Language is, at its most fundamental level, just a series of words or characters. It is the meanings attached by humans to these words or characters that makes language important. One function of language is communication but, in communicating, humans more often than not, also, convey the underlying meaning behind the words or characters used. As an academic researcher, part of my job is to critically analyse language use, so when I received the title for this presentation I was immediately struck by the inherently implied positive link conveyed by the title “Olympism in action: Inclusion of persons with disabilities through sport activities”. There appears to be an inherent assumption within the preferred title that the inclusion of people with disabilities through sport is unarguably an example of Olympism in action. But is it? As someone who attended his first Session at the IOA in 1992 and has been at every summer Paralympic Games since Sydney 2000, I am very passionate about both Movements. However, being passionate about something can sometimes lead you to uncritical acceptance of things you are told or that you read, especially positive things. That is where my training as a researcher becomes important, as it teaches me to be a “critical friend” regarding the things I am passionate about. In this way I can still care passionately about something, whilst at the same time be critical of things I am told or perhaps expected to take for granted. It is in this vein then that I would like to alter the title of this presentation slightly to “Is the inclusion of persons with disabilities through sport activities an example of Olympism in action?” In this way I can critically assess this question starting from a neutral position and let the evidence lead me to a conclusion one way or the other. It may well be that I do come to the conclusion that the inclusion of people with disabilities through sport is indeed an example of Olympism in action, but the findings will at least be based upon the evidence gathered rather than a blind belief that Olympism is inherently inclusive.

Ableism

In order to assist with my interrogation of this question, I need a theoretical lens through which to view the available information and critically assess whether the inclusion of people with disabilities in sport is an example of Olympism in action. I have chosen to use a theory from the field of critical disability studies known as ableism. According to Wolbring (2012) “ableism describes prejudicial attitudes and discriminatory behaviours toward persons with a disability. Definitions of ableism hinge on one’s understanding of normal ability and the rights and benefits afforded to persons deemed “normal” (p. 78). Seibers (2008) calls ableism the “ideology of ability”, which at its most extreme “defines the baseline by which humanness is determined, setting a measure of body and mind that gives or denies human status to individual persons” (p.8). Ableism, therefore, devalues people with disabilities and results in segregation, social isolation and social policies that limit opportunities for full societal participation. In the context of sport for people with disabilities, the prioritisation of non-disabled sport (and bodies) within society devalues sport for athletes with disabilities and potentially undermines much of the hard work done by disability activists to gain acceptance for people with disabilities in all walks of life.

What does it mean to be included?

Before discussing the issue at hand, it is also important to investigate what we really mean by inclusion? At its simplest, it is the state of being included or having the opportunity to take part, but in reality it is more complicated than that as it is bound up in ideas of equality, equity, fairness and distributive justice. An example of equality in a sporting context would be that everyone in a team gets the same shirt to wear (of exactly the same size). In this way, no one can claim to have been treated differently, whereas in reality the shirt may actually only fit a small number of the team members. What is lacking from this view of equality is a sense of equity and fairness. If the team is all given the same shirt, but in a size that suits each individual member of the team, then it can be claimed that everyone has been included in an equal and equitable manner. However, fairness isn’t just about everyone getting the same thing. It is about everyone getting what they need in order to try and achieve their goals so that they feel that they have been fully included within society and given the same opportunities as everyone else. True inclusion, therefore, is about valuing all individuals, giving equal access and opportunity to all and removing discrimination and other barriers to involvement, such that people feel a sense of belonging, feel respected and valued for who they are and feel a level of supportive energy and commitment from others that allows them to do their best (Miller and Katz, 2002).

Olympism

So, as a starting point for this investigation of whether the inclusion of people with disabilities in sport is an example of Olympism in action, it is useful to look

at the IOC definition.

Olympism is a philosophy of life, exalting and combining in a balanced whole the qualities of body, will and mind. Blending sport with culture and education, Olympism 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.

