Is Competitive Sport One of the Last Bastions Excluding Persons with Disabilities?

Is Competitive Sport One of the Last Bastions
Excluding Persons with Disabilities?
Otto J. Schantz（University of Koblenz-Landau）

In most social fields like education, employment, leisure, culture, etc. our democraticsocieties make great efforts in order to include people with disabilities. More than 170
states in the world have already signed the Convention on the Rights of Persons with
Disabilities, an international human rights treaty adopted in 2006 by the United
Nations General Assembly intending to protect the rights and dignity of persons withdisabilities and guaranteeing their social inclusion. However, there is one domain in
our life, where segregation of people seems to be taken for granted: it is competitive
sport.
Of course, there exist a lot of activities, engagements, and projects in order toinclude persons with disabilities within sports and physical activities; however, if wehave a closer look at these undertakings we realize that these efforts of inclusion are
more or less limited to recreational sports, physical education or sports for all. At thehigh level, there is in general a clear distinction between and classification into ablebodied sport and disabled sport. The most prominent example of this classification isthe division between Olympic and Paralympic Games. The strict binary categorizationand segregation of these events can be considered as a marginalization or even as an
exclusion of athletes with disabilities. Could you imagine museums reserved for art
from able-bodied artists and others for art solely produced by disabled artists? Or an
Oscar award for actors with and another one for actors without disability?
The objective of the following reflection is to examine the question why high level
sport is so reluctant when it comes to the inclusion of people with disabilities. I will
scrutinize the underlying reasons of the segregation between the Olympics and theParalympics and make some thought provoking proposals concerning the inclusion of
athletes with disabilities into mainstream sports at high level.
27

Journal of Paralympic Research Group vol.9

Inclusion
Inclusion is a complex and polysemic notion; depending on the context, it can takeon different forms（Ekins 2016）. It is foremost a political concept. Different politicalstrategies and theories fighting against discrimination of minority groups carry thisterm on their banner. In today’s theories concerning the inclusion of minorities we
can distinguish roughly between three different policies, which are empowerment,
normalization and deconstruction. As claiming the combination of all these threepolitical concepts would end up in a trilemma, one of them has to be sacrificed when
deciding about the political road-map（Boger, 2017）. That’s why minorities activists
aim at either empowerment by normalization （EN; declining deconstruction） or
normalization by deconstruction（ED; abandoning empowerment）or empowerment
by deconstruction （ED; refusing normalization; s. Fig. 1）. The suitability of thedifferent approaches depends on context and political purpose.
Fig. 1: Strategies of Inclusion: a Trilemma

After presenting different approaches and forms of inclusion in sports, taking forexample the history of the relationship between the Olympic and Paralympic
movement, I will argue in favor of an approach, which in the context of elite sport isin my opinion the most suitable to realize inclusion of athletes with disabilities and to
avoid segregation.

28

Is Competitive Sport One of the Last Bastions Excluding Persons with Disabilities?

Competition versus inclusion
The above mentioned UN-Convention claims to enable persons with disabilities “toparticipate on an equal basis with others in recreational, leisure and sporting
activities” and explicitly asks “to encourage and promote the participation, to thefullest extent possible, of persons with disabilities in mainstream sporting activities at
all levels”（UN 2006, art. 30 a）, which includes competitive sport at the highest level.
However, in the world of high level sport these demands seem to remain unheard.
Competitive sport can be considered as a sort of social Darwinism in the arena: thesurvival of the fasted, of the strongest, of the most able and most skillful in the
different sports. There is no place for the disabled, for those who do not fit theexigencies of sport competition. The logic of competitive sport is classification andranking according to abilities in order to select and reward the very best. The main
ideology of competitive sport is ableism, a prejudice that, like racism, “encompasses
more than just personal attitudes”（Barnes 2016, 5）, that refers to “the sentiment ofcertain social groups and social structures that value and promote certain abilities, forexample, productivity and competitiveness, over others, such as empathy, compassion
and kindness”（Wolbring 2008, 253）
. The concept of inclusion in contrast respects andvalues diversity avoiding classification and ranking. Inclusion asserts the diversity ofhuman beings and makes sure that this diversity is taken into consideration andrespected at every level of human activities.
Considering these contradictions between the structural goals of high level sport
and the objectives of inclusion, it is understandable that competitive sport is one of
the last bastions against inclusion. There have been different attempts to take thisbastion, some rare were successful, some are controversial and still vividly discussed.

