No.48 September 2006 |
|||
print / save view |
The remark of multiculturalism embedded in Olympic sport may initially
be examined harking back to Pierre de Coubertin's basic principles of
international understanding and mutual respect as issued in the early
20th century. As yet, considering the present-day worldwide trend towards
promoting cultural integration and diversification, the Olympic Movement
and the Olympic Games are here understood to have an explicit engagement
on cultural relativism. This paper aims at providing a theoretical basis
for this typical relativism from multicultural assemblages in contrast
to proclaimed Olympic universal values, in view of current debates on
the needed universality of Human Rights for sport concerns.
In retrospect, Baron Pierre de Coubertin, with his principles of Enlightenment,
began this Movement with the modern version of the Olympic Games. He
successfully led an international congress in Paris 1894 to call upon
participant nations in order to accomplish this restoration. After controversy
and negotiations, a group of 10 nations decided to re-establish the
Games, beginning in 1896. Henceforth, the so-called neo-Olympism appeared
and Coubertin conceived it to meet a “philosophy of life”
based on proclaimed universal values.
This intention of universality is one of the primordial characteristics
of both the Olympic Movement as well as the Olympic Games, as far as
they were grounded in the presupposed philosophical principles of Olympism.
As initiator of the Olympic Movement, Coubertin developed, after 1894,
a renewed doctrine based on the Ancient Olympic Games and oriented towards
a social pedagogy, which supposedly could be adapted to any ethnic group
or culture. In this sense, one of the main historians of Coubertin’s
life, Yves Pierre Boulongne (1994, p. 22), divulges in one of his writings
that the Olympic Congresses from 1897 to 1914 “defined the doctrine
and promoted Olympism as a universal value”.
Nevertheless, the cultural relations established within the Olympic
Movement led to an internationally understood implied meaning without
explicitly promoting a discussion of the universal acceptance of the
values of Olympism as related to the particular values of each culture.
In other words, sports activities are taught and experienced in different
ways in each society, according to the interpretations of the specific
local culture.
Olympic universality
Coubertin’s multicultural vision of Olympism had a specific construction
based on the intention of the universality of the Games and the Olympic
Movement. In one of his texts from 1920 it was recorded that in the
Olympic Games of London 1908, there was a “resolution to include
not only all the nations but also all the games. All games, all nations”
(Coubertin, 1920).
The Olympic Games of Athens (1896) started the process of baptism of
Olympism. The second Olympiad (1900) in Paris revealed the modern character
of the Games and the third Olympiad (Saint Louis, 1904) showed that
‘the universal trend of the movement became clear’ (p.10).
The process of baptism was finally completed in London, four years later
(1908). Thus, the expression “All games, all nations” is
representative of the Olympic ideology, presupposed in this investigation
and displayed in several texts, including one from 1911, in which Coubertin
precisely reinforced the doctrine of ‘all games, all nations’,
depicting for the first time a multicultural trait: “The fundamental
rule of Modern Olympic Games is linked with two expressions: all games,
all nations. The power to change this rule does not come from the International
Olympic Committee. I would add to this explanation that a nation is
necessarily an independent State and that there is a sport geography
that can sometimes differentiate from the political geography”.
In other words, a multiple cultural approach for Coubertin was an implicit
universal construction, but clearly founded on the distinction between
nation and culture, according to the beliefs of that period. Again,
a reexamination of the texts shows that the period between 1908 and
1924 can be considered by and large as the period when Coubertin approximated
the concept of multiculturalism. This latter term, by the way, is from
recent extraction, and the ‘all games, all nations’ doctrine
seems to have dissolved when Coubertin withdrew from the presidency
of the International Olympic Committee (IOC) in 1925.
However, the universal claim has been kept up to present day under several
rationales of the IOC, including the option that it should be incorporated
into the Olympic Charter. For instance, the Principles of the Olympic
Charter (International Olympic Committee, 1997) clearly proclaim several
values such as the second principle, which refers to the definition
of Olympism as a movement which “seeks to create a way of life
based on the joy found in effort, the educational value of good example
and respect for universal fundamental ethical principles” (p.8).
The seventh principle also demonstrates an assumption of universal values:
“The activity of the Olympic Movement symbolized by five interlaced
rings is universal and permanent. It covers the five continents. It
reaches its peak with the bringing together of athletes of the world
at the great sports festival, the Olympic Games” (p. 9).
Still in retrospective terms, DaCosta (2002) identified in the 1930s
phase of the Olympic Movement not only an apparent multicultural focus
but also a dominant eurocentrism. In sum, the motto “all sports,
all nations” in the decade of the 1930s was under a different
interpretation than Coubertin’s Olympism, as it passed from an
eclectic concept to an outlined understanding based on limited ideological
and political confrontations. Moving out from Coubertin’s lifetime
to contemporary Olympic Movement facts, it is symptomatic that in many
sessions promoted by the International Olympic Academy (IOA), Greece,
there have been declared and explicit preoccupations with multiculturalism
related to Olympism.
