SETTING THE STAGE FOR MULTICULTURALISM, VALUES AND
PLURALISM IN OLYMPIC STUDIES RESEARCH

Lamartine DaCosta and Ana Miragaya

In 1983, during a Session of the International Olympic Academy – IOA, held in
Ancient Olympia, Greece, a group of non-European participants rejected theuniversal validity of Olympism as they presented the argument that Olympism wasbased on principles from Western societies. The fact was reported by Wojciech
Liponsky (1987), Polish scholar, who additionally raised this question: “what kind ofvalues, now so essential for Olympism, should be kept and should be limited oreliminated if any in order to respect non-Western societies?”

This paper aims at providing answers to Liponsky’s claim taking into account not
only developments from Olympic Studies in the last two decades but also advancesin academic knowledge in the interplay between values and culture. In this concern,
we shall meet a main proposal of this Olympic Studies Reader: to provide a stage
for future research on multicultural topics.

The first step is to examine Liponsky’s argument according to key initiatives in thearea of Olympic Studies in terms of approaches to build knowledge. That is the caseof the “First International Conference on the Olympics and East / West and South /North Cultural Exchange in the World System” (Seoul, 1987), organized by Kang
Shin-pyo (Korea), John MacAloon (USA) and Roberto DaMatta (Brazil). This event
was privileged with the participation of “some 50 distinguished anthropologists,sociologists, communication specialists, philosophers and historians representing
the five continents to discuss…comparative historical, regional and national
experiences…for understanding them in very different cultural contexts…at thesame time, international sport will offer a common point of reference and contrast
for discussions of conceptual and theoretical approaches to intercultural relations…”(Kang, 2007).

The challenge Kang and his associates faced gave Olympic Studies a newenthusiasm when they researched intercultural relations, a theme which needed
knowledge from Olympic sport and which should clarify questions such as the ones
asked by Liponsky and others. This initiative can be verified as one examines thepapers given at the “International Symposium Sport...The Third Millennium”

1

(Quebec City, 1990), in which one of the main highlights was directed to culture
and its different ways to relate to sport, in particular, Olympic sport (Landry, 1991).

Quebec City hosted a meeting which had the participation of anthropologists
remaining from the group gathered in Seoul three years before (1987) and otherspecialists who did research on the intercultural meanings of the Olympic Games,
including areas such as media, ceremonies and Olympic rituals, racial segregation,
gender discrimination, values, etc. Unsurprisingly, John MacAloon (1991) opened
the Symposium and renovated the proposal of cultural relativism as theoreticalsupport to the contemporary intercultural relations of Olympic sport. As such, thisconception indicated that values and traditions could not be totally transferred fromone culture to the next. In the Olympic sphere, this means respect to thedifferences, keeping equality. MacAloon also defended the thesis that the exercise
of politics was intrinsic to what he called Olympic Interculturalism.

In terms of new intercultural approaches, one of the most important contributionsof Quebec 1990 was the lecture by Miquel de Moragas (1991), specialist incommunications from Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (Spain). In his speech, heanalyzed the interpretation of values and counter-values of the Olympic Games
given by various national television networks when broadcasting the Games.
Moragas demonstrated that there was reduced comprehension from the part of the
television commentators about the values of Olympism, proclaimed at that time ashaving universal meanings.

The repercussions of the academic events of Seoul and Quebec City were still heard
during the 1990s and at the beginning of the 2000s, according to a report by
DaCosta (2002) in an overview about the leading approaches of Olympic Studies.
Furthermore, in that period, another group of researchers devoted to Olympic
Education and to the cross-cultural values also focused on intercultural exchanges.
This tendency of studies and research proved to be particularly meaningful because
it also included authors who had come from non-European countries and whose
mother tongue was not English, conversely to what had been happening up to then,as most authors were from European countries and their choice of language wasEnglish.

2

In this context, Hai Ren (1997), from China, typifies the emphasis on cross-culturalvalues of Olympic Education when he makes recommendations about the future of
the Olympic Movement:

Moreover,the

Olympic

Games,

asaninternational

phenomenon, may stir up a variety of conflicts due to the factof their diversified participants with different social andcultural backgrounds. To avoid this, the Olympic Movement
has

to

have

the

certainfundamentals

sharedbyallparticipants, an accepted standard of behaviors for everyone,andageneralguideline

for

its

development.

The

fundamentals, standard and guidelines could not be anythingelse but the cultural and educational values for a harmonious
development of human beings and world peace. These values
are vital to all human beings as well as widely accepted by all
nations; therefore, they are suitable to be the foundation of
the Olympic Movement.

