Debunking Olympic sized myths: government investment in Olympism in the context of terror and the risk society

Abstract

The significant cost of hosting the London 2012 Olympics is justified, in part, by claims that the games will inspire greater social cohesion, promote peace and encourage the public adoption of active healthy lifestyles. This critical review paper examines these justifications and finds them wanting. The first section provides a socio-historic examination of the development of Olympism to reveal the concept as mythical in a Barthesian sense. In contrast to the idealistic claim that the Olympics fosters peace, this paper argues that the “spectacularization” of the games has produced them as a space that encourages performances of protest and threats/acts of terror. Through critical analysis of governmental justifications for investing in the Olympics, the second section concludes that such investment rests, in part, on the flawed rhetoric of Olympism. Overall, it is contended that the International Olympic Committee’s promotion of a set of Olympic myths play a significant political role in government decisions to host the Olympics, as evidence illustrates that lay knowledge reigns supreme in the context of sporting policy development.

Keywords:

• Olympics
• risk
• myths
• investment

Acknowledgements

I presented an earlier version of this paper at the 7th Porritt Memorial Lecture at the New Zealand Centre for Olympic Studies, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand. With respect to this presentation I thank associate professor Ian Culpan for his valuable assistance.

Notes

1. In this paper, in line with my intention to dispel the idealistic rhetoric surrounding olympism and as a strategy of resistance against the seemingly widespread veneration of the olympic movement, I draw on Booth’s (2005) political strategy of employing a lower case “o” in relation to the Olympics, Olympic movement and Olympism. As he explained the philosophy of olympism does not “have a greater claim to a capital letter than liberalism, humanitarianism, authoritarianism, utopianism, or fascism” (222). Booth argued further: “the olympics do not warrant the veneration of a capital letter. The ancient games were held at Olympia, hence the use of the upper case as a recognised geographical name. Any resemblance that the modern sport pageant may have to the ancient version or to the place called Olympia is remote and allusional – hence the lower case ‘o’” (2005, 222).