For instance, in the 33rd IOA Main Session, 1993, some representatives
from the African continent questioned the fact that modern Olympism
only values the practice of sports that are characteristic of the European
continent. In the same session, a discussion emerged about the viability
to commend universal human values of sport practice upon societies still
full of racial, social and political conflicts (Abreu, 2002). In keeping
with these debates, some principles proposed by Olympism continue to
be distant conditions, since these principles are far from representing
a singular sports culture. In this concern, there is a need to review
the notion of multiculturalism facing the possible adoption of cultural
relativism by the Olympic Movement as one of its main operational definitions.
Additionally, the understanding of the formation of a multicultural
group is often considered groundwork for the Olympic Education concerns.
Multiculturalism
Multiculturalism as a term has appeared very recently. According to
many sources, this word emerged in the United States of America during
the 1990s. At the beginning of the 1980s, the same expression appeared
as a code to hide the word “race”. It became linked to the
appearance of the language considered “politically correct”,
established in that country to fit the social-economic minorities discriminated
against by the developed nations’ market. Within this context,
the expression ‘multiculturalism’ often gives the impression
of a cultural mixture or cultural diversity, but it carries a ‘politically
correct’ statement.
The anthropologist Eller (1997), focusing on the initial concept of
multiculturalism, found similarities with the concept of anthropology;
both terms contradict each other when they are treated under the concept
of culture. Otherwise, paraphrasing another anthropologist (Cardoso,
1995), multiculturalism, under political and practical conceptualization
in several domains, has formed, in some Western countries, debates and
endless polemics. Multiculturalism has been confronted with different
philosophies related to the way to promote equal opportunities. From
these debates, concepts from several areas, like biology, sociology
and anthropology, have emerged. Above all, multiculturalism found its
roots and its theoretical stems in anthropology. Culture and cultural
relativism concepts are indications of a multicultural approach in spite
of different usage and ideological implications. Anthropology as a social
science has been brought into relation with the development of multiculturalism
and has also been influencing it. Yet, according to Eller, in a certain
way multiculturalism is an applied anthropology. But, in spite of this
proximity, the dialogue between both areas of knowledge has not been
intense and sometimes their influences cannot be seen.
The increasing growth of heterogeneous societies (from the intensification
of migrations, ethnic interactions, globalized intercultural relations
and movements in favor of Human Rights) guides approaches that can not
stem from traditional cultural concepts and traditional cultural relativism
concepts. Facing these realities, the problematic culture concepts become
indispensable and it is considered a collective elaboration, in continuous
transformation.
Within this scenario, how are Olympic values going to be brought into
discussion? How are proclaimed universal values going to be attached
to cultural diversity? Epistemologically, to what future is it possible
to guide these values? In this context, an attempt is needed to find
solutions for economic and social inequality, including concepts such
as multiculturalism, post modernity, ethnic and gender issues.
Eller’s concern (1997) towards this topic is related to the debate
around the dangers of either adopting a multiculturalist’s point
of view or an anti-multiculturalist’s point of view. First of
all, the multiculturalists’ conception about multiculturalism
is that several cultures living together can either destroy a country’s
national identity or enhance the power of a nation with cultural diversities.
Universal values are old attempts of Human Beings to create values accepted,
absorbed and reproduced among all cultures - a kind of knowledge that
is valid in any situation. While trying to relate multiculturalism to
universalism, an adjoining line between the preservation of cultural
characteristics and the good use of all the traditional and classic
values stored by humankind is being drawn.
The impact on civilization of the rearrangement of the world order settles
a collision between power and culture as well as the tendency to establish
universal concepts. The political structure of some civilizations reacts
against Western universalized concepts and transfers the presupposed
established power to other representative issues such as the necessity
of international understanding, preservation, inclusion and valorization
of non-Western cultures. It does not mean that we have to get rid of
philosophies proclaiming universal values, but we have to consider world
conflicts and examine if certain paradigms do not have eternal validity.
Olympism developments
Historically speaking, Olympism has taken multiculturalism into consideration
and this experience shows that a focus once adequate in a certain period
of time may not be adequate in another period. A growing number of institutions,
organizations, research centers and teachers are now debating multiculturalism
and its influence in everyone’s life. Several channels are being
used to make these groups meet, including schools, Internet and occasionally,
Olympic Movement institutions.
Although many people consider Olympism a dogmatic theory and criticize
it for its doctrinaire discourses, Olympism has changed its profile
thanks to some scholars who advocate an applicable Olympism. Lining
up with this model, Parry (1998) suggests the philosophical anthropology
of Olympism promotes the ideal of individual, all round, harmonious
human development; excellence and achievement; effort in competitive
sporting activity; mutual respect, fairness, justice and equality; lasting
personal human relationship of friendship; international relationships
of peace, toleration and understanding; and cultural alliances with
the arts.
With this proposal, Olympism embraces a variety of contemporary issues
that cover some basic required conditions to be adjusted to our present
world. Another proposal was developed by DaCosta (1998, p. 193) by understanding
Olympism as a Progress Philosophy, a proposition generally defined today
as a speculative construction of philosophical positions or directions
yet without internal coherence, which asserts that reality is constantly
in a process of change. Moreover, Parry and DaCosta link their interpretations
of Olympism to the promotion of values.