On her turn, Marta Gomes (2002), from Brazil, supports the idea of multiculturalism
as she analyzes Olympic Education:The

debateoncultureandidentityisbecomingsosophisticated that Olympic Education cannot fail to follow it.
Although nowadays there are many globalizing institutions andmovements, there is a counter-movement to save identities.
When fighting for the respect to disparities, we may run therisk of helping the construction of identities that do notcommunicate among themselves. Therefore, the multicultural
education, besides fighting for the preservation of and therespect to differences, should also reinforce the valuation of
the differences as an opening of esthetic values, as well asother legitimate ways of being and of looking at life and at theworld.

Another example of production which adds to the mainstream initiated in Seoul1987 is the production of Neise Abreu (2002) from Brazil, who discusses thevalidity of the adoption of universal values starting from the controversies of
Olympic Education:3

At the center of this context of consensus and conflict, modern
debates on Olympism grow and develop looking for unanimousworld acceptance. The definition of Olympism is not as
controversial as it is voiced. Actually, its challenge is thecoexistence between the values and codes of Olympism
towards each specific local culture. These cultures are inserted
in their autonomy and particular concepts and, when these
proclaimed universal values of Olympism are confronted toeach singular code of culture, a voice can be felt in theemptiness. Of course, the generalization adopted by theofficial definition can not be avoided once it faces the need ofbroad inclusion in following Coubertin’s traditions.

Taking these examples into consideration, it is essential to point out a synthesis
made by Susan Brownell (1995), an American Olympic scholar who has deep
professional relations with the Chinese culture and whose vision of the Olympic
themes anticipates and serves as bases for the overlapping of the tradition of
Olympic anthropology with Olympism focused on values:

Thus, the study of the spread of the Olympic Movement cancontribute to the debates on the tension between cultural
diversity and the world monoculture, tradition and modernity,
local and global organizations.

Intercultural Exchanges or Multiculturalism?
When the focus is on the development of the social sciences in general, it isimportant to observe a renewed interest in values at the end of the 1990s. Either
by coincidence or by convergence of social research mainstreams, new concepts
about similarities and differences between cultures facing a technologicallyglobalized world have come up. This interpretation had its origin in the researchdeveloped by Nestor Canclini (2004), Mexican sociologist who investigates thetransfer of music, arts, films and other socio cultural manifestations between
cultures by means of comparisons within today’s globalization process.

To Canclini (Ibid.: 13-26), today’s problem in an intercultural and globalized worldis not related to the differences but to the inequalities. These can be reduced wheneither common sense or symbolic values (Ibid.: 33) of understanding or connection
between culturally differentiated groups are adopted. In other words, the4intercultural option implies that one can clearly spot what stands out or what isdifferent in relationships of conflict whereas the multicultural option accepts
heterogeneity. Therefore, the epistemological problem of the interchange between
cultures does not lie only in the definitions but, above all, in the environment andcontext where relationships take place.

Canclini’s theory has consistency and content to explain the insufficiency ofinterculturalism in the Seoul version of 1987 if we consider sport not only as acommon sense of connection between distinct cultures but also as a carrier ofvalues that serve their own purposes and traditions of the Olympic Movement andof Olympism. In other words, the initial generalization of Kang and colleagues was
based on Olympic sport, and, above all, it focused on behavioral reactions between
different peoples and not on the values that inform such reactions. It is thenpossible to say that there was a dominating anthropological bias in initial Olympic
interculturalism, which was later compensated by the sociological and educational
vision of values which were to be further developed.

According to Canclini (2004: 97 – 101), the superposition or even competition
between anthropological and sociological approaches is common in interculturalism
studies. However, today this confrontation tends to emphasize multiculturalism
becauseit

accepts

heterogeneity

and

the

means

of

connection

betweendifferentiated groups. This last tendency, which has become dominant, implies inprivileging the universalism (i.e. free of context) of the means of relationship in
opposition to relativism (i.e. all points of view are equally valid), accepted by theintercultural option.

However, Canclini (Ibid.: 16) warns us that the adoption of universalism does not
happen only because it is a concept that can solve the difficulties which are typicalof relativism in intercultural approaches. Indeed, the adoption of universalism iseither a strategic justification or an ethical option when one has to face problems ofconfrontation between cultures. This conclusion takes us naturally to the historicalorigins of Olympism and to the problems that come out of the adoption of universal
values which are proclaimed for all.

Olympic universality

Historically speaking, the intention of universality has been one of the primordial
characteristics of both the Olympic Movement and the Olympic Games as far as5they have been grounded on the presupposed philosophical principles of Olympism.
The restorer of the Olympic Games, Pierre de Coubertin, developed, after 1894, arenewed doctrine based on the Ancient Olympic Games. He had also suggested
orientations towards a social pedagogy, which supposedly could be adapted to any
ethnic group or culture (DaCosta, 2006). In this sense, one of the main historiansof 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 andpromoted Olympism as a universal value”.

