No.48 September 2006 |
|||
print / save view |
Introduction
This essay explores the potential for the philosophy and ideology of
Olympism to serve as a real and practical vehicle to promote human rights
within the arena of sport. Is it possible for a philosophy of life to
exist as a functional catalyst for social change? This article defines
and outlines the framework of Olympism, and the connection with the
International Olympic Academy, the educational centre and home of the
teachings of Olympism. The authors then explore the application of Olympism
to promote human rights within sport, highlighting and analyzing specific
initiatives and activities utilizing and embodying Olympism. This approach
is in line with Bhuvanendra (1998/9), who stated, “As Olympism
and human rights have the same philosophical profile, comparative teaching
of these two concepts would be well received not only by the academic
community but also by the practitioners of sport” (p. 19).
Sport and Human Rights
The United Nations began setting human rights standards in the mid-20th
century. According to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, “All
human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are
endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another
in a spirit of brotherhood” (United Nations, 1948, p. 1).
Authors have linked sport and human rights throughout the years (Bhuvanendra,
1998/9; Kidd & Donnelly, 2000; Lapchick, 1975; McArdle & Giulianotti,
2003; Wolff & Hums, 2006). Documents of the International Olympic
Committee are consistent with the United Nations philosophy on human
rights. The Olympic Charter, the supreme governing document of the Olympic
Movement, specifically states that “the practice of sport is a
human right. Every individual must have the possibility of practising
sport without discrimination of any kind and in the Olympic spirit,
which requires mutual understanding with a spirit of friendship, solidarity
and fair play” (International Olympic Committee, 2004, p. 9).
The Meaning of Olympism
When one hears the word “Olympism”, many things may come
to mind. People may think of extraordinary athletes, inspiring performances,
well-organized Games and medal stand anthems. What was the vision of
Pierre de Coubertin, the founder of the modern Olympic movement? What
is a definition of Olympism? According to the International Olympic
Academy, “Olympism is a philosophy of life, where blending sport
and culture with art and education aims to combine in balanced whole
the human qualities of body, will and mind. Olympism is a way of life
based on respect for human dignity and fundamental universal ethical
principles, on the joy of effort and participation, on the educational
role of good example, a way of life based on mutual understanding”
(International Olympic Academy, 2006, p. 12). This definition goes hand
in hand with the notion of respecting human rights.
The International Olympic Academy, located in Olympia, Greece, just
five minutes walk from the archeological site of the ancient Olympic
stadium, promotes the spirit of Olympism in modern times. “The
International Olympic Academy functions as a multicultural and interdisciplinary
centre that aims at studying, enriching and promoting Olympism”
(International Olympic Academy, 2006, p. 6). Through sessions for young
participants, post-graduate students, educators, National Olympic Academy
directors/officials and sport journalists, the ideals of Olympism are
presented, discussed and disseminated to people from around the world.
The IOA itself reflects the spirit of Olympism where people from all
over the world come together to live in peace and promote human rights.
In this modern age, perhaps one may think these notions seem a bit idealistic.
How can we see the spirit of Olympism in action in today’s world?
How does Olympism in sport remain alive today in a world where athletes
and sport governing bodies must consider how to balance living in the
temple or the agora? (Martinkova, 2006).
Examples of Olympism in Action
Examples of Olympism and human rights are present today just as they
were in Pierre de Coubertin’s time. To quote de Coubertin, “Olympism
is not a system, it is a state of mind. It can permeate a wide variety
of modes of expression and no single race or era cam claim to have the
monopoly of it” (International Olympic Academy, 2006, p. 6). Some
current examples include the Olympic Truce, the IOC’s Women in
Sport Commission, the International Paralympic Committee’s Position
of the IPC on Human Rights and finally the actions of individual athletes.