The goal of the Olympic Movement is to contribute to building a peaceful and better world by educating youth through sport practiced without discrimination of any kind and in the Olympic spirit, which requires mutual understanding with a spirit of friendship, solidarity and fair play (IOC Website 2015a).

On the face of it then, the IOC definition of Olympism appears to be saying all the right things around education, no discrimination of any kind and mutual understanding. It would appear then that the inclusion of people with disabilities in sport does have the potential to be an example of Olympism in action. However, these are just words on paper. It is important to look at what actually happens in practice.

The World Olympians Association (WOA) (2016) claims that the IOC celebrates the values of Olympism through the Olympic Games. Indeed the Olympic Games were originally conceived of as a four-yearly celebration of Olympism. However, a brief look at the terminology around the Olympic Games, particularly “Olympic” and “Olympian”, begins to raise some interesting issues:

Olympic (adjective)

Relating to ancient Olympia or the Olympic Games

(Oxford English Dictionary Online 2015a)

Olympian (noun)

1. Any of the pantheon of twelve Greek gods regarded as living on Olympus.

1.1. A person of great attainments or exalted position.

2. A competitor in the Olympic Games.

(Oxford English Dictionary Online 2015b)

Looking at the definitions for “Olympic” and “Olympian”, it would appear that Olympism sets itself out to be an inclusive philosophy that can be followed by all, but that Olympic and Olympian relate solely to the Olympic Games and those who have competed in them. There would, therefore, appear to be a dichotomy between philosophy and practice. The ability to compete at the Olympic Games and to call yourself an Olympian is highly exclusive, based upon a conception of sport that is entrenched in the kind of ableism I highlighted above. At its most fundamental level the Olympic Games reveres extreme forms of bodily perfection that the vast majority of the non-disabled population could never achieve, let alone people with disabilities.

Landry (1992; pp. 8–9) claims that “it is a given that there is an inescapable propensity of the elite/high-performance system to conceive and value performance in net or absolute terms, i.e. in ranking people solely on the basis of results”, which in terms of people with disabilities at least is exacerbated by the motto of the Olympic Movement “Citius, Altius, Fortius” (IOC Website 2015b) or “Faster, Higher, Stronger”, especially as this motto is nearly always interpreted by most in absolute terms, i.e. to be faster than everyone else, to jump higher than anyone else, to be stronger than everyone else. When perceived in this way, this not only excludes the vast majority of people with disabilities, but 99.9% of the world’s population. A number of authors also claim that this battle to be the fastest, the highest or the strongest at the Olympic Games extends well beyond the individual level with many nations turning the Games into a nationalist political battleground in which success in sports is seen as an endorsement of a certain political ideology or viewpoint (cf. Toohey & Veal 2007; Tomlinson & Young 2006; Dong, 2005) Landry (1992; p. 8) concludes that this results in “Citius, Altius, Fortius” being conceived of as a limitless process and goal, the pursuit of which must be encouraged, sustained and rewarded. With this kind of powerful backing for a system of sport that almost takes on a Darwinian “sur- vival of the fittest” outlook for elite sport, there is little surprise that people with disabilities suffer by comparison. This underlying conception of elite sport is potentially strengthened even further by the fact that the Olympic Games have only really been able to survive over the last thirty years because they have been underpinned and driven by western neo-liberal economic policies that have their roots in a survival of the fittest philosophy, which further alienates any group or individual that is unable to productively assist in the achievement of the aims of a particular “project” such as the organisation and promotion of the Olympic Games. Indeed, with regard to the Olympic and Paralympic Games, two supposedly “elite” sports events, Schantz and Gilbert (2012) claim that “as long as the Olympic motto “Faster, Higher, Stronger” rules elite sport, it will be difficult to persuade society that becoming a Paralympian will class disabled athletes as “Parallel Olympians” (pp. 371–372) and that there will always be the glamorous first-class (Olympic) Games for the very best and then the second-class Games for the brave Paralympians who have overcome their ‘terrible fate”. Unfortunately, this ableist conception, so inherent in elite sport that people with disabilities are less able, less worthy of praise and reward and often less ‘human’ spreads well beyond the realm of elite sport into all aspects of life, often leading to isolation from mainstream society in terms of both social and economic opportunities.

