FACULTY OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
MASTER’S THESIS
2021
Jack Patrick PruntyUNIVERSITY OF ECONOMICS, PRAGUE FACULTY OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
International and Diplomatic Studies
A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE CALLS TO BOYCOTT THE BEIJING 2008 OLYMPICS 2008 AND THE SOCHI 2014 WINTER
OLYMPICS
(Master’s Thesis)Author: Jack Patrick Prunty
Supervisor: Jeremy Alan Garlick, M.A., Ph.D.
Author’s Declaration
Herewith I declare that I have written the Master’s Thesis on my own and I have cited all sources.
Prague, 30 April 2021
………
Author’s Signature
Abstract
The Olympic games have always had a strong political element to them due to the manner in which the competitors compete on their nation’s behalf, as well as the global reach the games achieves through it’s broadcast and the popularity of sport throughout the world. This politicisation of the Olympic games has led to incidents of calls for boycotting certain games due to the host nation being deemed unworthy often due to allegations of wrongdoing towards the host nation as was the case with China prior to the Beijing 2008 Olympics and with Russia before they hosted the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi.
Using a qualitative discourse analysis this dissertation will undertake a comparative study of the aforementioned boycott calls and outline the
diplomatic/political elements it takes for these boycott calls to transpire and the degree to which these calls are taken seriously and acted upon. Within this thesis I will weigh up how these calls are perceived by political thinkers, the target country and the wider public while assessing how these actions can be considered in terms of symbolic meanings. Indeed, calls for boycotting are loaded with symbolic meaning as such symbolic interactionism theory will form the theoretical framework through which to observe these diplomatic issues as they tend to have little to do with the actual sport in question.
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank my grandmother Maureen Roderick and my supervisor Jeremy Garlick.
Table of Contents
Author’s Declaration 4
Abstract 5
Acknowledgements 6
Table of Contents 7
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 9
1.1 Introduction 9
1.2 Topic and Purpose 10
1.3 Grounds for Comparison 12
1.4 Significance for Knowledge 15
1.5 Theoretical framework: Symbolic Interactionism 15
1.6 Hypotheses & general research questions 16
Chapter 2: Literature Review 17
2.1 Theoretical traditions and current thoughts for framing the question 17
2.2 Review of related literature 19
Chapter 3: Research Methodology 31
3.1 Overall Approach and Rationale 31
Chapter 4: Sports Diplomacy 33
4.1 Symbolic Interactionism and Sport 33
4.2 Symbolic discourse of the Olympic Games 41
Chapter 5: Beijing 2008 Case Study 47
5.1 Chinese Symbolic discourse 47
5.2 Beijing Boycott claims and what resulted 50
Chapter 6: Sochi 2014 Case Study 56
6.1 Russian Symbolic Discourse 56
6.2 Sochi 2014 Boycott claims & what resulted 61
Chapter 7: Discussion and Conclusions 65
7.1 Discussion 65
7.2 Conclusion 68
Bibliography 71
1.1 Introduction
Towards the end of 1880, there was a growing sense of discontent amongst tenant farmers in Ireland regarding their governmental land agreement as well as the techniques their landlords would employ to extract rents from them. After a few meetings the farmers decided that the best course of action to demonstrate their ire towards their unjust landlords was to take a more Christian position rather than any violent action. By carrying out their newly developed form of social and moral excommunication, the sinner (in their eyes) would have time to repent. And so they carried this out on their landlord Captain Charles Cunningham Boycott, shunning him in every way possible. Resultantly, the term ‘boycott’ entered English vocabulary (Marlow, 1973, p.135) as Captain Boycott was subjected to the kind of organised social exclusion we now understand today to be ‘boycotting’, a strategic tool used by many over the subsequent century as a means of demanding change from a
government, person, institution, etc. and the platform for boycotting has transpired in numerous forms such as forms of public transport and sporting events, namely the Modern Olympic Games.