Inclusive efforts of the Paralympic movement
At its origin Paralympic sport was considered to be a means of therapy and of
rehabilitation. During the 1960s, in the context of the growing emancipation of people
with disabilities this medical paradigm shifted slowly towards a sport oriented modelwith a strong focus on competition. During these times, integration into able-bodied
29

Journal of Paralympic Research Group vol.9

sport in general and into the Olympics in particular became one of the principal aimsof this movement（cf. Hansen & Mcpherson 1994; Labanowich 1988）.
After long negotiations with the International Olympic Committee（IOC）, a 1500m
men’s and a 800m women’s wheelchair racing event was included in the athletics
program of the 1984 Los Angeles Summer Games and events in Alpine and Nordic
skiing（1988 only）for athletes with disabilities were also held at the Winter Olympics
1984 in Sarajevo and 1988 in Calgary. Indeed, the wheelchair racing events were partof the Olympic program as so called demonstration sports until the 2004 Games inAthens（Schantz & Gilbert 2012; Legg et al. 2009）. Efforts to gain full Olympic medal
status for these events failed.
In 1990 the International Paralympic Committee （IPC） formed an International
Committee on Integration of Disabled Athletes that later was renamed Commission
for the Inclusion of Athletes with Disabilities. This commission, under the leadershipof the former Paralympian Rick Hansen, tried to find solutions to include disabled
sports into the Olympics and the mainstream sport movement. Different proposals tofoster inclusion or integration of athletes with disabilities in the Olympic Games were
presented. For example:
・

Inclusion of the total Paralympic program in the Olympic program・

Inclusion of some disabled sport disciplines with full medal status

・

Including every 4 years alternating Paralympic sports

・

keeping two events but both with full Olympic medal status

However, none of these proposals was successful. It is noteworthy that all of thesesuggestions took the segregation between disabled and able-bodied athletes for
granted arguing that this is necessary to guarantee equal classes by matching thedifferent abilities.
Nowadays inclusion or integration into the Olympics is not any longer an objectiveof the IPC as it considers the Olympics and the Paralympics to be two parallel eventsof equal value. In 2003 the former president of the IPC, Philip Craven declared theintegration debate to be closed and decided that from now on the struggle forinclusion will be in the “litterbin of history”（Craven 2004, 292）. The intention of thisposition was certainly to strengthen the self-esteem of the Paralympic movement.
30

Is Competitive Sport One of the Last Bastions Excluding Persons with Disabilities?

Athletes with disabilities competing in mainstream sports
Despite Philip Craven’s declaration from 2003 the inclusion of athletes withdisabilities into elite sport regained public interest and is today a contentious issue,
vividly debated by athletes, organizations and media（Thomas & Smith 2009, 128）.
The revival of this debate is mainly due to the case of Oscar Pistorius（the sport
related one） and more recently to the Markus Rehm case, two athletes with
amputations claiming their right to compete against able-bodied athletes.
The South African sprinter Oscar Pistorius was not the first athlete withdisabilities to compete in the Olympics. He was even not the first athlete withprosthetic limbs to participate. George Eyser, an American gymnast, won six medals,
including three gold medals, competing with a wooden leg in the 1904 Olympic
Games in St. Louis. Eyser was severely disabled, but not handicapped in the events
he participated in. In 1904 there were no Paralympics and no special categories fordisabled athletes; the Olympics, at this time, were accessible to all competitive
athletes. His right to participate was not contested, even though, in at least one
discipline, the rope climbing, his light wooden leg procured him an advantage over
his opponents who had to carry their two heavy legs of flesh and blood.
Aside from George Eyser, there were more than a dozen athletes with disabilities
who managed to participate in different Olympics since. For most of them their
impairment was neither a real handicap nor an advantage when competing in theirrespective sports. Some showed extraordinary resilience and overcame their disability
through tough self-discipline and hard training. All of them qualified for the Olympic
Games without opponent protests, as their disability was never really questioned orconsidered to be an advantage.
Except for two wheelchair users in archery and George Eyser with his wooden leg
in gymnastics, they used no artificial aid. A recent example for these disabledathletes, who reached the Holy Grail of high level sports, is Natalie du Toit fromSouth Africa, a multiple gold medal winner at different Paralympic Games. She
qualified for the 2008 Olympics in Beijing, where she finished 16th in the 10 km open
water swimming race. When she competed, she swam without the aid of a prosthetic
limb or flipper. The media celebrated and admired her courage and her resilience.
31

