MULTICULTURALISM AND UNIVERSAL PROCLAIMED VALUES IN OLYMPICMOVEMENT: AN APPROACH TO HUMAN RIGHTS AND SPORT DEVELOPMENT?

Lamartine DaCosta, Neise Abreu and Ana Miragaya
for the International Council of Sport Science and Physical Education(ICSSPE)magazine, 2006

The remark of multiculturalism embedded in Olympic sport may initially be examinedharking back to Pierre de Coubertin's basic principles of international understanding andmutual respect as issued in the early 20th century. As yet, considering the present-day
worldwide trend towards the promotion of 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 ofcurrent 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 was successful in leading aninternational congress in Paris 1894 to call upon participant nations in order to accomplish thisrestoration. After controversy and negotiations, it was decided by a group of 10 nations to reestablish 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 Olympic Movement, Coubertin developed,
after 1894, a renewed doctrine based on the Ancient Olympic Games and oriented towards asocial pedagogy, which supposedly could be adapted to any ethnic group or culture. In thissense, 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 thedoctrine and promoted Olympism as a universal value”.
Nevertheless, the cultural relations established within the Olympic Movement led to aninternational understanding implied meaning without explicitly promoting a discussion of theuniversal 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 eachsociety, according to the interpretations of the specific local culture.

Olympic universality
Anyway, Coubertin’s multicultural vision of Olympism had a specific construction basedon 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 a1

“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, presupposedin 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 firsttime 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 theInternational 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 approximatedthe concept of multiculturalism. This latter term, by the way, is from recent extraction, andthe ‘all games, all nations’ doctrine seems to have dissolved when Coubertin withdrew from thepresidency of the International Olympic Committee - IOC, in 1925.
However, the universal claim has been kept up to present day under several rationalesof the IOC, including the option that it should be incorporated into the Olympic Charter. For
instance, the Principles of the Olympic Charter of 1997 clearly proclaim several values such as
the one of 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 ofgood 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 fivecontinents. 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 key 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’s facts, it is symptomatic that inmany sessions promoted by the International Olympic Academy – IOA (Greece), there havebeen declared and explicit preoccupations with multiculturalism related to Olympism.

2For instance, in the 33rd IOA Main Session - 1993, some representatives from theAfrican continent questioned the fact that modern Olympism only values the practice of sportsthat 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 fullof racial, social and political conflicts (Abreu, 2002). In keeping with these debates, someprinciples proposed by Olympism continue to be distant conditions, since these principles arefar from representing a singular sports culture. In this concern, there is a need to review thenotion of multiculturalism facing the possible adoption of cultural relativism by the Olympic
Movement as one of its main operational definitions. Additionally, the understanding of theformation 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, thisword 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 with(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,

hasformed,insomeWesterncountries,

debatesandendlesspolemics.

Multiculturalism was (has been) confronted with different philosophies related to the way topromote 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 amulticultural approach in spite of different usage and ideological implications. Anthropology asa social science has been brought into relation with the development of multiculturalism andhas also been influencing it. Yet, according to Eller, in a certain way multiculturalism is anapplied anthropology. But, in spite of this proximity, the dialogue between both areas ofknowledge has not been intense and sometimes their influences can not be seen.
The increasingly 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 andtraditional cultural relativism concepts. Facing these realities, the problematic of culture
concepts becomes indispensable and it is considered a collective elaboration, in continuoustransformation.
3

Within this scenario, how are Olympic values going to be brought into discussion? Howare proclaimed universal values going to be attached to cultural diversity? Epistemologically, towhat future is it possible to guide these values? In this context, an attempt is needed to findsolutions 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 ofeither adopting a multiculturalist’s point of view or an anti-multiculturalist’s point of view. Firstof all, 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 to(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 andclassic values stored by humankind is being drawn.
The impact of the civilization toward the rearrangement of the world order settles acollision between power and culture as well as the tendency to establish universal concepts.
The political structure of some civilizations reacts against Western universalized concepts andtransfers the presupposed established power to other representative issues such as thenecessity of international understanding, preservation, inclusion and valorization of nonWestern cultures. It does not mean that we have to get rid of philosophies that proclaim
universal values, but we have to consider the world conflicts and examine if certain paradigms
do not have eternal validity.

Olympism developments
Historically speaking, Olympism has been taking multiculturalism in consideration andthis experience showed that a focus that was adequate in a certain period of time does notmean that it would be likewise 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’s 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 that thephilosophical 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 offriendship; international relationships of peace, toleration and understanding; and culturalalliances with the arts.
With this proposal, Olympism embraces a variety of contemporary issues that coversome basic required conditions to be adjusted to our present world. Another proposal was4

developed by DaCosta (1998, p. 193) by understanding Olympism as a Progress Philosophy, aproposition generally defined today as a speculative construction of philosophical positions ordirections yet without internal coherence, which asserts that reality is constantly in a processof change. Parry and DaCosta link their interpretations of Olympism to the promotion ofvalues.

Closing
In conclusion, it is worth mentioning another DaCosta’s (1998, p. 198) argument 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 culturalclaims 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 to the
two-level differentiation of Olympism: while DaCosta had recommended a pluralistic andprogressive adaptation to Olympic doctrine, MacAloon (1991) proposes in the same context ofanalysis “global interconnections” and “cultural differentiation”, both mutually adapted.
Equivalent approach has Müller (1990), to whom Olympism progresses keeping “immutablevalues” from its historical foundations and developing “updated values”. Coincidentally,
Liponski (1987) envisages present-day “Olympic Universalism” as opposed to “Olympic
Pluralism”, prescribing a long-lasting process of introducing “to Olympism the cultural andphilosophical 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,“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 thecurrent 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 weall be finally able to find a balance between the need of universal values and the respect toparticular cultural identities?
-------------------Lamartine DaCosta, PhD, Universidade Gama Filho, Rio de Janeiro,<lamartine@terra.com.br>

Neise Abreu, PhD, Escola Americana, Rio de Janeiro, <neise.abreu@earj.com.br>5

Ana Miragaya, PhD, Universidade Gama Filho, Rio de Janeiro,<amiragaya@uol.com.br>

REFERENCES

ABREU, N. G. (2002). Multicultural responses to Olympism - an ethnographic research inAncient Olympia, Greece. In DaCosta, L.P. (ed) Olympic Studies (pp. 201 – 254). Rio deJaneiro: University Gama Filho Press.

CARDOSO, C. M.N. (1995). Antropologia e Multiculturalismo. Setúbal – Portugal: Escola
Superior de Educação de Setúbal. Available on-line: 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.

6

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.

7