Interestingly, according to Landry (1992; p. 13), for Coubertin what was most worthy of admiration in an athlete was his/her ambition, willpower, and self-control, not first and foremost the result achieved. Even the IOC (2016a; p. 4) states that for Coubertin the Games were not an end in themselves. Rather, they were part of a much broader project: education through sport. In line with this Landry (1993) argues that

[...] there is nothing in the Olympic Charter now in force that characterizes athletes and sporting performances in such absolute terms as to serve as a basis to preclude the Disabled Sport Movement from converging toward formal inclusion in the Olympic family and program. In terms of the primary process through which a man or a woman advances on the road to, or ladder of relative perfection, there is little difference between “Olympism” and “Paralympism”, between an Olympic Athlete and a “Paralympic” athlete.

Therefore by reducing the underlying working philosophy of Olympism, embedded in the dictum “Citius, Altius, Fortius” to that of absolute performance terms, any real process of “inclusion” is severely limited to those that best signify societal norms of bodily perfection. The division between men’s and women’s sport is accepted and understood, although even here ableism goes some way to explain why in many cases women’s sport is considered by some to be inferior and less worthy of praise and support than men’s sport. Some might, therefore ask, why disability sport cannot demonstrate the best in their categories. Just as there are men’s and women’s categories of sport, and also various events and disciplines of sports, sport for athletes with disabilities could simply be understood as disciplines of the sport with the various classifications within the events likened to weight categories in various non-disabled sports. In this way, if “Citius, Altius, Fortius” is viewed in individual rather than absolute terms then athletes with a disability have clearly manifested that “Citius, Altius, Fortius” is not an exclusive domain of the so called “able-bodied”. Interestingly, Coubertin’s other far less used dictum of “Athletae proprium est se ipsum noscere, ducere et vincere” – (“It is the duty and the essence of the athlete to know, to lead and to conquer himself”) appears to fit athletes with a disability quite well, particularly given that it is far more than just themselves that they have to “conquer” in order to reach the highest levels of their chosen sport, e.g. negative attitudes regarding their abilities as athletes, availability of opportunities to get involved in sport at all levels, accessibility and cost of both facilities and equipment (Brittain, 2004).

It would appear, therefore, that as a philosophy on paper, Olympism has the ability to be inclusive of everyone, including people with disabilities, but that the way the IOC chooses to celebrate Olympism – the Olympic Games – actually has the potential to propagate a view of sport based in ableist norms of bodily perfection that actually has the potential not only to exclude people with disabilities from sport, but wider society as well. However, in fairness to the Olympic Movement, it could equally be argued that the International Paralympic Committee and the wider Paralympic Movement could also be accused of the same.The IPC has for over a decade now been drawing itself closer and closer to the Olympic Movement and moving rapidly towards an elite sport model for the Paralympic Movement in order to make itself and its product – the Paralympic Games – more attractive to the media and ultimately to the sponsors it needs to continue its existence. A potential negative of this slavish, but arguably necessary move toward an elite sporting model for the Paralympic Games is that it is having a negative impact upon opportunities for athletes with the greatest levels of impairment, who are being squeezed out because they do not fit the societal definition/perception of “elite athlete”. This clearly demonstrates the tension within the Paralympic Movement of trying to move towards an elite sporting model that matches non-disabled societal perceptions and understandings of what sport should look like, and providing sporting opportunities at the elite level for all their constituent members.