Nevertheless, the cultural relations established within the Olympic Movement havecome to some international understanding that has implicit meanings. This
international understanding has not promoted any explicit discussion about theuniversal acceptance of the values of Olympism as they are related to the particularvalues of each culture. In other words, sports activities are taught and experienced
in different ways in each society, according to the interpretations of each specificlocal culture.

The Coubertinian expression “All games, all nations” is representative of the
Olympic ideology as it is displayed in several texts, including one from 1911, in
which Coubertin precisely depicted a multicultural trait for the first time:

The fundamental rule of Modern Olympic Games is linked with two
expressions: all games, all nations. It is not from the International
Olympic Committee the power to change it. I would add to this
explanation that a nation is necessarily an independent State andthat there is a sport geography that can sometimes differentiate fromthe political geography.

The universal claim of the Olympic idea has been significantly kept up to thepresent 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 clearly proclaim several values such as the one of the second
principle, which refers to the definition of Olympism as a movement which “seeks tocreate 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, 1997
edition).

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 with6

the bringing together of athletes of the world at the great sports festival, theOlympic Games” (p. 9. Ibid.).

Moving out from Coubertin’s lifetime to contemporary Olympic Movement, it issymptomatic that in many sessions promoted by the International Olympic
Academy – IOA (Greece), there have been declared and explicit preoccupations
with multiculturalism related to Olympism. Besides the 1983 controversy here
previously

reported,

again

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 tocommend universal human values of sport practice upon societies still full of racial,social and political conflicts (Abreu, 2002).

Moreover,theincreasingly

growthofheterogeneous

societies

(from

the

intensification of migrations, ethnic interactions, globalized intercultural relations,and movements in favor of Human Rights) guides approaches that can not stemfrom traditional cultural concepts and traditional cultural relativism concepts. Facingthese realities, the problematic of culture concepts becomes indispensable and it
might be considered a collective elaboration, in continuous transformation.

Towards the plurality of Values

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?
These questions belong to the longtime and multidisciplinary debate between
universalism and relativism, which in terms of Olympic Movement and Olympism,has historical fundamentals connected to Coubertin himself. This particularexplanation is found in a review made by Ana Miragaya (2007), from Brazil,
another researcher of values-led approaches to Olympic Movement, in the theme ofSport for All in its pioneer formulations in the early 20th century:
When Sport for All was proposed by Coubertin, it could have
had the sense of universalism, as there seemed to be very
little reference to diversity. One may infer then that theexpression‘sport

for

all’

aimed

in

the

beginningtouniversalism without universals, another expression denoting
qualitative identity and resemblance among individuals (…) An
additional answer usually found among researchers of human7rights lies in the necessary agreement involving a diversity ofcultural interplays. In this case, “universal” understanding is
cognitive and an agreed outcome and not necessarily based in
Olympic and Coubertin’s traditions. This option for mutual
understanding is more a philosophical problem and sometimesa political proposal than an anthropological contention related
to cultural relativism.
Apart from Olympic sport interests, the conclusive remark from Miragaya has many
correspondences with recent philosophical assumptions on the theme of cultural
pluralism.

For instance, John Kekes (1994), a philosopher from the State

University of New York, is assertive when declaring that “there is no single,
authoritative standard for resolving values conflicts”. Thus far, values issues mustbe submitted to an agreement involving a diversity of cultural understanding.
Alternatively, in Olympic grounds, “universal” value according to Kekes’s viewshould be an agreed value and not necessarily an outcome of Olympic and
Coubertin’s traditions.

Moreover, the focus on philosophy is presumably the basis for dealing with current
uncertainties due to diversity of values. The argument for the search of aphilosophical justification of pluralism is also depicted by Kekes (1993), to whom
any value can be ultimately justified; as yet pluralism avoids a chaotic relativism
according to which all values are in the end arbitrary. His central claim is thatpluralism is a preferable alternative to relativism as far as the conflicts resolution
involving values diversity demands plural approaches not selection.

Kekes’s thesis has supportive meaning to the Olympic Movement and Olympism
facing the so-called Olympic values, which have a positive and complementarysense among other social and cultural values. Here lies an answer to the initialclaim of respecting non-Western societies’ values in Olympic affairs: the realizationthat one cannot exclude the realization of another. Unfortunately, as pointed out by
DaCosta (1998), the actions towards a new pluricultural Olympism are still incipientamong Olympic scholars.

Therefore, it is recommendable that Olympic pluralism should encompass Olympic
values and other values brought from diverse sources in order to give rise to acommon and synergetic development. The Olympic Studies Reader was planned toprovide a stage for mutual commitments and agreements about plural and sharedvalues.

8

========

9