An Olympic boycott inevitably came to pass, most notably in the 1980 Summer Olympics in Moscow. While previous boycotts had happened with individuals and various states beforehand, such as China boycotting the 1956 Olympics due to the IOC’s recognition of Taiwan1, this was certainly the most publicised and the most
1GAZETTE,COMPILED BY MELISSA HOPPERT, THE. "In the Past 100 Years, International Politics have Caused several... DELAYS OF GAMES ; from Wars to Boycotts, a Short History of Olympic Disruptions." The Gazette, Aug 10, 2004,
9
disruptive with as many as 64 nations boycotting the games with the USA leading the pack. Towards the latter stage of the Cold War, the USA pointed towards the Soviet’s invasion of Afghanistan the previous winter as the reason to deny the Moscow Games of some of the world’s most accomplished sportsmen2. It became abundantly clear that politics couldn’t be separated from, if not sport exactly, then certainly mega global sporting events.
1.2 Topic and Purpose
As calls to boycott sporting mega-events are undoubtedly loaded with political and social baggage I have chosen to compare and contrast two different Olympic boycott calls and the discourse surrounding them for this diploma thesis. Through the
theoretical framework of Symbolic interactionism Theory I will compare and contrast the calls to boycott the Beijing 2008 Summer Olympics with the boycott calls for the Sochi 2014 Winter Olympics.
As both of the case studies happened in a period in which the globalisation was in full flow, whereby the interconnectedness was apparent and demonstrated itself through various outlets such as social media, food, movies and the global financial system (2008 being the year where the global recession occurred), it’s worth mentioning, for the sake of helping contextualise this study, of the effects this has had on the collective psyche of the global population. Globalisation had led to the intensification of consciousness through, essentially, compressing the world
(Robertson 2000, p.8). It’s perhaps most evident now in the climate movement and
2Ibid.
https://search.proquest.com/newspapers/past-100-years-international-politics-have-caused/docview/2 68252845/se-2?accountid=14887 (accessed February 25, 2021).
the emergence of ecology to understand the global causes and effects of the
impending climate crisis, whereby people look at the world as one organism, James Lovelock’s ‘Gaia’ theory3- which supposes the planet and everything inhabiting it are a part of one organism - being an obvious exemplification, but this is just part of a trend in which the ‘global consciousness’ has led to an increasingly high percentage of the world to view actions in other cultures other than their own in the context of world socio-economic and ecological issues. Marshall McLuhan’s ‘global village’
theory goes some way to convey this sense of compression that has resulted from the shared consumption of media, particularly televisual experience (Robertson 2000, p.8).
This aspect of globalization coupled with the ‘expressive revolution’ of the 1960s in which young people in numerous parts of the world experienced a revolution in consciousness, centred largely around the notions of liberation and self-expression (Robertson 2000, p.8). The knock-on effects of this confluence of shifting realities lead to a sense that these feelings were common in this global community and thus these feelings should be upheld and allowed to fester in whichever nation-state of this global village.
It’s this sense of shared community that goes some way into framing the two case studies as well as a lot of modern sporting boycott discourse. As I will discuss at further length, much of the reasoning behind the Sochi boycott claims were based on the Russian government’s disapproving views of homosexuality and how this gave validation to homophobia in the wider society. Similarly, much of the discourse
3Lovelock, James.Gaia: A New Look at Life on Earth. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.
around boycotting China boiled down to the belief that certain groups weren’t being afforded basic human rights and that China weren’t acting in accordance with the IOC’s espoused values of tolerance and inclusivity4, a controversy reappearing today in the boycott calls for the 2022 Winter Olympics in Beijing due to the lack of freedom given to the uighur muslims in Xinjiang.
In fact, it’s the IOC’s involvement and their espoused values of Olympism that have made Olympic boycott movements such a prominent battleground for those advocating a base level of human rights across the globe. It leaves a bitter taste of injustice when it appears as though the host nation has foregone certain areas of the Olympics Movements espoused values (namely equality5).
Moreover, it’s this process of a nation-state being pressured into conformity by a supranational organisation that is emblematic of how globalisation has played out in many other instances (Alekseyeva 2014, p.164) and makes this a worthy area of focus in the realm of International Relations.
