![Sample our Humanities journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5939/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Humanities.jpg"})
Abstract
Sport has proven to be an unstoppable globalising force. The Olympic Movement has come to epitomise modernisation and the extent to which Western sport has become globalised. The philosophy of Olympism, once resting upon just two pillars of Excellence in Sport and Culture has since 1994 been underpinned by a third, the Environment. All of the Olympic Games host cities now have to support a responsible concern for environmental issues and with that the very sustainability of ‘our’ culture, and sport itself. They must do so by bequeathing a holistic positive legacy from their Games. This paper will analyse the three ‘Asian’ Olympic Summer Olympic Games – Tokyo 1964, Seoul 1988 and Beijing 2008 – by looking at the cultural, sporting and environmental legacies each has left.
The discussion of the concept of sustainability as an element of culture will embrace Littig and Griessler’s idea that social sustainability is about the quality of societies expressed through the nature-society relationships and is not merely an economically based notion.Footnote1 In this paper we consider the three Asian Summer Olympic Games. Each has been related to a specific nodal point in the host country's national history, as a means of illustrating, indeed emphasising, the always unique impacts of context on event and process. Yet we propose that, locked as they are in distinct epochs and differing cultural, political and economic contexts, they are nonetheless marked in common by an Asian discourse heavily reliant upon economic and nationalistic motivations.
The progressive analysis of each Games demonstrates that although each was unique, particularly in regards to the expectations stakeholders had of ‘their Olympics’, all three host nations represented themselves as ‘modern hybrids’ by simultaneously demonstrating their modernised characters and emphasising their ancient cultures. The analysis demonstrates the holistic impact of these events by reference to the wide range of economic, social, cultural and sporting changes that have emerged for each host from each festival. The evaluation of the nature and significance of these legacies reemphasises the impact of the Olympic Games as a vehicle for social change and illustrates the transformative power of sport at national and global levels.
Les Jeux Olympiques d'Asie orientale: un héritage durable ?
Le sport s'est avéré être une force irrépressible de mondialisation. Le Mouvement olympique est venu incarner la modernisation et montrer à quel degré le sport occidental s'est mondialisé. La philosophie de l'Olympisme, tout en reposant sur deux piliers que sont l'excellence dans le sport et la culture, a été soutenue depuis 1994 par un troisième pilier, celui de l'environnement. Toutes les villes olympiques accueillant des Jeux ont maintenant à promouvoir une approche responsable des problèmes environnementaux et affirmer la viabilité même de « notre » culture et du sport lui-même. Elles doivent le faire en léguant un héritage holistique positif de leurs jeux. Le présent article examine les trois Jeux Olympiques d'été «asiatiques » - Tokyo en 1964, Séoul en 1988 et Beijing en 2008 - en observant les héritages culturels, sportifs et environnementaux que chacun a laissés. La discussion sur le concept de durabilité comme élément de la culture va intégrer l'idée de Littig et Griessler pour qui la durabilité sociale concerne la qualité des sociétés exprimée à travers les relations nature-société et n'est pas simplement une notion économique. Dans cet article, nous considérons les trois Jeux Olympiques d'été asiatiques. Chacun a été lié à un point précis nodal de l'histoire nationale du pays hôte, comme un moyen d'illustrer, voire de souligner, l'impact toujours spécifique du contexte sur l'événement et le processus. Pourtant, enfermés comme ils le sont dans des époques distinctes et des contextes culturels, politiques et économiques différents, nous pensons qu'ils sont néanmoins marqués par des discours asiatiques communs qui dépendent beaucoup des motivations économiques et nationalistes. L'analyse progressive de chaque édition des Jeux démontre que bien que chacun fut unique, en particulier en ce qui concerne les attentes que les parties prenantes avaient de « leurs Jeux olympiques », les trois pays hôtes se sont représentés comme des « hybrides modernes » en mettant en avant simultanément leurs personnages modernisés et leurs cultures anciennes. L'analyse démontre l'impact global de ces événements par référence à la vaste gamme de changements économiques, sociaux, culturels et sportifs qui ont émergé pour chaque hôte de chaque jeu. L'évaluation de la nature et de l'importance de ces héritages rappellent que l'impact des Jeux olympiques est un vecteur de changement social et illustre la puissance transformatrice du sport aux niveaux national et mondial.