This problem, however, actually spreads much further than just the community of athletes with a disability. Braye et al. (2013) interviewed 32 members of the United Kingdom Disabled People’s Council (UKDPC) in order to elicit their views on the Paralympic Games of London 2012 and concluded that “the portrayal of equality in the Paralympics is an apparent misnomer when compared with the lives of ordinary disabled people” (p. 20). By way of highlighting this viewpoint they cited the following comment from one of their participants:

I’m afraid that the focus on elite Paralympians promotes an image of disabled people which is so far from the typical experiences of a disabled person, that it is damaging to the public understanding of disability (Colin in Braye et al., 2013; p. 9).

There is a danger, therefore, that Paralympians become the yardstick by which all disabled people are measured and expectations of them within non-disabled society are set. By making Paralympians the “norm” by which all other disabled people are measured, this simply further isolates those that are unable or just don’t wish to take part in sport and reinforces ableist perspectives of their capabilities.

According to Margaret Talbot, presenting at this session in 2012, the Olympic values of respect, excellence and friendship “have begun to take precedence over the three elements of the Olympic Motto – ‘Citius, Altius, Fortius’ – ‘Faster, Higher, Stronger’, which are fundamental to the notion of sport as a meritocracy” (Talbot, 2012; p.144). A meritocracy is a system in which advancement is based on individual ability or achievement and therefore underpinned by an ableist philosophy. If this is indeed true, then this can only be a good thing for the propagation of a better understanding of Olympism, particularly with regard to people with disabilities. Presenting in the same Session the following year Talbot (2013; p. 192) went on to claim that the Paralympic values of courage, determination, inspiration and equality add further dimensions to the Olympic values, especially towards an inclusive conception of sport. A values based approach such as this makes it far easier to be inclusive of people from all walks of life and from a diverse range of bodily norms.

Porcellato (2005) raises another interesting apparent dichotomy between the philosophy and practice of Olympism within the Olympic Movement – that of Olympic Solidarity. The IOC (2016b) claims that one of the key roles of Olympic Solidarity is the promotion of Olympic values through programs such as Sport for All. Despite the use of the program title “Sport for ALL” Porcellato (2005; p. 502) states that Olympic Solidarity:

appears to automatically exclude athletes who do not compete in the Olympic Games, raising several questions about the purpose of Olympic Solidarity and their intentions. How can a program that is developed to promote the right to sport for all blatantly disregard the world’s largest minority?

He goes on to conclude that “An examination of the Olympic Solidarity program, its philosophies, and principles clearly illustrates that elite disabled athletes are being discriminated against based on their physical limitations” (p. 502), which is consistent with an ableist approach to elite sport and the value placed upon those individuals whose bodies most closely aligned with societal norms for bodily function, especially with the non-disabled conception of what elite sport should look like. Porcellato concludes by arguing that the “exclusion of disabled athletes is in opposition to the fundamental principles of the Olympic Charter” (p. 502), and that this hinders the development of elite disabled sport, particularly in the developing world. It could be argued that the job of developing elite sport for disabled athletes lies with the International Paralympic Committee and their equivalent of Olympic Solidarity – the Agitos Foundation. However, this is where we need to return to look at the concept of equity and inclusion. The total budget for Olympic Solidarity for the period 2013 to 2016 is USD 439,870,000 (IOC, 2014). The total budget for the Agitos Foundation for 2015 for all of their programs was €650,000 (approx. USD 735,000) (IPC, n.d.). These vastly differing amounts of money are indicative of the value placed upon sport for elite non-disabled athletes in comparison to elite athletes with a disability and, once again highlight the impact of an ableist perspective of sport.

Thomas Bach, President of the IOC wrote in the Olympic Solidarity 2014 Annual Report that “Solidarity is a fundamental part of the language of the Olympics. The unity of the Olympic Movement would be meaningless without solidarity. The universality of the Olympic Games would be meaningless without solidarity” (p. 4). Unfortunately, it would appear that this solidarity only stretches as far as those whose sporting performance is “Olympian” in absolute terms, thus excluding athletes with a disability whose performances are considered inferior and less worthy by comparison. Surely any claim to universality must encompass some concept of diversity, be it race, gender, culture or disability, if Olympism is to be anything more than a paper exercise. Interestingly, as Wolff et al. (2008) point out, the Olympic Charter is actually completely silent when it comes to discrimination based upon disability with fundamental principle of Olympism number 6 stating:

The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Olympic Charter shall be secured without discrimination of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, sexual orientation, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status (IOC, 2015c; p. 14).