Closing
In conclusion, it is worth mentioning another of DaCosta’s (1998,
p. 198) arguments when one approaches dilemmas, paradoxes and overall
constraints of the Olympic Movement worldwide nowadays: “Then philosophically, the practical meaning of Olympism is more concerned with cultural claims than with scientific or pedagogical prescriptions. (…) In principle, while athleticism requires control in macro-relations, the symbolic identity of man in his pluralistic environment comprises values and contingent experiences in micro-relations, demanding a new approach to equilibrium after all.”
Regarding this interpretation, a concluding remark of the present review
concerns the two-level differentiation of Olympism: while DaCosta had
recommended a pluralistic and progressive adaptation to Olympic doctrine,
MacAloon (1991) proposed in the same context of analysis “global
interconnections” and “cultural differentiation”,
both mutually adapted. An equivalent approach has Müller (1990),
to whom Olympism progresses, keeping “immutable values”
from its historical foundations and developing “updated values”.
Coincidentally, Liponski (1987) envisaged present-day “Olympic
Universalism” as opposed to “Olympic Pluralism”, prescribing
a long-lasting process of introducing “to Olympism the cultural
and philosophical experience of societies other than Western”.
Summarizing, this two-level approach suggests that each Olympic value
must be submitted to an agreement involving a diversity of cultural
understanding. In this case, a “universal” value should
be an agreed value and not necessarily an outcome of Olympic and Coubertin’s
traditions. This option for mutual understanding is more a philosophical
problem than an anthropological contention related to cultural relativism.
Finally, in terms of the current discussion emphasized on the initial
proposition of this paper, should this suggestion be also applicable
to Human Rights approaches in sport based on multiculturalism? Should
we all be finally able to find a balance between the need of universal
values and the respect to particular cultural identities?
References
ABREU, N. G. (2002). Multicultural responses
to Olympism - an ethnographic research in Ancient Olympia, Greece.
In DaCosta, L.P. (ed) Olympic Studies (pp. 201 – 254). Rio de Janeiro:
University Gama Filho Press.
CARDOSO, C. M.N. (1995). Antropologia e Multiculturalismo.
Setubal – Portugal: Escola Superior de Educacao de Setubal.
Available online: esetbl@mail.telepac.pt
BOULONGNE, Y. P. (1994). Origins of the Olympic
Idea in the Western World. In B. Jeu & Y.P. Boulongne (eds).
For a Humanism of Sport (pp. 7 - 41). Paris: CNOSF-Editions Reune, EPS.
COUBERTIN, P. (1911). Geographie Sportive
(Revue Olympique, pp. 51-52). In Müller, N. (1986) Pierre de Coubertin
– Textes Choisis (Tome II, p. 452). Zurich: Weidmann.
COUBERTIN, P. (1920). L’Apport de la VIIeme
Olympiade (La Revue Sportive Illustrée, no 3, p.10). In Müller,
N. (1986) Pierre de Coubertin – Textes Choisis (Tome II, p. 265).
Zurich: Weidmann.
DACOSTA, L. P. (1998). Olympism and the Equilibrium
of Man. In N. Müller, N. (ed.) Coubertin and Olympism questions
for the future (pp. 188 - 199). Germany: Schors Niederhansen.
DACOSTA, L. P. (2002). Olympic Studies (pp.
91 – 106). Rio de Janeiro: University Gama Filho Press.
ELLER, J. D. (1997). Anti-Anti-Multiculturalism.
Denver: American Anthropologist Association, 99, no 2, 249-260.
LIPONSKI W. (1987). Olympic Universalism vs.
Olympic Pluralism: Problems of Eurocentrism. In S. KANG, J. MACALOON,
R.DAMATTA (eds). The Olympics and East/West and South/North Cultural Exchange
(p. 517). Seoul: The Institute for Ethnological Studies, Hanyang University.
MACALOON J. (1991). The Turn of Two Centuries:
Sport and the Politics of Intercultural Relations. In LANDRY, F.,
LANDRY, M. & YERLÈS, M. (eds). Sport...The Third Millennium
(pp.31-44). Saint-Foy, Quebec: Les Presses de L’Université
Laval.
MÜLLER, N. (1990). Olympism and Sport for
All. IOA Book Report 29th session (pp.188-200). Ancient Olympia:
IOA.
PARRY, J. (1998). The Values of Olympism and
Sports Education for Tomorrow. Position Paper prepared for the 4th
joint International Session for Directors of NOAs, members and staff of
NOCs and IFs. Ancient Olympia: IOA.
Contact:
Dr. Lamartine DaCosta Universidade Gama Filho, Rio de Janeiro Brazil lamartine@terra.com Dr. Neise Abreu Escola Americana, Rio de Janeiro Brazil neise.abreu@earj.com.br Dr. Ana Miragaya Universidade Gama Filho, Rio de Janeiro Brazil amiragaya@uol.com.br ![]() http://www.icsspe.org/portal/index.php?w=1&z=5 |