The first example is the notion of the Olympic Truce. In ancient times,
when the Games approached, the city states of ancient Greece declared
a cessation of fighting so that the athletes, artists, pilgrims and
their families could safely travel to and from the Games (International
Olympic Committee, 2006a). This “Sacred Truce” formed the
principle underlying today’s notion of the Olympic Truce. In 2001,
the International Olympic Committee established the International Olympic
Truce Foundation and the International Olympic Truce Centre. The Centre
has locations in Lausanne, Athens and Olympia (International Olympic
Truce Centre, n.d.). Through the Centre and the Foundation, the IOC
aims to:
In 2001, United Nations resolutions related to the modern notion of
the Olympic Truce were endorsed by member nations. According to Secretary
General Kofi Anan, “This calls for warring parties to lay down
their arms while athletes from the entire community of nations meet
under the noble flame of the Olympic torch” (United Nations, 2001,
p. 1). Living without war would certainly be seen as a basic human right
and in this way, the spirit of Olympism can be tied directly to preserving
human rights. It is hoped that as the competing athletes can gather
in peace, so too can the nations of the world.
As the Olympic Charter states, sport should be practiced without discrimination,
and this would include discrimination based on sex. In 2004, the International
Olympic Committee established the Women in Sport Commission. According
to the International Olympic Committee (2006c, Mission section), “As
a leader of the Olympic Movement, whose first objective is to promote
Olympism and develop sport worldwide, the IOC has constantly played
a complementary role to set up a positive trend to enhance women’s
participation in sport at all levels, and especially in the last decades”.
The programme and activities of this Commission include promotion of
women and sport in the Olympic Games, promotion of women sport leaders,
support activities and advocacy and information (International Olympic
Committee, 2006b).
The ideals of Olympism can also link the Paralympic Movement and the
Olympic Movement (Landry, 1995; Wolff, 2005). According to Wolff (2005,
p. 4), “Given the emerging global understanding of the rights
of persons with disabilities, Olympism and the Olympic Movement have
a unique opportunity to lead the way towards the inclusion of persons
with disabilities in all areas of life, particularly the Olympic arena.”
The mission of the International Paralympic Committee contains the following
phrase “To promote Paralympic sport without discrimination for
political, religious, economic, disability, gender, sexual orientation
or race reasons” (International Paralympic Committee, 2006, Vision
and Mission section). In addition, in 2004 the International Paralympic
Committee released its Position Statement of the IPC on Human Rights.
This contains the following statement, “The IPC believes all individuals
should enjoy access and opportunities for leisure, recreation, and sporting
activities and such rights be granted and guarded by the legal and administrative
systems by the responsible governments and communities” (International
Paralympic Committee, 2004, p. 1). These statements are consistent with
the notion of Olympism stated earlier in this article and illustrate
how fundamental tenets of the Paralympic Movement reflect Olympism.
Athletes Promoting Olympism and Human Rights
In addition to examining the role of sport organizers and sport organizations
in promoting human rights through Olympism, it is important to examine
the contributions of athletes in promoting Olympism and human rights.
Oftentimes, athletes can be the catalysts and voices bringing attention
to human rights concerns and issues. Athletes are visible and the message
of an athlete can have an important impact towards influencing social
change (Wolff & Hums, 2006). Although athletes can be powerful change
agents, athletes face pressures to conform and to not challenge the
status quo. Athletes promoting Olympism and human rights uphold these
values on and off the field, living Olympism as a philosophy of life.
Olympic sprinters John Carlos and Tommie Smith of the United States
were early pioneers in the role of athletes to promote Olympism and
human rights. Through the Olympic Project for Human Rights, these athletes
symbolically protested discrimination and segregation of the black athlete.
Norwegian Olympic speed skater Johann Olav Koss may be one of the most
visible athlete ambassadors of human rights, founding Olympic Aid, now
known as Right to Play, calling attention to the rights of children
around the world to engage in sport and play activities and opportunities.
Koss has emerged as one of the leading voices articulating the right
to sport and play for all the youth of the world.
Olympians like United States rower Anita DeFrantz, whose efforts as
Chair of the IOC Women in Sport Commission, promote equality of women
in sport, and Canadian runner Bruce Kidd who worked to end apartheid
in sport, connect Olympism to the promotion of human rights. These athletes
have paved the way for current Olympians, like Paralympic Marathon and
Athletics medalist Cheri Blauwet. to address the rights of persons with
disabilities in sport, and Olympic speed skater Nathaniel Mills to articulate
the importance of peace, humanity and universalism. The emergence of
athlete human rights activists indicates the recognition by athletes
of their positive role to promote human rights for all.