Thus hiding the issue of disability away under ‘other status’. In fact in the context of sport, the Olympic Charter actually makes no mention of disability whatsoever.

Conclusion

In conclusion then, it would appear that there is a dichotomy within the Olympic Movement between theory and practice. On paper, the concept of Olympism appears to be capable of encompassing in a fully inclusive manner all those who would wish to follow it as a philosophy. However, in practice, the way the Olympic Movement goes about celebrating and promoting Olympism (through the Olympic Games and Olympic Solidarity) is actually highly exclusionary with regard to people with disabilities, based on a hegemonic philosophy of ableism that devalues and excludes the sporting exploits of athletes with disabilities and promotes a conception of sport based in absolute performance terms that 99.9% of the world’s population could never achieve, let alone people with disabilities.

I appreciate that this is a very complex situation and I am in no way claiming that we should in any way do away with elite non-disabled sport. However, if the Olympic Movement’s claims of universality, non-discrimination and sport for all are to have any ring of truth about them, then more must be done to promote the concept of disability and Paralympic sport as a different, but equally valid and important form of sport. For as Morgan (1994, cited in Teetzel, 2014; p. 4) points out, “Pierre de Coubertin’s theory of Olympic internationalism included the recognition that ‘knowing others̓ (their core beliefs, values and forms of life) is the prerequisite to treating them with the proper moral discernment and respect, to treating them as they ought to be treated”. Therefore, if claims of universality, non-discrimination and sport for all are to be upheld within the Olympic Movement, then “knowing others” should, and surely must, include people with disabilities.

‍

References

Braye, S., Dixon, K. & Gibbons, T., 2013, “A Mockery of Equality”: An Exploratory Investigation into Disabled Activists’ Views of the Paralympic Games, Disability and Society, Vol. 28(7), 984–996. Retrieved from tees.openrepository.com/tees/bitstream/10149/265212/2/265212.pdf

Brittain, I., 2004, Perceptions of Disability and Their Impact Upon Involvement in Sport for People with Disabilities at All Levels, Journal of Sport and Social Issues, Vol. 28(4), 429–452.

Dong, J., 2005, Women, Nationalism and the Beijing Olympics: Preparing for Glory, The International Journal of the History of Sport, Vol. 21(4), 530–544.

IOC Website, 2016a, Olympism and the Olympic Movement. Retrieved from http:// www.olympic.org/documents/reports/en/en_report_670.pdf

IOC Website, 2016b, IOC Factsheet: Olympic Solidarity (Update – February 2016). Retrieved from http://www.olympic.org/Documents/Reference_documents_Fact- sheets/Olympic_Solidarity.pdf

IOC Website. 2015a. Olympism in Action. Retrieved from http://www.olympic.org/ olympism-in-action.

IOC Website. 2015b. What is the Olympic Motto? Retrieved from http://registration. olympic.org/en/faq/detail/id/29.

IOC Website. 2015c, Olympic Charter, Retrieved from http://www.olympic.org/Documents/olympic_charter_en.pdf

IOC Website. 2014, Olympic Solidairty 2014 Annual Report. Retrieved from http:// www.olympic.org/Documents/Commissions_PDFfiles/Olympic_Solidarity/2014_ Report/2014_Annual_Report.pdf

IPC, n.d., Agitos Foundation: Grant Support Programme. Retrieved from https:// www.paralympic.org/agitos-foundation/programmes/grant-support-programme

Landry, F., 1993, Olympism = ≈ ≠ Paralympism? In Steadward, R., Nelson, E. et al. (Eds.), VISTA ’93 – The Outlook Companion, Alberta, Canada: Rick Hansen Centre.