Journal of Paralympic Research Group vol.9

The reaction of the sports-world and the media was quite different, when her
compatriot Oscar Pistorius entered the scene to become the first sprinter withprosthetic limbs competing in the Olympics. His ambition to compete against the very
best able-bodied athletes caused great controversy. Sport scientists, officials andathletes criticized him, as they were persuaded that his J-shaped carbon-fiber
prosthetics procured him an unfair advantage.
The International Association of Athletics Federations （IAAF） ruled Pistorius’
prosthesis ineligible for use in competitions conducted under IAAF rules. Pistorius
appealed against this decision to the Court of Arbitration for Sport （CAS） in
Lausanne claiming that “his fundamental human rights were breached, including
equal access to Olympic principles and values”（Patel 2015, 112）. The CAS supported
Pistorius’s appeal and revoked the IAAF council’s decision referring to theConvention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities（CRPD）. Finally, this judgment
opened the way to Pistorius’ participation at the 2012 London Olympics.
Pistorius sporting career was abruptly ended when he was found guilty of culpable
homicide, as he shot and killed his girlfriend. But there is another extraordinary
athlete using a prosthetic limb who keeps the controversies about the inclusion of
disabled athletes going: it is the German long jumper Markus Rehm. He is a left sided
below knee amputee and he uses a carbon-fiber bladed prosthesis to jump off. His
personal best places him within the best able-bodied long jumpers in the world.
However, the International Association of Athletics Federations stopped his dream of
an Olympic participation by amending – once more – its competition rules.
The technological progress blurs the distinction between therapy/substitution andenhancement, between the natural and the artificial. Pistorius can be considered to be
the first cyborg at the Olympics and as such he is a threat to the myth of natural
human sport performance and the natural order of sports （Magdalinski 2013）.
Markus Rehm is even more threatening as his performances could allow him to
defeat the very best able-bodied long jumpers.1） In July 2014 he performed thelongest jump at the German track and field championship for able-bodied athletes andonly after a long discussion he was finally awarded the gold medal, but the German1） At the 2015 IPC Athletics World Championship in Doha he set his personal best at 8.40 m, aperformance that would have been enough to win the long jump for able-bodied at the four
Olympics after Sydney 2000 （2016 Rio de Janeiro, 2012 London, 2008 Beijing, 2004 Athens）.
32

Is Competitive Sport One of the Last Bastions Excluding Persons with Disabilities?

Athletics Federation refused to select him for the European Athletics Championships
taking place five weeks later.