1.3 Grounds for Comparison
I’ve nominated these two case studies for a comparative analysis due to a number of reasons. The fact that the games being scrutinised took part only within six years of each other negates a lot of the temporal complications that would otherwise usually serve to contort the findings of these kinds of studies. Whilst there are undoubtedly a
5Carlos Rey Perez, Katia RubioThe Understanding of Olympic Values by Brazilian Olympic Athletes(International Journal of Humanities Social Sciences and Education (IJHSSE) Volume 1, Issue 12, PP 37-43, 2012) p. 37
4International Olympic Committee.Olympic Charter(International Olympic Committee, Lausanne, 2020)
few differences that would’ve altered the global and political landscape from 2008 to 2014, they aren’t groundbreaking enough to warrant any huge disclaimers. While the introduction of smartphones could be considered one variable, considering their prevalence in matters of public outcry in recent years, their usage worldwide had only just surpassed the one-billion mark in 20126despite hitting the mass market in 2007, so the platforms they support would have begun to affect the discourse by 2014 but certainly not to present day levels.
Subsequently, with the political context between the two events offering a similar global and political context in which to weigh them both up, other grounds for
comparison will have a larger role in this essay such as the economy of the two countries. Although the global recession had begun to take shape in 2007, the pervasiveness of it meant that China wasn’t the only country affected and it turned out to have a much healthier economy than many of its counterparts. In fact, US economic interdependence on China may have had some effect on the decision not to follow through with a boycott from the country in which the claims were at their most vociferous. For example, by 2008 US national debt had surpassed $10 trillion, helped by China buying $573.7 billion in US treasury bonds (Hunt, Kessler, and Berg 2012, p.315). This contrasts greatly with Russia’s economic situation at the time of their Olympic showing. Although the Russian financial crisis wasn’t to begin until the latter half of 2014, the signs of this looming struggle would’ve been apparent for those watching closely, coupled with the incoming bill for putting on the Olympic Games which amounted to the highest a country had ever paid to host an Olympic Games (Orttung and Zhemukhov 2014, p.181). Moreover, they were throwing all this
6https://www.statista.com/statistics/330695/number-of-smartphone-users-worldwide/
money at the version of the games that are consistently less popular than it’s summer version7. However, it should be noted that this was in part due to Sochi having poor infrastructure and a complete lack of large sports facilities so this huge financial outlay (estimated at somewhere between US$8 billion and US$50 billion) can also be attributed to the fact that an Olympic project had never required that level of development (Alekseyeva 2014, p.159).
Another ground for comparison falls to the respective political set-ups of the two countries in question, both of which have strong authoritarian leanings and a recent history of socialist principles. Both the Kremlin and it’s resolute leader, Vladimir Putin, as well as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) are practically safeguarded from democratic ousting.
Finally, a point of difference which should make for an interesting point of comparison is the two countries' relations with the West during the periods in
question. Whereas China was enjoying a period of relative calm, Russia was on the cusp of going to war with Ukraine, doing so as the Games were ongoing, and were continuing with their antagonistic view of foreign influences haven passed a law in 2012 that requires any political non-governmental organisation that receives funding from outside from outside of Russia to register itself as a ‘foreign agent’8- a term synonymous with ‘spy’ in the former Soviet empire. So this would’ve had an effect on the discourse.
8https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2012/0705/Many-Russian-NGOs-face-foreign-agent-label
7https://acuoptimist.com/2018/02/winter-olympics-arent-popular-summer-olympics/
1.4 Significance for Knowledge
Despite many proclaiming the modern Olympic Games to be simply a celebration of sporting excellence, free from political ongoings, it’s clear that due to the Big Money input of the sports-industrial complex surrounding these types of events coupled with the global media coverage it’s afforded, the political undertones are unavoidable and effectively reduce much of the IOC’s grandstanding principles to nothing more than corporate bluster.
Through observing these two sporting boycott calls through a symbolic
interactionist framework I will aim to demonstrate just how politically-charged these types of events have become in this digital age of mass communication, whilst also alluding to the power dynamics surrounding the diplomatic concerns in this area. It’s telling that neither of the boycott calls lead to anything resembling mass walkouts.
This could largely be down to the power of the multinational corporations involved, from media to sporting to advertising, but this can again be considered in the bigger picture of the decline of the nation-state to the might of Big Business.
1.5 Theoretical framework: Symbolic Interactionism
The theoretical framework through which I will assess the two case studies will be Symbolic Interactionism theory. George H. Mead (1934) includes in his basic
premises of symbolic interaction theory that “human communication & behavior are dependent on significant symbols that label and classify the world and allow
cooperative behaviour among people. A symbol is significant when it transmits
meanings that are shared by others in a group.”(Weiss 2001, p.402). This neatly encapsulates the way in which these sporting protests are intended to be received;
loaded with political subtext, with certain values intended to be considered and reflected upon within the individual.