Conclusion
As these examples clearly illustrate, Olympism is an important framework
for considering and promoting human rights. More than ideology, Olympism
can become a practical and useful agent for social change in sport.
Olympism can be useful within and beyond the Olympic Movement and has
the potential to also be applicable in many aspects of life beyond sport.
Examining Olympism and human rights will continue into the future, for
as Cahill stated, “Therefore, whilst Olympism has achieved a degree
of success for its human rights ideals, more attention will be required
in the 21st century to the rights of humans – as athletes, as
spectators, and as communities…” (Cahill, 1999, p. 3). Thus,
the spirit of Olympism will continue to manifest itself in the form
of actions to promote human rights.
References
Bhuvanendra, T.A. (December 1998- January 1999).
Human rights in the realm of sport. Olympic Review, 26, 15-35.
Cahill, J. (1999). The ideals of Olympism. Proceedings
of the Symposium on Sport and Human Rights, Sydney, Australia.
International Olympic Academy. (2006). International
Olympic Academy. Athens, Greece: Author.
International Olympic Committee. (2004). Olympic
charter. Lausanne, Switzerland: Author.
International Olympic Committee. (2006a). Olympic
Truce – History. Retrieved 4 August 2006 from http://www.olympic.org/uk/organisation/missions/truce/truce_uk.asp.
International Olympic Committee. (2006b). Programme
and activities. Retrieved on 4 August 2006 from http://www.olympic.org/uk/organisation/missions/
women/activities/index_uk.asp.
International Olympic Committee. (2006c). Promotion
of women in sport. Retrieved on 5 August 2006 from http://www.olympic.org/uk/organisation/missions/
women/index_uk.asp.
International Olympic Truce Centre. (n.d.). The
Foundation and the Centre. Retrieved 5 August 2006 from http://www.olympictruce.org/html/centrpt1.html
International Paralympic Committee. (2004). Position
statement of the IPC on human rights. Retrieved 4 August 2006 from
http://www.paralympic.org/release/ Main_Sections_Menu/News/Paralympic_News/Days/IPC_Position_Statement_HR.pdf.
International Paralympic Committee. (2006). Vision
and mission. Retrieved 4 August 2006 from http://www.paralympic.org/release/Main_Sections_Menu/
IPC/About_the_IPC/Vision_and_Mission/.
Kidd, B., & Donnelly, P. (2000). Human rights
in sports. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 35(2),
131–148.
Landy, F. (1995). Paralympic Games and social integration.
In M. de Morgas Sta & M. Botella (Eds.). The keys of success:
The social, sporting, economic, and communications impact of Barcelona
’92. Bellaterra: Servei de Publicacions de la Universitat Automona
de Barcelona.
Lapchick, R. (1975). The politics of race and
international sport: The case of South Africa. Greenwood Press.
Martinkova, I. (2006, July). The ethics of human performance. Address
given at the
International Olympic Academy 7th International Session for Educators
and
Officials of Higher Institutes of Physical Education, Olympia, Greece.
McArdle, D., & Giulianotti, R. (2003). Sport
and human rights in the global society. London: Routledge.
United Nations. (1948). Universal declaration
of human rights. New York, NY: Author.
United Nations. (2001, July 5). Secretary General
says Olympic Truce can offer window of time to open dialogue and pause
to relieve suffering. Retrieved 5 August 2006 from http://www.un.org/news/Press/docs/2001/sgsm7797.doc.htm.
Wolff, E.A. (2005). Olympians with disabilities
and the 2004 Athens Games: Triumphs,
challenges, and future opportunities. Athens, Greece: International Olympic Academy. Wolff, E.A., & Hums, M.A. (2006). Sport and human
rights. The Chronicle of Kinesiology & Physical Education in Higher
Education, 17(2), 3-4. Contact:
Dr. Mary A. Hums University of Louisville USA Mhums@louisville.edu Eli A. Wolff Northeastern University Center for the Study of Sport in Society Boston USA e.wolff@neu.edu ![]() http://www.icsspe.org/portal/index.php?w=1&z=5 |