Strategies of inclusion
Under the presidency of Robert Steadward （1989-2001） the IPC promoted“integration of sports for athletes with disabilities into the international sports
movement for able-bodied athletes while safeguarding and preserving the identity ofsport for disabled athletes”（IPC 2000, art. II.4）. It tried to empower disabled sport
and athletes with disabilities by integration into mainstream sports, while preserving
the categories abled and disabled（cf. Fig 2: empowerment by normalization declining
deconstruction of categories）.
Phillip Craven, president from 2001 to September 2017, tried to empower the
Paralympic movement by breaching the hegemony of the Olympic movement. He
wanted to develop an independent movement at eye level with the IOC, refusing theway of normalization but claiming its identity, independence, and autonomy（cf. Fig.
2）.
Fig. 2: Strategies of Inclusion in Elite Sports

In the particular field and context of high level competitive sport, both strategies
are condemned to fail the promotion of inclusion. If Paralympic athletes try to breachthe Olympic bastion, they have to deconstruct the categorization of athletes in able33

Journal of Paralympic Research Group vol.9

bodied and disabled, as the category disabled will always be a second class category
in a highly competitive sports world that values only the very best, the most able.
Rankings, leagues, and class based on physical prowess and skills can be considered
to be sport specific. Classifications or rankings based on proxy variables like age,gender or ability/disability are political acts that lead to segregation and that areoften discriminatory and disempowering. Classifying human beings on the base of
their abilities or disabilities can be seen as dehumanizing, degrading and humiliating.
According to the anthropologist and former Paralympian David Howe, the process ofclassification “is an alienating experience, as each time a different set of individuals
determines whether your body fits into the textbook of carnal typology that is
acceptable to those who govern the particular element of Paralympic sport that theathletes wish to be a part” （Howe 2008, 71）. Classification is a crude form ofgovernmentality of the athlete’s bodies, a technology of dominance over the body
（Foucault 1982; 2001）.
The second strategy which – if we characterize it in marketing terms – claims its
own brand identity is confronted with a powerful opponent, who has an enormous
economical, symbolic, and social capital. Compared to the Olympic movement, theParalympic movement will always be dominated and sidelined; at least as long as thehigh level sport doesn’t change completely its commercial logic. Albeit the Paralympic
movement continues to grow and to flourish, “…segregation, even if necessary,
results in stigma, making the disability-sports movement a victim of its own successand diversity” as Laura Kaminker（2001）convincingly stated.
Craven’s vision that normalization or inclusion is not necessary, as both movements
are of equal values, is just wishful thinking. Why do athletes try to compete at the
Olympics when the Paralympics are equivalent?

Why is Marla Runyan, a legally

blind American track & field athlete, prouder of her 8th place in the 1500 m Olympic
final at Sydney than of her numerous Paralympic gold medals?
A comparison of both movements, even at first sight, clearly indicates that theirpower, their political and social impact, their media value, their financial and symbolic
capital are quite different and that their power relation is not parallel but hierarchical:
the Olympics are the premium event and the Paralympics come second. The
equivalence of the two events is a complacent illusion; ranging from naïve selfdelusion to self-interested artifice. The Paralympic movement will probably never34

Is Competitive Sport One of the Last Bastions Excluding Persons with Disabilities?

reach the prestige of the Olympic movement. Professional sport has become acommodity, a multi-billion dollar business, where the winner takes all. The IOC sells aworld-wide mediated mega event that presents enchanting stories and values, as wellas images of young beautiful, powerful, gracious and healthy athletes; it sells themyth of a sport event capable of creating a peaceful and better world. This productfits perfectly the demand of the average sport consumers. The Paralympic movement
is still a communal movement which is united by a common identity, a common
culture based on disability; even though it seeks to be an elite sport organization
focusing on sporting excellence. The product the IPC tries to sell is quite different
from that of the IOC and, at least until now, sport consumers are much less eager tobuy it. For the average consumer sport is generally associated to the notions ofhealth, vitality, ability, power, and independence while disability is stereotypicallyrelated to the labels of illness, invalidity, disability, helplessness and dependence（cf.
Schantz & Gilbert 2012; Schantz 2013）. The territory of the Olympic sportsmen andwomen is the stadium, but the territory of the people with disabilities is the special
institution or the hospital（cf. Goffman 1963）. Unfortunately this kind of labeling is
still alive in many people’s minds.
The Olympics and Paralympics are in binary opposition, which is hierarchical innature. Indeed, as long as sporting performance is only recognized in absolute
quantitative terms, reflecting the mainstream philosophy of our western competitive
world, all people who are part of other than the very top category will automaticallybe marginalized. Sportsmen and even more so sportswomen in the disabled category
will continue to be positioned as second class athletes and at the bottom of the world’s
physical elite scale（cf. Schantz & Gilbert 2012; Schantz 2013）. According to Peter
Kell and collaborators, they will be the losers in a sports world based on “freeenterprise” that “contradicts the importance of the state structures to support theneeds of the disabled where the market force repeatedly fail them in all sphere oflife”（Kell et al. 2008, 165）.
Two separate Games risk reinforcing the separation between the able-bodied
athletes and those with disabilities; or, as Goggin and Newell（2005, 81）argue, “theexistence of a special event for people identified as having disability is a painful
reminder of inequity and injustice, and its presence perpetuates the discourse of‘special needs’ and ‘special events’”. As long as the show sport doesn’t change
35