Coupled with the symbolic significance that goes behind putting on the Olympic show and demonstrating the countries’ competence, wealth and efficiency whilst potentially whitewashing the host’s alleged vices through distracting the watching public with sports acting as the sedative, a process also known as “sportswashing”9.
Moreover, the performance within the sport itself is considered to have a further symbolic gesture. This much is clear when taking into account the Russian doping scandal in which the Russian government, their security services and sporting authorities worked in tandem to hide the widespread doping, a practice they supported and encouraged following a poor medal count in the Vancouver 2010 Winter Olympics (The Guardian, 2020).
1.6 Hypotheses & general research questions
My hypothesis for this study will be how the Beijing boycott calls were based more around ideology, whereas the Sochi calls were based more around politics.
Other research questions for this study will be;
9https://footballexplainers.wordpress.com/2018/11/27/what-is-sportswashing/
- How does economic dependence on the target country affect the Western countries´ willingness to vocalise these boycott calls and even act on them?
- What effect do these boycott calls have on the related country’s soft power?
Chapter 2: Literature Review
2.1 Theoretical traditions and current thoughts for framing the question
In researching previous work in this theoretical area, it appears as though the Olympic Games has received its fair share of focus with regards to communication studies (e.g Eric W. Rothenbuhler,Values and symbols in orientations to the
Olympics, (Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 6:2,1989)) which concerns what the Olympic Games represent in society in a more general sense rather than through a politically-orientated prism. And while sport (at a broader level) has been given due diligence for its implications for symbolic interactionist theory, they have tended to focus more on the interlinking of sport and society, as well as the self (e.g.Identity reinforcement in sport: revisiting the symbolic interactionist legacy. (International Review for the Sociology of Sport 36/4..2001)).
Similar pieces of work to what I am aiming to produce include; Cottrell and Nelson’sNot just the Games? Power, protest and politics at the Olympics(2010) which takes a close look at Olympic protests in the context of International Relations and the various actors that form the discourse. But even they point out the lack of
previous work gone into studying these actions from a political perspective. While this study doesn’t specifically name symbolic interactionism as it’s theoretical framework, it undoubtedly touches upon some of the symbolic implications for the political surroundings which contextualise these matters. Additionally,A realist
perspective of Sport Management Program and the H.J. Lutcher Stark governmental perceptions of Olympic boycott movements, 1936–2008(Berg, K. B., Kessler, S.A., Hunt, T. A., 2012) employs a similar framework in which to interpret Olympic Boycott movements with an IR-based Realist framework to consider three incidents of this occurrence, with one of the cases being Beijing 2008, this piece of work will undoubtedly provide inspiration for this study.
With this in mind I’ve framed my thesis the way I have as I believe this will ensure originality, consolidating my opportunity to add to the existing literature. Perhaps due to neither of the respective calls for boycotting resulting in any voluntary absences en masse, there didn’t appear to be any direct comparisons between the two (for instance, Cottrell and Nelson’sNot just the Games? Power, protest and politics at the Olympics(2010) excludes from their empirical analysis those that were not carried out, although Beijing 2008 is still included due to other forms of protests surrounding these Games), and certainly not through a symbolic interactionist theory lens anyway.
By conducting acollective case studymy research will be afforded the
opportunity to study the issue of Olympic boycotts from two different vantage points, with the varying contexts adding nuance to the subsequent findings. Following the
suggestions of Yin (2003)10I will subscribe to the logic of replication and aim to study the same aspects in both cases. Despite the differing contexts making generalising tricky and not the most academic-orientated approach anyway, the relatively small six year gap between the cases will help in this regard.
2.2 Review of related literature
As there are lots of angles to consider in this dissertation I will aim to cover the areas that I consider pertinent for this study. This range stretches from Symbolic
Interactionism theory to Olympic protest literature to Chinese soft power, so given the constraints of this thesis I will have to exclude certain aspects that can be considered to hold relevance. I will aim to keep the literature under scrutiny as relevant as possible and therefore look towards the literature that has it’s overriding themes overlapping and corresponding with those of this study such as those mentioned in the previous subsection.
