vancouver. Observations from Sydney are also included but only from the preparation phase of the Games. Interviews were conducted with six individuals closely connected to the Olympic Games. The Olympic Movement is structured in such a way that its influence permeates through its own committee structures from its International Olympic Committee (IOC) through its various commissions, individual National Olympic Committees (NOCs), and through its affiliated National Sports Federations and International Sporting Federations. As Chappelet and Kübler-Mabott state, “All of these non-profit organizations could be likened to the five symbolic rings of the Olympic Movement” (2008, p.2). Arising from the often complex relationship and self-interest that each grouping has with the others, there emerges a power structure at the top which sits the IOC itself. Historically the IOC was established by the 1894 Congress of Paris which first mooted the notion of the celebration of the ideals of the ideology of ‘Olympism’ through universal celebration at a ‘Games’ based on the ancient Greek games (of which there were a number) which were held on a four yearly cycle. The current ‘Games of the Modern Era’ are based on what is known (and indeed invented) about the ancient Greek Olympic Games (Chappelet and Kübler-Mabott, 2008). Central to the power that the IOC is able to hold and express is the idea that nation states must seek admittance to this ‘Olympic Club’ thus acceptance is seen as some sort of seal of international approval. Often seeking to belong the ‘Olympic Family’ as it is called, resembles a game of political ‘chess’ with the IOC acting as judge, jury and broker as to which countries are accepted or rejected and once in, regulated. The IOC in effect determines who will be acknowledged or not acknowledged as a nation-state. The IOC therefore is viewed as an elite (if not elitist) decision-making body. The authority of the IOC in choosing its host country for its Olympic Games makes it one of the most powerful and influential organizations in the global community. This power is also manifested when the IOC decides which National Olympics Committee to recognize or not to recognize as in the case of apartheid South Africa. Hill (1996, p. 1) states, …the decision to recognize or not to recognize an NOC contributes to the far more important decision as to whether a territory with aspirations to recognition as a state (like East Germany after the Second World War) is to achieve it, or whether a country like South Africa, whose internal policies have been widely reviled, should continue to enjoy normal relations with other states. The Olympic Ideal A particular emphasis of the Olympic movement is on its humanistic values credo particularly in relation to world peace through the involvement of young men and women (‘the youth of the world’) expressed through the notion (in part) of Olympic values. The often conflicting relationship that exists between these values (the credo of ‘Olympism’), the way in which the Olympic movement functions and the broader geo-political maneuverings, often create ambiguities in the way in which the Olympic movement is viewed. As Cottrell and Nelson state, For many, the famous interlocking rings of the Olympic Games symbolize a common spirit of sportsmanship across five major continents of the world. However, they may also paradoxically symbolize the significant political authority and control that the International Olympic Committee (IOC) exercises over the international community…The IOC is a private governing entity that exercises enormous influence over both state and non-state actors, thus occupying a unique place in the international system that underscores the growing complexity of global governance in the 21st century (2011, p.1). The universality of the Olympic Games has given the IOC the world stage. The decisions made by this organization to recognize or not to recognize National Olympic Committees and in the way it controls sport through its various ‘gate-keeping’ activities of for example funding for third world countries, are viewed as a key factor in maintenance of its power. Hill (1996) states that “governments use sport as a means of projecting a national image abroad, but in order to achieve political and social objectives at home”. Decreasing ethnic tension and increasing the morale, pride, and esprit de corps of citizens is a common objective of most governments who support the Olympic Games (preface, 1996). When the idealistic French nobleman, Baron de Coubertin, created and developed the concept of a modern Olympic movement, it was his idea to highlight everything that was good about humanity. The virtues of discipline, fair play, and respectful competition were to be on display for the world (Coubertin, 1997). The modern Olympics Games, the largest regularly scheduled sporting event in the world, has embodied more than its founder's virtuous ideals (Wells, 1994). On one level, the modern Games have become the idealistic stage for fostering world peace, healthy international relations and reconciliation. But on other levels, this event has underscored the “ugly” side of world politics and international relations. Methodology and Emergent Interview Themes This paper develops the central thesis of the ambiguity inherent in the way in which the Olympic movement functions on the one hand and its overt message embodied within its own ideology of ‘Olympism’. For this paper, I interviewed one Olympic participant in the 1964 Games and one participant at the 1984 Olympic Trials that did not get a chance to participate in the Games because of the U.S. boycott. I interviewed two prominent scholars in the field of sport history. I interviewed a longtime sportswriter for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution to get his perspective of the 1996 Atlanta Games. I also interviewed an executive of the Vancouver Olympic Committee for their 2010 Winter Games. These individual were chosen because of their expertise and in-depth knowledge of the Games. Five of the interviews were conducted in person. One of the interviews was conducted by e-mail exchange. The emergent interview themes revolve around the importance of the Games and the political nature of the Games. The Olympics have been described as an important symbolic event that helps to galvanize a spirit of goodwill. In an interview regarding the importance of the Olympics, Harrison, stated, “The Olympic Games are important because it is one of the few times that the world comes together for one common goal and celebrates the true diversity of our world” (March 22, 2011). Donnelly, stated in an interview about the Olympics, “The athletes are the Games” (July 28, 1999). On one level this statement is accurate. However, on other levels, this statement fails to take into account reality. For example, in 1980 U.S. athletes were prepared to compete in the Games in the Soviet Union, however, a boycott initiated by President Jimmy Carter did not allow them to do so. In theory, the Games should consist of teams or individuals simply competing to see who is the best. However, the Games of the modern era have not been that simple (nor indeed were the ancient Games). Whether in domestic or international arenas, politics have always been intertwined with the Games. As Harrison states, “The Games always have been, and always will be, political. The 1936 and 1968 Games are two poignant examples of the political symbolism that is unavoidable during the Olympics” (March 22, 2011). The work of Hill (1994), Mandell (1987) support this claim. Political Symbolism Harry Edwards (1984), the pre-eminent sport sociologist, articulates the prevalence of Olympic politics when he wrote, In 1968 I organized the Olympic Project for Human Rights (OPHR).