Journal of Paralympic Research Group vol.9

radically its logic of “faster, higher, and stronger”, it will be utopian to think that by“becoming ‘Parallel Olympians’ athletes with disabilities can try to get away from theoxymoron that ‘disabled athletes’ may be perceived as and be allowed to associatethemselves with a movement that sells itself as being about sport as a vehicle forpeace and understanding as well as sport of the very highest level”（Brittain 2010,93）. The standards of play and performances in Paralympic sports will always becompared to the ‘norms’ in Olympic sports. Without fundamental change, there will
always be the glamorous first class Games for the very best and then the secondclass Games for the brave Paralympians who have overcome their “terrible fate”. In
our sports fanatic societies physical prowess often becomes an indicator of a person’svalue, not only in sport, but also in other domains. By separating elite sport in a
category for able-bodied and disabled sport we risk perpetuating the image of theless valuable disabled and as such to disempower the whole community of individuals
with disabilities（Schantz 2013; Schantz & Gilbert 2012）.
The strategies of the athletes with disabilities who competed in the Olympics havebeen different to the strategies of the IPC: they ignored categorization and almost allof them qualified by assimilation to the criteria of the Olympics: they adapted theirbodies to the demands of able-bodied competition. Pistorius and Rehm refused to beplaced in the disabled category by using artificial aids to enable them and to level thedifference. However, the strategy of adaptation is limited to some very rare
exceptionally resilient athletes in few sports and the integration into the Olympics by
the use of compensatory technology is confronted with a lot of resistance from those
who defend the myth of pure and natural sport.

So, is there no possibility to take the last bastion against
inclusion?
Empowerment through integrating disabled categories into mainstream sport orconsidering Paralympics to be a particular movement as powerful as the Olympics is
an illusion. Another strategy, the last remaining of the trilemmatic policies, the onethat sacrifices empowerment and instead aims at normalization by deconstruction,
seems to be more effective（cf. Fig. 2）. The Paralympic Games, in their current formand conceptualization are not appropriate to empower the community of people withdisabilities; only the deconstruction of the hierarchical binary categories Olympic –36

Is Competitive Sport One of the Last Bastions Excluding Persons with Disabilities?