Los juegos olímpicos del ‘Asia Oriental’: ¿qué herencia de sostenibilidad?
Es evidente que el deporte es una fuerza globalizadora imparable. El movimiento olímpico se ha convertido en la máxima expresión de la modernización y del alcance de la globalización del deporte occidental. La filosofía del olimpismo, que había descansado hasta hace poco sobre dos pilares (excelencia deportiva y cultura), se ha visto reforzada desde 1994 por un tercero, el medio ambiente. Todas las ciudades sede de juegos olímpicos deben apoyar ahora una actitud responsable hacia la dimensión medioambiental, y con ella hacia la propia sostenibilidad de ‘nuestra’ cultura, y del mismo deporte. Deben hacerlo dejando un legado globalmente positivo de los juegos que han organizado. Este artículo analiza los tres juegos olímpicos de verano ‘asiáticos’ (Tokio 1964, Seúl 1988 y Beijing 2008) centrándose en los legados cultural, deportivo y medioambiental de cada uno de ellos. Nuestro estudio del concepto de sostenibilidad como una manifestación de la cultura se basa en la idea de Litting y de Griessler de que la sostenibilidad social tiene que ver con la calidad de las sociedades expresada a través de las relaciones sociedad-naturaleza, y que no se trata de una simple noción de base económica. En este artículo analizamos los tres juegos olímpicos de verano asiáticos. Cada uno ha sido vinculado a un punto nodal específico en la historia nacional del país anfitrión, como instrumento para ilustrar, e incluso enfatizar, los impactos a menudo exclusivos del contexto en los acontecimientos y los procesos. Aquí se propone, no obstante, que, a pesar de ubicarse en épocas y en contextos culturales, políticos y económicos diversos, los tres juegos olímpicos comparten la influencia de un discurso asiático fuertemente basado en factores nacionalistas y económicos. El análisis sucesivo de los tres juegos olímpicos demuestra que, a pesar de la especificidad de cada uno, en especial por lo que respecta a lo que esperaban las partes implicadas de ‘sus olimpiadas’, los tres países anfitriones se presentaron a sí mismos como ‘híbridos modernos’, exhibiendo al mismo tiempo sus rasgos modernos y sus antiguas culturas. El análisis evidencia el impacto holístico de estos acontecimientos en relación con la gran variedad de cambios económicos, sociales, culturales y deportivos que han tenido lugar en cada país anfitrión a raíz de las respectivas olimpiadas. La valoración de la naturaleza y la significación de estos legados vuelve a poner de relieve el impacto de los juegos olímpicos como vehículos para el cambio social e ilustra el poder transformador del deporte a nivel nacional y global.
Die Olympischen Spiele in Ostasien“: Gibt es ein nachhaltiges Erbe?
