Michael objects to the flag-waving of the modern Olympics:
I think the Olympics would be improved by potting down this insistent angle in medal ceremonies and coverage. Some events are reasonably national competitions, as there doesnâ€™t seem any other way to make up a league of, say, basketball teams for a one-off tournament that would be of any interest. But the endless reporting of medal counts by country, and flagraising for someone who wins an individual event, which nearly all are, is crosswise to the original spirit of the modern Olympics and feels a lot like a cold war leftover, East Germanyâ€™s steroid-soaked ghost.
I beg to differ. Pierre de Coubertin was an idealist and internationalist, but a French patriot as well, in an era imbued with Social Darwinism and militarist nationalism. One of his early arguments for introducing physical education in French schools, as in British public schools, was to better fight wars with Germany. You can argue about this. But it’s quite clear that the success of the modern Olympic movement lies in in a Faustian pact with nationalism. The jettisoning of the amateur principle, which de Coubertin got from English Victorian practice not Ancient Greek, has reinforced this pact, as the Olympics are no longer a contest within an international upper class.
Consider the survival problem of the International Olympic Committee.
The IOC is a co-optative Leninist oligarchy of geriatric sportsmen.
Leninist, because it’s not elected by anybody; the national Olympic committees are its emanations, not its electorate. Its structural democratic legitimacy is zero, like Greenpeace and the old Communist parties; but of course like them it seeks wide popular support. This is neededÂ to continue an operation which grants the members a prestige otherwise only awarded to visiting heads of state and teams of IMF inspectors descending on a bankrupt banana republic.
To keep the Olympic show on the road, the IOC has to keep persuading three groups of marks.
- It has to find a host country and city to put up $15 billion or so to stage the Summer Games every four years. Judging by London, a third of this leaves no legacy. London spent Â£1.7bn on urban regeneration, which needed doing anyway, and Â£5.7 bn on the venues. Many of these – like a white-water canoeing course and a collapsible basketball stadium – are for sports with negligible local base, and are white elephants. The organizational demands of the IOC are so extravagant, and the loss of face from failure so great, that the project is not only inordinately expensive, it’s a major political headache. It’s a wonder there are any candidates at all. But as the winner you get to wave your flag a lot.
Boosters of Olympic hosting claim that there are magic payoffs in prestige and tourism. Since only large cities can reasonably face the organisational challenge, and the oligarchs prefer junkets to agreeable destinations than grotty ones, recent Summer Games have always gone to cities that already have plenty of prestige and tourism. Minsk, Newark and Birmingham need not apply. The London Games have actually left the city centre shops and museums deserted – the Games have led to a substitution within tourism, not a net increase.
- Second, the IOC has to persuade a large number of countries to spend a lot of money on Ã©lite sport to guarantee a high-class competition. It’s done by implicit blackmail: if you don’t subsidise Ã©lite sport, you won’t win any medals and will be humiliated as a nation. In any rational calculus, Ã©lite sport is of pretty low merit, compared to mass participation. Weekend hiking is far more beneficial socially than say professional basketball, but it doesn’t lend itself to the prestige con. The flagwaving is absolutely essential here.
- Third, the IOC has to persuade 10,000 young people to give up any semblance of a normal life for four years to prepare for a competition which they will almost certainly lose. Here the flags are pretty unimportant. However, it’s the easiest challenge. Testosterone does it for them.
I infer that the current Olympic business model is unsustainable without the explicit tie to nationalism: athletes as mysterious “representatives” of their countries, national anthems, flags, and medal tables.
You can certainly make a case that the Olympics would be greatly improved by cutting this tie, dropping half the sports (commenters are invited to list their un-favourites), and banning national uniforms and anthems. It would be a much smaller and more civilised event. But is there any path to it happening, short of a truly massive failure or scandal?
De Coubertin has been criticised by scholars for romanticising the ancient Greek Olympics. They weren’t amateur, for one thing; and there wasn’t much of an ethos of gentlemanly participation, more a Vince Lombardi focus on winning. (They had no prizes for second and third). The Greeks were perfectly comfortable with the idea that the good of excellence, of winning, outweighs the bitter disappointment of the many losers. It’s much harder for us, with our Judaeo-Christian ethos of equality of worth, to justify athletic competition. Has anybody put up a good defence?
But I think Coubertin got one essential thing from the Ancient Greeks: the bait-and-switch psychological equation. The priests of the shrine of Zeus at Olympus hit, by luck of wisdom, on a clever formula that made their Games a net contributor to peace. The Greeks had a common culture – language, gods, art, trade – combined with extreme political disunity. The city-states were at loggerheads, and often at war. In the Games, cities sent athletes as representatives. If the Theban athlete won the foot-race, it was glory to Thebes. But to everybody else, their own athletes had been beaten by a better man and Greek. By this shift, a zero-sum game of prestige was transformed into a positive-sum one.
Exactly the same mechanism worked at de Coubertin’s first modern Olympic Games in Paris in 1906. It’s available today, and works even better with the advent of television.