Paralympic will promote inclusion of disabled athletes in the realm of elite sport. This
strategy deconstructs the ideology of ableism and normalizes sport participation in
elite sport by adapting sports to peoples’ diversity instead of adapting people tosports. High level sport should offer genuine opportunities for all athletes toparticipate to the best of their abilities without hierarchical categorization. Even
though this strategy doesn’t directly contribute to the Paralympic Movement’s
empowerment, it will finally empower the individual athletes with disabilities as it
will open up possibilities to choose. “From an empowerment perspective the right tomake your own decisions should be more important than political ideals”, Sørensen（2000, 13） stated as conclusion of her empirical study on integration andempowerment of athletes with disabilities in Norway. Therefore, we have to change
rules, modify techniques and equipment, and even invent new sports which enabledisabled athletes by accessibility.
An example of enabling rules change are the swimming competitions at the
Olympics 2000 in Sydney, where a visual signal was added to the acoustical departuresignal in order to allow fair competition for a participating swimmer with deafness.
Why not consider the wheelchair as sports equipment, just like the bicycle?
Wheelchair sports open for all athletes could be included in the Olympics, permitting
disabled athletes to practice sport with and against able-bodied athletes even at
highest level. The same could be done for example in the Winter Games with sitskiing. Mixed relay races including athletes with prosthetic limbs could be organized.
There are different examples of sports which are already accessible or which could
easily be rendered accessible for people with disabilities, like powerlifting, shooting,archery, sailing, or tandem cycling（cf. Schantz 2001; Schantz & Gilbert 2012）. We
already have the chance that the different sports offer a variety of forms appropriate
for a great diversity of body morphologies; now we need to widen this program inorder to allow people with disabilities to find a sport that suits their abilities.
All kinds of categorizing build up hierarchical, hegemonic structures and thus leadto marginalization in a sports model which values only the absolute best. That’s why
the IOC should give equal access to the Olympic Games for excellent athletes fromthe whole range of human mankind “without any discrimination of any kind” asstipulated in the Olympic Charter（IOC 2015, 13）in order to stick to its claim ofuniversalism. The IPC should conserve and develop the Paralympic Games as a show
37

Journal of Paralympic Research Group vol.9

case of the sporting culture for people with disabilities, maintaining and evenfostering its political, economic, social, and cultural significance （Kazuo 2016）. It
should develop the Paralympic Movement/Games as an alternative sports culture
which meets the needs of all people with disabilities, including severe disabilities, but
keep integration and inclusion as a main objective （cf. Schantz 2001; Schantz &Gilbert 2012）.
Sports and physical activities are socio-cultural constructions and as such vary intime and space.2） In the 21st century we should not adapt humans to sports invented
in the 19th century for the western and able-bodied male athlete, but adapt sports tothe diversity of humans in order to fit the ethical standards of our time（Schantz
2016）.
References:
Boger, J. M. A.（2017）. Theorien der Inklusion – eine Übersicht. Zeitschrift für inklusion-online.
net, 1.
Brittain, I.（2010）. The Paralympic Games Explained. London. New York: Routledge.
Barnes, E. （2016）. The minority body: A theory of disability. Studies in feminist philosophy.
Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Craven, P. （2004）. Present and Future Models of Inclusion of Paralympic Structures within
Olympic Structures. In M. Messing, N. Müller, & H. Preuß（Eds.）, Olympischer Dreiklang.
Werte, Geschichte, Zeitgeist（pp. 283–293）. Agon Sportverl.
Ekins, A. （2016）. Reconsidering inclusion: Sustaining and building inclusive practices inschools. New York: Taylor & Francis.
Foucault, M.（1982）. The subject and power（pp. 208-226）. In H. Drefus & P. Rainbow（Eds.）.
Michel Foucault: Beyond Structuralism and Hermeneutics. Chicago: The University of
Chicago Press.
Foucault, M.（2001）.Les mailles du pouvoir（pp. 1001-1020）. In D. Defert, F. Ewald & J. Lagrange（Eds.）.Michel Foucault, Dits et Ecrits 1954-1988, II: 1976-1988. Paris: Gallimard.
Goffman, E.（1963）. Stigma. Notes on the management of spoiled identity. New York: Simon &Schuster 1963.
Goggin, G. & C. Newell（2005）. Disability in Australia. Exposing a social apartheid. Sydney:
University of New South Wales Press.
Hansen, R. & G. Mcpherson（1994）. Between Periods with Rick Hansen and Gary Mcpherson.
Capacités, 20, 5-7.
Howe, P. D. （2008）. The cultural politics of the Paralympic movement through ananthropological lens. London, New York: Routledge.
IOC - International Olympic Committee（2015）. Olympic Charter. In force as from 2 August2） Sometimes we can learn from old traditional sports; Sumo e. g. is much less concerned about
categorization than 19th century Western Sports, as there are no weight categories.
38