Der Sport hat bewiesen, dass er eine unaufhaltsame globalisierende Kraft ist. Die Olympische Bewegung ist zum Sinnbild der Modernisierung geworden und verkörpert das Ausmaß, in welchem der westliche Sport global geworden ist. Die Philosophie des Olympismus, die einst nur auf den zwei Säulen von sportlicher Exzellenz und Kultur aufgebaut war, wird seit 1994 durch eine weitere untermauert: die Umwelt. Alle Austragungsstädte von Olympischen Spielen müssen nun ein verantwortungsbewusstes Interesse gegenüber Umweltthemen aufbringen und damit auch gegenüber der Nachhaltigkeit „unserer“ Kultur und dem Sport selbst. Dies geschieht durch das Vermächtnis eines positiven Erbes ihrer Spiele. Dieser Beitrag wird die drei „asiatischen“ Olympischen Sommerspiele – Tokio 1964, Seoul 1988 und Peking 2008 – analysieren und dabei auf das hinterlassene kulturelle, sportliche und Umwelt-Erbe eingehen. Die Diskussion über das Konzept von Nachhaltigkeit als ein Kulturelement umfasst Littigs und Greisslers Idee, dass es sich bei der sozialen Nachhaltigkeit um einen Ausdruck der Qualität von Gesellschaften geäußert durch Natur-Gesellschaft-Beziehungen handelt, und deshalb nicht nur ein wirtschaftlich fundierter Begriff ist. In diesem Aufsatz werden die drei asiatischen Olympischen Sommerspiele untersucht. Alle drei Spiele werden in Zusammenhang zu einem entscheidenden Punkt in der nationalen Geschichte des jeweiligen Landes gebracht, was ein Mittel ist, um zu zeigen beziehungsweise zu betonen, dass der Kontext immer einen Einfluss auf das Ereignis und den Prozess der Spiele hat. Dennoch wird vorgeschlagen, dass, obwohl diese Spiele jeweils in besondere Epochen und verschiedene kulturelle, politische und wirtschaftliche Kontexte eingeschlossen waren, sie nichtsdestotrotz durch einen gemeinsamen asiatischen Diskurs gekennzeichnet sind, welcher auf wirtschaftliche und nationalistische Motivationen vertraut. Die schrittweise Analyse der einzelnen Spiele legt dar, dass, obwohl sie alle einzigartig waren – insbesondere im Hinblick auf die Erwartungen der Interessenvertreter für „ihre“ Spiele -, sich alle drei Gastgeberländer als „moderne Hybride“ präsentierten, indem sie gleichzeitig ihren modernen Charakter und ihre antiken Kulturen betonten. Die Analyse zeigt den ganzheitlichen Effekt der Ereignisse durch einen Bezug zu einer Reihe von wirtschaftlichen, sozialen, kulturellen und sportlichen Veränderungen, die sich nach den Spielen für den Gast ergeben haben, auf. Die Auswertung der Art und des Stellenwertes der Hinterlassenschaften betont wiederum die Wirkung der Olympischen Spiele als ein Mittel zu sozialen Veränderungen und stellt die transformative Kraft des Sports auf nationaler und globaler Ebene dar.
Notes
1. Littig & Griessler, ‘Social Sustainability’, 72.
2. Real, ‘The Postmodern Olympics’, 11.
3. Coubertin, ‘Ode to Sport’.
4. Horton, ‘“Scapes” and “Phases”’, 9.
5. Olympic Charter: In force as from the 7 July 2007, 11, http://alberta.ca/vancouver2010/files/File_Olympic_Charter.pdf (accessed 30 August 2009).
6. In this paper we will refer to the Summer Olympic Games as the ‘Olympic Games’. In any reference to the Winter Olympic Games the full title will be used.
7. ‘The Olympic Movement is the concerted, organised, universal and permanent action, carried out under the supreme authority of the IOC, of all individuals and entities who are inspired by the values of Olympism. It covers the five continents. It reaches its peak with the bringing together of the world’s athletes at the great sports festival, the Olympic Games. Its symbol is five interlaced rings. The goal of the Olympic Movement is to contribute to building a peaceful and better world by educating youth through sport practised in accordance with Olympism and its values. Belonging to the Olympic Movement requires compliance with the Olympic Charter and recognition by the IOC. The three main constituents of the Olympic Movement are the International Olympic Committee (‘IOC’), the International Sports Federations (‘Ifs’) and the National Olympic Committees (‘NOCs’). In addition to its three main constituents, the Olympic Movement also encompasses the Organising Committees of the Olympic Games (‘OCOGs’), the national associations, clubs and persons belonging to the IFs and NOCs, particularly the athletes, whose interests constitute a fundamental element of the Olympic Movement's action, as well as the judges, referees, coaches and the other sports officials and technicians. It also includes other organisations and institutions as recognised by the IOC.' (‘Introduction – The Olympic Movement’, olympic.org, the official website of the Olympic Movement) http://www.olympic.org/en/content/The-IOC/Governance/Introductionold/, accessed 3/01/2011.
