Contents

Publisher's Statement
Foreword
Feature
Current Issues

Bulletin 61 print

Contacts

| Feature | No.61 May 2011 |

Positioning the Paralympic Games in Liquid Modernity
Natalie Campbell
Moving on from Postmodernity
The Postmodern era and its accompanying theories have been around for nearly half a century, and gradually, over time, academics have moved past the utilisation of postmodernist theory towards an era of `post – Post modernity`, or a state of modern living which has gradually evolved and which Polish sociologist Bauman first coined as the era of `liquid modernity` (Bauman, 2000).
Along with this shift in theoretical thinking over the last decade, disability discourse within the social sciences has increasingly focused on the relationship between impairment, society and postmodernism, where postmodern theory is referenced to challenge the division between disability and able-bodiedness (Solis, 2004). The works of seminal Postmodern theorists such as Foucault, Lyotard and Baudrilland have been deconstructed, applied and analysed to provide alternative vantage points on the cultural generation of disability and the significance of impairment in today`s society (Thomas, 2004). Furthermore, some writings pertaining to the accord of postmodernism and disability have provided platforms for pushing forward the increased importance of recognising academic work undertaken within the Paralympic movement, which do not focus solely on the previous constraints of the medical and social models of disability sport that often galvanised work in this area. However, despite disability studies in Britain being enriched by this growing presence of perspectives and issues that have challenged the materialist prioritisation of the economic roots of disability, the increased use of the application of the Postmodern movement has become almost common place within the area of disability studies.
Bauman`s work has no explicit connection to Disability Studies, but his sensitivity to modern patterns of exclusion and `othering` provide not only a useful template to think through the relationship between modernity and disability, but also a useful corrective to the tendency in United Kingdom (UK) disability studies to ignore the `cultural turn` (Hughes, 2002). Although Bauman`s theory of liquid modernity is still in relatively embryonic stages in relation to disability discourse, the arguments it presents on contemporary society should perhaps be considered when assessing the place of the Paralympic Games (and Paralympic athletes) in today`s modern state.
Liquid Times
The present day situation of a `Liquid Modernity` emerged out of the `radical melting of the fetters and manacles suspected of limiting the individual freedom to choose and act` (Bauman, 2000). However, as Bauman argues, this liberalisation and deregulation of control has led to a continuous uncertainty of the `order` in which one should live one`s life and, additionally, the worth a society places on that order. A central concept to Bauman`s work is the reflection that modern civilisation no longer tasks rational and logical order as a method of naming and classifying function, more that function itself is based upon how useful or purposeful a given thing or person is at that very moment in time – what is it`s physical and metaphysical value? Although not its primary objective, this new method of ordering (objects and subjects) to fulfil the perceived required functions of the society inadvertently consists of the acts of including and excluding, separating and segregating, to structure and divide the society into necessary, purpose serving classifications – that which serves a purpose and that which does not. These classifications, according to Bauman (2005), are ultimately the result of “the consumerist syndrome where everything is speed, excess and waste” (p.84(1)). The sociology of Bauman (1999) demonstrated that the modern dream of an ordered society ended up (re)producing it`s opposite, that is more ambivalence – a society where changes to the prescribed `order` are so rapid and continuous that it`s members are forced to live in a temporal existence, a precarious life lived under conditions of constant uncertainty – essentially a `liquid life`. What is left is an unfixed – unfixable – society, struggling between the desire for freedom and the need for security (Bauman, 2005). In liquid modernity, the individual must act, plan actions and calculate the likely gains and losses of acting (or failing to act) under conditions of pathological uncertainty. Knowing this, what place then, do the modern Paralympic Games hold in a society which demands such immediate and valuable usefulness from all that desire (or need) to belong to it? How valuable are they and what purpose are they serving in our consumerist society?
The Fluidity of the Paralympic Games
The modern Paralympic Games provide much debate and discourse within many disciplines of academic research. It has been well documented that the Paralympic Games are perceived as a lesser event to the Olympic Games. Weed and Dowse (2009) discuss the complete lack of a transparent, relevant and sustainable legacy plan for the 2012 Paralympic Games, whilst Landry (1995) highlights the “patient struggle of disabled athletes the world over for full social acceptance, integration and recognition”. Authors such as Ellis (2009), Gold and Gold (2007) and Kell, Kell and Price (2008) have all commented on the distinct differences between the Olympic Games and the Paralympic Games, notably the differences in media coverage, the representation of the disabled athletes in the media and the lack of national support (both from the spectators and the NGBs) when compared to able bodied athletes. Knowing this, one must question the situation – what is it about the Paralympic Games that fails to demand it be treated with the same economic and social interest as its counterpart?