Is Competitive Sport One of the Last Bastions Excluding Persons with Disabilities?
2015. Lausanne: IOC.
IPC - International Paralympic Committee （1994）. IPC Handbook. IPC constitution. In IPC
Handbook（Section I, chapter 1）Brügge: IPC.
IPC - International Paralympic Committee （2000）. Constitution. In International Paralympic
Committee（ed.）. IPC Handbook（Section I, Chapter 1,）. Retrieved from the website of the.
IPC;（accessed 3rd October 2000）
Kaminker, L.（2001）. The Paralympics Paradox. http:sportjones.com/sj/147.shtml.（accessed 1st
February 2002）.
Kell, P. Kell, M. & N. Price（2008）. Two Games One Movement? The Paralympic Versus the
Olympic Movement（pp. 155-166）. In K. Gilbert & O. J. Schantz（Eds.）, The Paralympic
Games. Empowerment or Side Show? Maidenhead, UK: Meyer & Meyer.
Labanowich, S. （1988）. A Case for the Integration of the Disabled into the Olympic Games.
Adapted physical activity quarterly, 5（4）, 264-272.
Legg, D. Fay, T. Mary A. Hums, M. A. & E. Wolff（2009）. Examining the Inclusion of Wheelchair
Exhibition Events within the Olympic Games 1984–2004. European Sport Management
Quarterly, 9（3）, 243-258.
Magdalinski, T.（2013）. Restoring or Enhancing Athletic Bodies: Oscar Pistorius and the Threat
to Pure Performance （pp. 238–250）. In J. Tolleneer, S. Sterckx, & P. Bonte （Eds.）,
International library of ethics, law, and the new medicine: Vol. 52. Athletic enhancement,
human nature and ethics. Threats and opportunities of doping technologies. Dordrecht［etal.］: Springer.
Ogoura, K.（2016）. The Political, Economic, Social, and Cultural Significance of the Paralympics.
Journal of the Nippon Foundation Paralympic Research Group, Vol. 04, 19-41.
Patel, S. （2015）. Inclusion and exclusion in competitive sport: Socio-legal and regulatory
perspectives. Abingdon, Oxon; New York, NY: Routledge.
Schantz, O. J. （2001）. Compatibility of Olympism and Paralympism: Ideal and reality. In
Barcelona Olympic Foundation（Ed.）. Disabled Sport: Competition and Paralympic Games.
IVth Olympic Forum Barcelona, November 2001. Barcelona: Barcelona Olympic Foundation,
CD.
Schantz, O. J.（2016）. Coubertin’s humanism facing post- humanism – implications for the futureof the Olympic Games. Sport in Society 19（6）, 840-856（htttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17430437.
2015.1108653）.
Schantz, O. J. & K. Gilbert （2012）. The Paralympic Movement: Empowerment orDisempowerment for People with Disabilities?（pp. 358-380）. In H. Jefferson Lenskyj & S.
Waag（Eds.）. The Palgrave Handbook of Olympic Studies. New York: Palgrave.
Schantz, O. J. （2013）. Le mouvement paralympique: une contribution à l’empowerment despersonnes en situation de handicap?（pp. 741-751）. In B. Andrieu & F. Félix（Ed.）Ethiquedu sport. Lausanne: Editions de l’Âge de l’Homme.
Sørensen, M. （2003）. Integration in sport and empowerment of athletes with a disability.
European Bulletin of Adapted Physical Activity, 2（2）,1-15.
Thomas, N., & A. Smith （2009）. Disability, Sport and Society: An introduction. London:
Routledge.
United Nations（2006）. Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. Retrieved from:www.un.org/disabilities/documents/convention/convoptprot-e.pdf（accessed 17th June 2017）.
Wolbring, G.（2008）. The politics of ableism. Development, 51（2）,252-258.
39