8. IOC, 2007, 11. http://alberta.ca/vancouver2010/files/File_Olympic_Charter.pdf (accessed 30 August 2009).
9. IOC, 2007, 15.
10. Gratton & Preuss, ‘Maximizing Olympic Impacts by Building Up Legacies’, 1922–1938; Cashman, The Bitter-Sweet Awakening: The Legacy of the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games.
11. Laclau and Mouffe. Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical Democratic Politics.
12. Aiyar, ‘China-Australia links and resonance’, The Hindu.
13. Mangan, ‘Prologue: Guarantees of Global Goodwill: Post-Olympic Legacies – Too many Limping White Elephants?’ 1869–1883.
14. Chalkley & Essex, ‘Urban development’, 379–80.
15. Espy, The Politics of the Olympic Games, 114.
16. Reischauer Craig, Japan, as cited in Collins, ‘The Fragility of Asian National Identity’, 191.
17. Han Sung-Joo, 1989; Collins, 2008; Brownell, 2009; Price & Dayan, 2008; Liao & Pitts, 2006; Bridges, 2008; Dong & Mangan, 2008; Horton, 2008; Manheim, 1990, Chalkley & Essex, 1999; Tagsold, 2009.
18. Manheim, 1990, ‘Rites of passage: the 1988 Seoul Olympics as public diplomacy’, in: Western Political Quarterly, 43(2) June: 279–95; Horton, 2008; Wang, ‘Through the 2008 Olympics looking glass’, 75–77.
19. See the text of the treaty, http://www.mofa.go.jp/region/n-america/us/q&/ref/1.html, accessed 12/10/10.
20. Low, 1999, 40.
21. Calder, ‘Securing security through prosperity’, 135–157.
22. It is pertinent to note that, despite the success of this process, Japan's regional neighbours, the South Koreans and the mainland Chinese, remain the most suspicious of and the least receptive to the results of this major rebranding exercise by Japan.
23. IOC (1966)
, The Games of the XVIII Olympiad Tokyo, 1964. The Official Report of the Organising Committee, May 1966, Vol. 1, 46–7.
http://www.la84foundation.org/6oic/OfficialReports/1964/or1964v1pt1.pdf (accessed, March 4, 2010).
24. Low, 1999, 41.
25. Slater, ‘Tokyo 1964’, cited in Collins, ‘Fragility’, 191.
26. Chalkley & Essex, 380.
27. Liao & Pitts, 1239.
28. Ibid.
29. ‘The 1964 Summer Games are considered one of the best ever. One reason was that they were, even to this day, the most expensive ever. There were few snafus as the Japanese were determined to make them perfect. Losing face was unforgivable in the Orient. Japan poured yen into projects and Tokyo provided matchless facilities to 5000 athletes from 93 countries. It was estimated that Japan spent $1.926 billion on Olympic organization and construction (NY Times, September 27, 1964). The figure excluded four elevated expressways, over 50 miles of roads and an eight-mile monorail to Haneda airport. The Tokyo Olympic Organizing Committee (TOOC) reported ticket sales of $5.172 million. The Games served as a vehicle in which an emerging power could flex its fiscal muscle. In terms of constant costs these Games were twice as expensive as any other Summer Olympics. Constant costs per athlete resulted in a figure in excess of one million dollars!’ (C. Frank Zarnowski, ‘A Look at Olympic Costs’). http://www.la84foundation.org/SportsLibrary/JOH/JOHv1n1/JOHv1n1f.pdf (accessed April 4 2010).
30. IOC (1966), 48–49.
31. Tagsold, ‘The 1964 Tokyo Olympics as Political Games’, 1.
32. Ibid.
33. Low, 1999, 42.
34. Collins, 2008, 186.
35. This is not an unusual characteristic of the many forms of congress, sporting, trade and academic mega-events held in Asia, as would be attested to by those who have attended such forums as the annual Beijing Forum held at Peking University that consider, ‘The Harmony of Civilizations and Prosperity for All’, which are highly prestigious gatherings that are most exalted, lavish and themselves prime examples of Collins's ‘modern hybridity’.