In reviewing some of the literature regarding Symbolic interactionism theory I kept in mind that it’s purpose was primarily to give my thesis a building block, offering the foundations on which the rest of the study could grow upon and therefore
wouldn’t need to go into extensive depth. Mead (1934) provided the literature to ensure this function, listing the basic premises of symbolic interactionism theory under these 4 notions (Weiss 2001, p.402);
1. “Human communication & behavior are dependent on significant symbols that label and classify the world and allow cooperative behaviour among people. A
10J.W Cresswell.Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing among five approaches (ThousandsOaks: Sage Publications, 2007) p.74
symbol is significant when it transmits meanings that are shared by others in a group.
2. The meanings of a thing are not inherent in the object; rather, meaning is a social product and is socially created.
3. Meanings may be modified and things redefined by social interaction.
4. Identities, in the same way as meanings, are also developed and verified through social interaction with others.”
This extract manages to summarise symbolic interactionism effectively and can provide the essence through which I will discuss the subsequent actions that come loaded with political subtext, nuance and symbolic undertones.
For example, the third point about meanings becoming modified by social interaction has a large bearing on Olympic boycott discourse as, despite neither of the case studies resulting in large scale boycotts, the threats of them lead to a closer examination of Russia and China’s alleged misdemeanours from those participating and observing events from afar. A process known as ‘soft disempowerment’, a term coined by Guilianotti and Brannagan (2014) to explain the how, in contrast to the political phenomenon that is ‘soft power’, which Joseph Nye defines as ‘the ability to get what you want through attraction rather than coercion or payments’ (Nye 2004a, 256), this political strategy can backfire. Hosting a mega sports event can be seen as an attempt at gaining soft power but occasionally it can serve to highlight negative aspects of a government’s behaviour to the international audience. Giulianotti and Brannagan (2014) based this concept on Qatar who have won the rights to host the 2022 World Cup, while the actual tournament may prove beneficial for the country’s
reputation in the long run, for now the build-up has been dominated by talk of the use of slave labour and deadly working conditions for the construction of the stadia and facilities for the tournament. This came to the fore recently as the Norway football team wore t-shirts pre-match to protest these allegations, amid talk of Norway boycotting the tournament (Guardian, 2021). I will come back to this soft power element in this review.
Furthemore, simply by signalling the threat of a boycott a political spin has already been thrust upon what is supposed to be a celebration of sporting
competition and, if not setting, at the very least altering the tone of the events that were set to follow.
In fitting with my general aim of keeping the literature sources concise and efficient, I obtained these basic premises of symbolic interactionism from the notes section ofIdentity reinforcement in sport: revisiting the symbolic interactionist legacy (2001)which effectively discusses said theory in a sporting context.
Within this text, Weiss (2001) talks about how sport ‘forms a social subsystem’
due to it’s “socioculturally valid and transparent norms” (p.393 Weiss, 2001) that help add to the symbolic subtext of sport. While the piece focuses mainly on the
relevance of sport to the individual it also points towards, by listing the types of social recognition in sport, the reasoning behind why states may view sport as symbolically influential to their image. Weiss (2001) cites Popitz’ (1987) work on symbolic
interactionism in which he outlines the 5 types of ‘social subjectivity’ in which people’s demand for recognition fall into. One of which is ´Recognition in a Public
Role´ (Weiss 2001, p.394). Within which top-level, televised sport can be considered.
The reasoning for which is that“the public expects visible performance. Sport
satisfies this requirement ideally, in the form of public events/media sport. The public exposure of this type is particularly strong in the world of sport.”
It wouldn’t be too much of a stretch to level this up from the individual to the collective as nation-states and those running the show become increasingly concerned with this visible form of social achievement in this digitised era of mass-media. At the geopolitical level, sporting performance has at times been viewed as indicative of the actual standings in the global hierarchy. Particularly at an event which only comes around once every four years and draws eyeballs from across the globe, with as much as 90% of the world’s television sets tuning into at least some of the Olympics coverage (Nelson and Cottrell 2011, p.730). This is a notion also spelt out by Kevin Caffrey (2008) inOlympian Politics in Beijing: Games but not Just Games, another key piece of literature for this study;
“In the opinion of a German sporting newspaper from 1913: ‘The Olympic idea in the modern age symbolizes a world war that is not expressed through open military action, but that gives anyone who knows how to read sports results a fair idea of the hierarchy of nations.”