パラリンピック研究会

紀要 vol.9

競技スポーツは障がい者の包摂を妨げる最後の障壁となっているのか
オットー・J.・シャンツ（コブレンツ＝ランダウ大学）

教育，雇用，レジャー，文化など大半の社会的分野において，民主主義社会は，障がい者を包摂するために大きな努力をしている。2006年に国連総会において採択された障がい者の社会的包摂を保障する国際人権条約「障害者の権利に関する条約」の締約国は，すでに170カ国を超えた。
スポーツや運動の分野をみてみると，障がい者の包摂を目的とする行動，関与，プロジェクトが数多く認められる。とはいえ，こうした包摂の努力は，大方のところ，レク
リエーションスポーツ，体育あるいは草の根スポーツに限られている。トップレベルにおいては，健常者スポーツと障がい者スポーツの間に明確な区別と分類が根強く残っている。この区分の最も顕著な例は，オリンピックとパラリンピックの厳格な分離である。
これらのイベントを２種類に分類することは，障がいを持つアスリートの周縁化あるいは排除とさえ考えられ得る。オリンピックはおそらく常に，最も権威のあるのカテゴリーであり，障がいのある選手にはほぼ手の届かないものであるからだ。
競技スポーツの構造的な目的は，最優秀者を選抜して栄誉を讃えるために運動能力に従い分類し，順位をつけることにある。一方，包摂のコンセプトは，これとは反対に，呼び集め，多様性を高く評価し，能力（障がい）を尊重するものである。競技スポーツの主たるイデオロギーは Ableism である。Ableism とは，「共感，思いやり，優しさな
ど他の能力よりも，例えば生産性や競争力などの特定の能力を評価し奨励する特定の社
会集団や社会構造の心理に言及するときに，障がいを持つ活動家たちが用いる観念である」（Wolbring 2008, 253）
。競技スポーツは，競技場における一種の社会ダーウィニズ
ム－最速の者，最強の者，最も有能な者，最も熟練した者の生存を促進するものである。
トップレベルのスポーツと包摂との間のこうした矛盾を考えると，競技スポーツは包摂と相容れないものであり，包摂に対する最後の障壁のひとつとなっていることが明らかであろう。とはいえ，この障壁を取り去るさまざまな試みがなされており，成功したものはまれであり，他は意見の分かれるもので，今なお盛んに議論が行われている。
40

競技スポーツは障がい者の包摂を妨げる最後の障壁となっているのか

本稿では，オリンピックとパラリンピックのこうした分離と，競技スポーツにおける競争と包摂の明白な非両立性の問題について，哲学，倫理学，障がい学，スポーツ科学，
歴史の観点および概念を用いて論じる。著者の考えを説明するため，人工装具を着けてオリンピックに出場した初の短距離選手であるオスカー・ピストリウス，8.40 ｍの走り
幅跳び記録を持つ片足切断者のマルクス・レーム，あるいはオリンピック水泳に切断者として初めて出場したナタリー・デュトワなどの特殊なケースを検討する。健常者のトップレベル競技において競い合いたいと考える障がい者アスリートは，数多くの障壁や抵抗に直面する。障がいを技術的な装置で補う場合には，技術的ドーピングや不公平の非難に直面する。補助器具なしには，彼らは一般に競争もできない。
最優秀者選抜の論理を特徴とするトップレベルの競技スポーツは，平等な機会と生来のままの（人工物を用いない）パフォーマンスという（神話的な）スポーツの価値観を依然として守ろうと，代償的な技術装置や補助器具を禁じている。そうしたハイレベルの競技スポーツにおいてアスリートの包摂を望むのであれば，既存のスポーツを適合させ，新しいスポーツを生み出さなければならない。こうして改変されたスポーツや新しいスポーツは，健常者・障がい者を問わず誰もがアクセスでき，参加と勝利の機会均等が可能な限りすべての人に提供すべきものである（Schantz & Gilbert 2012）。アクセスが確保されているスポーツの具体的例をいくつか挙げて議論する。
21世紀においては，私たちの時代の倫理基準に合うよう人間の多様性にスポーツを適合させるべきであって，西洋の健常な男性アスリートのために19世紀に考案されたス
ポーツに人間を適合させるべきではない（Schantz 2016）。

41