Bauman might argue that the `problem` the Paralympic Games have is that they offer nothing of value to the majority (my emphasis) of society – they offer no tangible worth. By no means is this a reflection on the liquid modern society`s attitudes towards the disabled community as a whole, indeed the liquid modern society views the Paralympic athlete as belonging to their mantra – productive, independent, being socially viable and able to participate in the consumer game. Because the liquid modern society is only hostile to those not able to calculate their own advantages, Paralympic athletes are not (yet) excluded from the ranks of serving a purpose. The Paralympic Games on the other hand are not so self-sufficient and adaptable, and the sum of the Games is not actually greater than, nor even equal to the sum of its parts (being the athletes). Perceived by most as a subordinate, immature, supplementary yet paradoxically mandatory event, the Paralympic Games has failed to capture the assumed needs of an all consuming society. Many could argue that the reasons for this are multifaceted, such as, forever being in the shadow of the Olympic Games; rigidity within the governing agencies; cultural misrepresentation of value – however, the liquid modern society does not care to hear about `excuses` pertaining to the current predicament, nor does it care for reasons of why something cannot change. Quite simply, if something cannot or will not adapt, the liquid society simply leaves the situation in its wake, redundant and wasteful.
Over the last two decades, the Paralympic Games have remained relatively stagnant in their attempts to progress simultaneously with the forever forward bounding leaps of the Olympic Games. The occasional re-branding (the odd splash of colour, the re-working of less demeaning tag lines etc.) has perhaps failed to seduce the members of such a complex, critical and accelerated society. Corporations (and most cynics) would argue that the case is simply one of economics – the potential gains from the commercialisation of the Paralympic Games does not equal that of the resources invested, and so is best left to remain as an event which is recognised as fundamentally worthwhile, but not one that will satiate the consumer demands. This situation creates a problem for the future of the Paralympic Games.
Media Fluidity
In 2010, the BBC received heavy criticism for its lack of live coverage of the 2010 Winter Paralympic Games (a one hour highlight show in comparison to 160 hours of live coverage of the able bodied Olympic Games), in which it cited `budget restrictions` as its primary argument. It does not enamour the worth of the Paralympic Games when an apparently impartial, mainly government funded, not for commercial profit organisation such as the BBC considers the Paralympic Games to be less of a celebration of elite sports performance and more of a financial constraint heavy with moral and ethical burden. However, the winning of the 2012 Games host city bid dramatically altered the landscape of sport in general (from physical education in schools to grass roots level up to high performance sport) and the entire commercial and non-commercial sector were required to demonstrate their fluidity to this new, and exceptionally profitable, shift in consumer interest in the Olympic, and to a much lesser extent the Paralympic Games. It is not surprising then that the rights to cover the 2012 Paralympic Games were put out to tender by the London Olympic Games Organising Committee (LOCOG) in January 2010. The bid was won by Channel 4, who despite having a only a small portfolio of live sporting events, recognised that the steady increase in viewers of the Paralympic Games (13.3 million in 2008 compared to 10.8 million in 2000(2)) was an indication that a shift in the economic value of the Paralympic Games is perhaps on the horizon.
Channel 4, to their credit, have built a strong reputation as a broadcaster which embraces opportunities to provide alternative, informed, representative and at times controversial programming. Due to this, its interest in broadcasting the Paralympic Games could be viewed differently from the `liquid modern`s theory` which attempts to devalue all human behaviour to mere triggers of consumer need. Each year, Channel 4 invest £200,000 to improve training and support initiatives within the company which allow the disabled community better access to work with the channel`s key programming staff, be this in front of or behind the camera, as well as attempting to “explore disability in new and surprising ways, to generate a wider debate of disability issues and bring new audiences to the subject”(3). To fully demonstrate their commitment to the Paralympic Games, Channel 4 is currently showing its second series of `That Paralympic Show` – a 30 minute programme where its most popular presenters, along with ex-Paralympian Ade Adepitan and cameos from other Olympians, where we are encouraged to meet with current Paralympians of Great Britain and try their hand at the various Paralympic sports. The show is light hearted and screened at a prime time in the Sunday morning slot of T4 (a morning show with a target age-range of 16-34) and ensures the broadcaster`s policy of `normalising` disability is thoroughly overseen. Is a move such as this really as consumerist and economically shepherded as Bauman would have us believe? Undoubtedly, and unfortunately, he would argue yes. Regardless of whether the pessimist or the optimist is walking, the path they walk and the debates they proffer all arrive at the same realisation – regardless of the intention, by introducing and increasing the access to Channel 4`s commercial media outlets to an underrepresented group (within both sport and television) the London 2012 Paralympic Games are serving a purpose to Channel 4, and a purpose should always have an accompanying commodity.
Liquid Heroism
Whether it is argued as fortunately or unfortunately, the Paralympic Games is yet to shed its guise of heroism, with the word `hero` being thrust upon the athletes so frequently that it`s meaning has become depreciative and standardised. Paralympic athletes are highly praised and largely encouraged, yet often their sporting achievements are portrayed as being of a lesser worth than those of able bodied athletes (Nixon, 2007) and are seldom recognised as individuals(4), but more of a collective group with a singular identity. Indeed, the aporia of identity within a liquid society is one that Bauman questions heavily, calling it both a problem and a task for individuality and collectivity alike. The notion of individuality continuously ricochets between a person`s desires for freedom but need for belonging.