A nice example. A 15-year old Lithuanian girl, Ruta Meilutyte, has just won Lithuania’s first Olympic gold in swimming since independence. For the British press, the story is that she lives and trains in Plymouth.Â An honorary one of ours!
[Update – August 2
A word on the hypertrophy of the modern Olympics. The ancient ones started with just one foot race, and expanded over the centuries to ten events: three footraces run nude and one in armour; three combat sports, wrestling, boxing and the no-holds-barred pankration; two chariot races with two and four horses; and a pentathlon, including the discus. That meant ten laurel wreaths against the 906 medals of London (302 events x 3 metals, not counting the multiple medals for team sports). The venue was fixed at Olympia so the marginal infrastructure cost for any single Olympiad was negligible. However, the ancient Olympic games didn’t have anything like the monopoly of the modern ones; the Isthmian and Pythian games also hired the great poetÂ Pindar to write victory odes.
Why the metastatic bloat? I suggest the answer lies in my second challenge to the IOCÂ – securing support and financing by governments. The more sports, the more chance of medals by specialisation (Britain has bought its way to dominance in track cycling), and the greater the mass public involvement.Â The blanket TV coverage and multiple feeds allow each country to see its own tailored version of the Games: I assume Turkey watches wrestling, Indonesia badminton, Pakistan men’s hockey.
The weakness of the expansion model lies in the growing disparity between the Olympic sports, in their physical demands (marathon vs. clay-pigeon shooting), subjectiveness of scoring (races vs. gymnastics and diving), number of medals available (marathon again vs. swimming and gymnastics), professionalization (basketball and tennis vs. hockey and sailing), and visual interest (table tennis and fencing against diving and gymnastics). This diversity weakens the psychological manipulation of prestige that I suggested is the foundation of the hold the Olympics, ancient and modern, had and have on their host societies. Does Pindar’s “gleam of splendour given of heaven” really shine equally on the victors of the marathon and the dressage or synchronized swimming?Â /update]
9 thoughts on “On the Olympian necessity of flags”
Get rid of any and every sport that requires subjective judging: gymnastics of both flavors (artistic and rhythmic), equine ballet a/k/a dressage and eventing, etc.
I’m beginning to have second thoughts about my invitation. Kieran Healy posted at CT entirely on the list-of-sports question, with a terrific four-quarter graph and the thread has 198 comments already.
I think you’re safe, James. You didn’t nominate any thoroughly useless sports like diving (or worse, synchronized diving) nor nominate any clearly pure and worthwhile sports like swimming (or better, one-design sailing 1/ like the Finn). It looks like most of the 200 comments are taking issue with Healy’s hierarchy instead of nominating their own.
1/ I can’t think of anything much more boring to watch than a sailing regatta (with the exception of a tacking duel if there is a blimp around for overheads). But sport is about the competitors rather than the spectators, and one-design boat races are a lot of fun. They are much safer than other forms of racing I’ve tried, like motocross and bicycle racing.
I agree with many of the specific criticisms here, and could add a few of my own. But a challenge for anyone feeling too dyspeptic: sit through the opening ceremonies again, or even highlights, with this question in mind: “Is there any other time when such a broad cross-section of the human race comes together in peace and genuine joy?” For all the imperfections I wish they would let me fix — OK, you can have some too — I just can’t see how this is other than a good thing for our race and planet.
Fair enough. The ceremonial stuff has improved a lot since 1936, and is now almost as much fun as the Rio Carnival and the Last Night of the Proms. But is $15bn a fair price for even a very good party?
Actually, the Paris Olympics were in 1900. Not sure what you mean by first modern Olympic games, but the first revival of the games that Baron de Coubertin advocated took place in Athens in 1896. The Paris Olympics were considered a disaster because they were set up only as a sideshow to the World’s Fair, going on in Paris at the same time.
And the best paraders were the Independent Olympio Athletes (three from places like South Sudan that don’t have proper National Olympic Committees), so the national flags are not a precondition for good partying.
Also, on further reflection, a yellow card for excessive cynicism on this: the IOC “persuade[s] 10,000 young people to give up any semblance of a normal life for four years to prepare for a competition which they will almost certainly lose.” I am confident that the percentage of athletes who will leaving considering this a highlight, often THE highlight, of a successful athletic career will be in the high 90’s. A lesser but still large majority have never imagined that they would actually contend for a gold medal, and so cannot have been tricked in that regard.
Agreed that the team from the Cook Islands are there to take part, have no prospect of winning, and trained just hard enough to qualify (in many sports, already a high bar). On the other hand, in many sports and in large countries like the USA and China, the competition to get into the national team is already fierce, so the total pool of athletes who sacrifice a lot for the Olympics is larger than the delegation. It isn’t a classic con: the athletes go into this with their eyes open, with uneasy qualifications for child gymnasts, though many surely overrate their own abilities. The issue I’m raising is not the sense of the tradeoff the athletes themselves make, but a public policy one: does Olympic sport deserve the public money spent on it?
Comments are closed.