36. However, the example of Beijing is not quite so typical for, although the Beijing Olympic Games were not the first Olympics hosted by a communist or a totalitarian state, it was the first time that it was held in a communist state that also boasted an open-market economy. See Horton, ‘The geo-political balance’, 2530–2566.
37. Tagsold, 2009, 1.
38. Tagsold, 2009, 2.
39. The Constitution of Japan (1947–present).
40. IOC, 1966, Vol.1, 39.
41. The Constitution of the Empire of Japan (1889–1947).
42. Kimi Ga Yo – Japanese National Anthem.
43. Tagsold, 2009, 1.
44. See Dower, Peace and Democracy.
45. Close, Askew & Xu, ‘The Olympic Games as a “coming-out party”,’ 126.
46. Collins, 2008, 192.
47. Close et al., 2007, 126.
48. For expediency, throughout this paper the term ‘Korea’ refers to South Korea. North Korea will be referred to by its full name.
49. Manheim, 1990, 283.
50. After the title of the 1995 film, written by Ivor Monger, The Englishman Who Went Up a Hill But Came Down a Mountain.
51. The Portsmouth Peace Treaty: The Treaty Process, http://portsmouthpeacetreaty.org/process/ (accessed April 07, 2010).
52. Ok, The Transformation of Modern Korean Sport, 159.
53. Ibid., 239.
54. Ibid., 310.
55. Over the 18 years of Park Chung-hee's regime, his government avidly developed school fitness and sports programmes. In 1972 they introduced the School Banner Support System, which essentially was a sports talent identification and development system aimed at: increasing participation at the grassroots; promoting lifelong sporting participation; improving their international competitiveness, and the unearthing of elite sporting talent. See Korean Sports Council homepage http://www.sports.or.kr/. Cited in Ha & Mangan, ‘Ideology, Politics Power: Korean Sport’, 216–7.
56. ‘The Kwangju massacre was to become an important landmark in the struggle for South Korean democracy. It heightened provincial hostility and marked the beginning of the rise of anti-American sentiment in South Korea … On May 25, approximately 50,000 people gathered for a rally and adopted a resolution calling for the abolition of martial law and the release of Kim Dae Jung … According to later reports by the command, nearly 200 persons were killed, including 22 soldiers and four policemen; of the 144 civilians killed, only 17 died on the final day of assault. And, regardless of who spread the “wanton rumours”, they evidently were credible enough to prompt the gathering of 50,000 Kwangju citizens.’ Savada and Shaw, South Korea: A Country Study.
57. Scott-Stokes and Lee, The Kwangju Uprising.
58. Pound, Five Rings Over Korea.
59. Collins, 204.
60. Close et al., 2007, 133.
61. Kim, The Greatest Olympics.
62. Ha & Mangan, 2002; Ha & Mangan, ‘A Curious Conjunction’, 329–54; Lee & Kim, ‘The political Ideology of the Park Chung-hee Regime and Sports Nationalism’; Ok, 2007; Pound, 1994; Park, The Seoul Olympics: The Inside Story.
63. Tagsold, 2009, 1, in support of Mainheim's 1990 commentary on the topic, ‘Rites of Passage: The 1988 Seoul Olympics as Public Diplomacy’.
64. Pound, 322; Park, 268; Bridges, 1946–8; Close et al, 135.
65. Black & Bezanson, ‘The Olympic Games, Human Rights and Democratisation’, 1254.
66. Manheim, 291.
67. Han, 1989, 29.
68. Ibid.
69. Ibid., 31–3.
70. As Hahm Chaibong maintains, Korean democracy is a ‘work in progress’: ‘Yet although South Korea has succeeded in establishing democracy in the procedural sense by holding regular, free and fair elections, few if any have been willing to pronounce its democracy fully consolidated. Given a number of alarming events that have taken place since the transition in 1987, this is perhaps not surprising. ‘Authoritarianism was deeply ingrained in Korean political culture, as reflected both in the imperial nature of the presidency and in the political parties, which were lorded over by party bosses and more akin to personal entourages than to public institutions. Moreover, the fractious nature of the polity found expression in a virulent regionalism that often degenerated into primitive identity politics. And rampant corruption merged from a political system and a public long accustomed to political expediency based on personalism and cronyism rather than agreed-upon procedures and the rule of law.’ Hahm Chaibong, ‘South Korea's miraculous democracy’, 129–30.