In times of Liquid Modernity, the Paralympic Games is held in superficial regard as a propitious yet compulsory sporting event for those who, despite their imposed segregation, have refused to become the dregs of society, determined not to be waste, nor to be wasted. Paralympic Athletes are not to be excluded from the liquid society`s normal way of life because, regardless of impairment, they have not been socially defined, nor self-defined, as `blemished, defective, faulty and deficient – in other words, inadequate – consumers` (Bauman, 1988: p38). It is assumed by many (although those in high performance disability sport could argue otherwise) that the Paralympic athlete can afford their mortgage, buy their clothes, pay their taxes and contribute to the economical functioning of society, and so the Paralympic Games fulfils the moral consumer rights and the virtuous consumer needs that liquid society has (at present) to reward such a laudable group of people. Unfortunately for the Games, many will argue that the Paralympic Games do not provide a realistic representation of the impaired individual – the image of the strong, healthy, determined, self reliant Paralympian has become the bench mark image that liquid society has placed against the disabled community, providing an unrealistic representation of the functionality of a disabled individual. The Paralympic Games sells this image that disabled people are fit for purpose – able and operative. However, the Paralympic Games, and indeed some academic literature, fails to distinguish and take into account the physical, social, economical and political differences between an impaired individual and someone who is profoundly disabled. Taking into account the abundant differences between the Olympic and the Paralympic Games in terms of funding, media coverage, spectator support and athlete services, the Paralympic Games are still held in high regard as a major sporting event that embraces the courage and commitment of a select group of individuals. Why then, it could be asked, is the same accolade not granted to the Special Olympics? Hughes (2010) uses Bauman`s work as a departure point to explore the growing concepts of invalidation and exclusion of the disabled person within a postmodern society. However, if at the core of Bauman`s work is the notion of the consumerist syndrome within modern day society then (despite the increasing gap between modernity and morality) there comes a juncture at which an individual`s impairment prevents them from being useful – they require more from the public than they can invest. There is a sharp difference in ability, and market appeal, between an athletic war veteran with a single leg - below the knee amputee and a man of the same age with severe congenital cerebral palsy, unable to speak or bathe himself. The Special Olympics then has no market-orientated definition of social viability. The difference in the intrinsic and extrinsic gains, from the individual to the collective society, between the Olympic Games, the Paralympic Games and the Special Olympics are vast and varied. The crux of the matter is that the more seemingly socially and economically viable the situation, the more the Liquid Modern population temporarily embrace it.
The Place of the Paralympic Games in Times of Liquid Modernity
For now at least, the Paralympic Games are fashionable, accessible and most importantly, appear useful. Liquid Life casts the world as objects of consumption: that is, “objects that lose their usefulness (and so their lustre, attraction, seductive power and worth) in the course of being used” (Bauman, 2005, p8). The 2012 Paralympic Games has the rare advantage of being a commodity that knows its shelf life, which will keep its allure until at least August 2012, however, it is unclear as to what role the Games will play once the closing ceremony falls silent and the athletes disappear from the public eye. The consuming life is, indeed, a game of snakes and ladders; the roads travel from the bottom to the top, and even more so from the top to the bottom, are abominably short. Aforementioned ex-Paralympian Ade Adepitan is currently riding the coat-tails of the surge of interest in the 2012 Paralympic Games, having even relinquished competing for a place in the Great Britain 2012 Wheelchair Basketball Team to focus on his media career. Whether a victim or an ideal of the Liquid Life, Adepitan is conscious of his need to be flexible, adaptable and useful (especially within the media eye) and to not let his Paralympic status define him. Piore and Sabel (1984) were ahead of their time in predicting what has now become known as `flexible specialisation`; a strategy of permanent innovation with a favourable accommodation to ceaseless change, rather than imposing any attempt to control it. The Paralympic Games will need to wait until after the 2012 event to know if they have fallen out of favour with the British Public or if Channel 4 will continue its show of solidarity to the disabled athlete, or in terms of funding if the value of a 2012 Gold Paralympic Medal has the same net worth as one won in Rio in 2016?
For the moment at least, the Paralympic Games is experiencing a swell in commercial interest and has done well to align itself with current, contemporary media partners which can maximise its overall market price. The test of the Paralympic Game`s position within this liquid life will be to see its metamorphosis post-2012, especially in the case of Paralympics GB. With the 2016 Paralympic Games being 5½ years and 5000 miles away, the Paralympic Games must continuously recycle its identity to remain valuable within this consumerist life. In the words of Bauman himself “the true stake in the race is (temporary) rescue from being excluded to the ranks of the destroyed and avoid being condemned to waste” (2005, p.3) and for now at least, the Paralympic Games have been temporarily rescued.
Notes
(1) For a more detailed account of Bauman’s thoughts on how Liquid Modernity is governed by consumerism see “Liquid Life” by Z. Bauman (2005), Oxford: Polity
(2) Bushfield, S. 2010., Channel4 to show Paralympics 2012, The Guardian, 8th January, 4b
(3) Channel 4 website: http://www.channel4.com/4disabledtalent
(4) Research published by LOCOG indicated that 69% of those interviewed could not name a Paralympic athlete (GB or otherwise). http://www.paralympics.org.uk/show_news.asp?itemid=2152&itemTitle=Research+reveals+a+positive+attitude+towards+the+Paralympic+Games&section=000100010006&sectionTitle=News