Landry, F., 1992, Olympism, Olympics, Paralympism, Paralympics: Converging or Diverging Notions and Courses on the Eve of the Third Millennium? Paper presented at the 1st Paralympic Congress, Barcelona, Spain, 31 August.

Miller, F.A. & Katz, J.H., 2002, Inclusion Breakthrough: Unleashing the Real Power of Diversity, Berrett-Koehler Publishers, San Francisco, USA.

Morgan, W.J., 1994, Coubertin’s Theory of Olympic Internationalism: A Critical Reinterpretation. In Barney, R.K. & Meier, K.V. (Eds.), Critical Reflections on Olympic Ideology, Centre for Olympic Studies, London, Ontario, 10– 25.

Oxford English Dictionary online. 2015a. “Olympic.” Retrieved from http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/Olympic

Oxford English Dictionary online. 2015b. “Olympian.” Retrieved from http://www. oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/Olympian

Porcellato, E., 2005, An Examination of Elite Disabled Sport in the Developing World and Olympic Solidarity. Report at the 13th International Seminar on Olympic Studies for Postgraduate Students, International Olympic Academy, Ancient Olympia, Greece, 14th May – 14th June, 491–504, Retrieved from http://ioa.org.gr/up- loads/13th%20Seminar%20on%20Olympic%20Studies%20for%20Postgraduate%20Students~37933-600-2(1).pdf#page=491

Schantz, O.J. & Gilbert, K., 2012, The Paralympic Movement: Empowerment or Disempowerment for People with Disabilities? In Lenskyj, H.J. & Wagg, S., The Palgrave Handbook of Olympic Studies, Palgrave MacMillan, Basingstoke, UK.

Siebers, T., 2008, Disability Theory, University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, USA.

Talbot, M., 2013, Olympism: The Values of Sport and the Risks, Proceedings of the 53rd International Session for Young Participants, Ancient Olympia, Greece, 11th –25th June. Retrieved from: http://ioa.org.gr/uploads/53%20synodos--ENG_ mikroteri%20analysi.pdf

Talbot, M., 2012, Democracy and Olympic Ideals, Proceedings of the 52nd International Session for Young Participants, Ancient Olympia, Greece, 16th–30th June. Retrieved from: http://ioa.org.gr/uploads/52H%20AGGL.pdf

Teetzel, S.J., 2014, Teaching Olympic Values: The Idea of Respect, Paper presented at the 12th Joint International Session for Presidents or Directors of National Olympic Academies and Officials of National Olympic Committees, International Olympic Academy, Ancient Olympia, Greece, 11th–18th May 2014, 87–99.

Tomlinson, A. & Young, C. (Eds), 2006, National Identity and Global Sports Events: Culture, Politics, and Spectacle in the Olympics and the Football World Cup, SUNY Press; Albany, USA.

Toohey, K. & Veal, A.J., 2000, ‘The Olympic Games: A Social Science Perspective’, CABI; Wallingford, UK.

Wolbring, G., 2012, Expanding Ableism: Taking down the Ghettoization of Impact of Disability Studies Scholars, Societies, Vol. 2, 75–83.

Wolff, E.A., Torres, C. & Hums, M., 2008, Olympism and the Olympic Athlete with a Disability. In Gilbert, K. & Schantz, O.J. (Eds.), The Paralympic Games: Empowerment or Side Show? Meyer & Meyer Verlag, Maidenhead, UK, 167–175.

World Olympian Association website, 2016, Olympism. Retrieved from: http://olympians.org/woa/olympism/

‍

BRITTAIN Ian, "Olympism in action: Inclusion of persons with disabilities through sport activities",in:K. Georgiadis (ed.), Olympic values-based learning as an effective tool forenvironmental protection, 56th International Session for Young Participants (AncientOlympia,11-25/6/2016), International Olympic Academy, Athens,2017, pp.149-160.

‍

‍

‍

‍

‍

‍

‍

‍

‍

‍

‍