71. Ibid.
72. Han Sung-Joo, 37.
73. Ibid., 36.
74. Gibbs, Gorbachev's Glasnost: The Soviet Media in the First Phase of Perestroika.
75. Pye, ‘Reassessing the Cultural Revolution', 597–612.
76. Ibid.
77. Ibid.
78. Collins,203.
79. See Zackaria, ‘Culture in Destiny', 109–26.
80. Horton, 2008, 853.
81. Collins, 204.
82. ‘New figures highlight China's economic growth’, in Sydney Morning Herald.
83. Chart, ‘Is China still a developing nation?’; Danylkiw, ‘Is China Still a Developing Country?'
84. Dong & Mangan, 2008, 2020.
85. Wilson, 2009, ‘American at heart of London's Olympic Park future’ in PA SportsTicker.
86. Dong & Mangan, 2008, 2021.
87. ‘Post-Olympics Beijing’, Business Today.
88. ‘Bird's Nest turns into a ski resort’, Ebeijing.com, December 14, 2009.
89. Sky Sports, Olympic Football Venues, updated 15 November 2009.
90. Liao & Pitts, 2006, 1238.
91. Ibid.
92. Towards a One Planet 2012: London 2012 Sustainability Plan, November 2007, 9.
93. Horton, 2010.
94. Some of the major work included, ‘22 new stadiums, 15 renovated facilities, two new ring roads, 142 miles of new infrastructure, eight new subway lines, 252 new star-rated hotels, 40km of cleaned rivers, one million new trees and 83km of planted greenbelt’, Christensen, B. & D. Hand, 2008, ‘Accelerating Towards a New Beijing’, 5.
95. Gold & Gold, ‘Olympic Cities: Regeneration’, 309.
96. The Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions (COHRE).
97. BOCOG, Official website of the Beijing 2008 Olympic Games, ‘Goals and Concepts’, 2007.
98. International Department of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China, 2003. ‘On the Three Represents’.
99. Du, ‘The Applicants for the Competition’, cited in Dong & Mangan, ‘Beijing Olympic Legacies’, 2026.
100. Brownell, ‘The Beijing Olympics as a Turning Point?’
101. Kurlantzick, ‘The Beijing 2008 Olympic Games: Not all of China is cheering’.
102. ‘Haze hovers over Beijing day before the opening ceremony’, Reuters, August 7, 2008.
103. Dong & Mangan, 2008, 2032.
104. Tran, ‘Beijing’s Air Worse Than at Past Olympics', US News and Report, June 21, 2009.
105. Dong & Mangan, 2008, 2032–3.
106. China after the Olympics: Lessons from Beijing, July 28, 2008, http://www.greenpeace.org/china/en/press/reports/green, ‘Conclusion – Lessons for future Games and Beijing and beyond, 2008', 42 (accessed January 27 2009).
107. Tran, 2009.
108. World Resources Institute (WRI), ‘Energy and Climate Policy Action in China (Fact Sheet)'.
109. Malkin, ‘G20: Australia lobbies for China to play greater role in IMF'. The Daily Telegraph, 23 March 2009.
110. ‘China, US vow urgent action on climate change'.
111. Close et al., 126.
112. Said, Orientalism.
113. Collins, 186
114. Ibid., passim.
115. BOCOG, Official website of the Beijing 2008 Olympic Games, ‘Olympic Spirit', 2007, http://en.beijing2008.cn/spirit/ (accessed September 2 2007).
116. Xu Xin, ‘Modernising China in the Olympic Spotlight: China's National Identity and the 2008 Beijing Olympiad’, 90–107.
117. Close, Askew, & Xu, ‘The Olympic Games as a “coming-out party”’, 121–144.
118. sustainablemeasures.com, ‘What is an indicator of sustainability?’