References
Bauman, Z. (1988) Freedom. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Bauman, Z. (1998). In Search of Politics. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Bauman, Z. (2000). Liquid Modernity. Cambridge: Polity.
Bauman, Z. (2005). Liquid Life. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Ellis, K. (2009). Beyond the Aww! factor: Human interest profiles of Paralympians and the media navigation of physical difference and social stigma. Asia Pacific Media Educator, 19 (2): pp 23-35.
Gold, J. R. & Gold, M. M. (2007). Access for all: the rise of the Paralympic Games. The Journal of the Royal Society for the Promotion of Health, 127(3): pp133-141.
Hughes, B. (2002). Bauman`s Strangers: Impairment and the invalidation of disabled people in modern and post-modern cultures. Disability and Society, 17(5), pp 571 – 584.
Kell, P., Kell., M. & Price, N. (2008). Two games and one movement? The Paralympics and the Olympic Movement. Available at: (http:// ro.uow.edu.au/edupapers/37). (accessed on 12th April 2011).
Nixon, H. L. (2007). Constructing Diverse Sports Opportunities for People With Disabilities. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 31 (4): pp 417 – 433.
Piore, M. J., & Sabel, C. F. (1984). The Second Industrial Divide. New York: Basic Books.
Solis, S. (2004). The disability making factory: Manufacturing “differences” through children`s books. Disability Studies Quarterly, 24 (1), pp 315 – 319.
Thomas, C. (2004). Disability Theory: Key ideas, issues and concepts. In C. Barnes, M. Oliver & L. Barton `Disability Studies Today`. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, pp 38 – 54.
Weed, M. & Dowse, S. (2009). A missed opportunity waiting to happen? The social legacy potential of the London 2012 Paralympic Games. Journal of Policy Research in Tourism, Leisure and Events, 1(2): pp 170 – 174.
Contact
Natalie Campbell
University of East London
London, United Kingdom
Email: n.campbell@uel.ac.uk

http://www.icsspe.org/