An illustration of the level of concern certain nations have on their bearing in the medal count could be seen in the previously mentioned Russian doping scandal of 2014, brought about in reaction to a poor medal showing a couple of years earlier.
This is discussed by Van Rheenen (2014) inA skunk at the garden party: the Sochi Olympics, state-sponsored homophobia and prospects for human rights through mega sporting eventswhich also talks about the symbolic significance the Russian
government place on the Olympics whilst also giving heed to it’s geopolitical implications as emphasised in this extract;
“Sport tourism has evolved within a global market to help ‘brand’ cities and nations just as multinational corporations sell commodities tied to the concomitant
consumption of sporting events. As a result, global sport tourism serves as an important marketing vehicle for both cities and nations aspiring to world class status (Whitson & Macintosh, 1996). The pursuit of mega sporting events to enhance global prestige and competitive advantage has, therefore, become a strategic mechanism for nation building and increased market share (Cornelissen & Swart, 2006; Gillis, Oliver, & Briggs, 2007). International sport is likewise an effective means of
stimulating capital accumulation in the global market and ‘lubricating the international political economy’ (Sage, 1998).” (Van Rheenen 2014, p.129)
As symbols and marketing are intrinsically tied, this idea of nation building through nation-branding by using mega sporting events like the Olympics to
showcase the country’s levels of efficiency, infrastructure and wealth is an idea at the forefront of those in charge of bringing this prestigious event to their countries. This extract also captures some of the basic themes of sports diplomacy, a political practice that makes up a large degree of the subtext of these two events but also goes hand-in-hand with the previously mentioned themes of soft power and symbolic interactionism.
Furthermore, this text has proved useful for both the Russian case study as well as shedding light on the symbolic interactionist element of the proceeds. It cites the
‘strong symbolic condemnation’ that boycotting pro-apartheid sports federations
provided and how this contributed to the fall of apartheid in South Africa (Van Rheenen, 2014 p.131). The text does a great job of pulling together the symbolic implications with regards to the Russian geopolitical context, whilst also providing context for this study by shedding light on the historical precedent of sporting boycotts and their potential for bringing about political action.
Van Rheenen (2014, p.133) goes on to explain that due to the boycott calls being based around Russia’s crackdown on gay’s rights that this is a form of Liberal
Interventionism, in which liberal states pursue other states in pursuit of their liberal objectives. Furthermore, the text claims that had those boycott calls been acted upon it would have proved beneficial for the Russian president Vladimir Putin as the text points towards Russian politics scholar Mark Lawrence Shrad’s writings, stating that
‘a perceived threat, even symbolic, from the liberal West would be a blessing for Mr.
Putin, who can portray himself as the defender of the traditional Russian family, Orthodox Christian values and national pride all at once’11.
This contrasts with the symbolic implications that concerned China who were clearly trying to appeal to their Western, more liberal-orientated allies. This could be seen in the manner in which they changed their original plan for their trademark Olympic mascot. Initially, it was set to be a dragon but they were worried this could come across as overly aggressive so decided against it switching it eventually to a doll, after deliberating on the suggestion of a Panda (p.809, Caffrey, 2008).
11Vanden Heuvel, K.Boycott Sochi? Think again(The Washington Post. August 27, 2013)
Van Rheenen (2014) goes on to discuss the juxtaposition between the symbolic implications of boycotts and that of the athlete’s actual performance within the Games. Those performances, he claims, help demonstrate the political struggle found within the games at the individual as well as the collective level as athletes internalise their nation’s battles away from the field (Van Rheenen 2014, p.133).
While this adds to the discourse surrounding the symbolic implications of the Olympic Games, the examples he chooses, such as the African-American athlete Jesse Owens in the 1936 Olympics, are used to demonstrate his point about the hypocrisy of these boycott claims. He exclaims that while Owens’ victory was
supposedly a symbol of American freedom and democracy in the face of Nazi facism and their ideologies of racial supremacy (Rheenen 2014, p.133), it was done with the backdrop of African-Americans being afforded limited freedoms back in Owens’
homeland. This theme of hypocrisy will be prevalent when examining the boycott claims in the forthcoming chapters with the USA once again coming under scrutiny.
The Van Rheenen (2014) text has been useful for providing context for the theoretical grounding of this paper. Used in conjunction with Berg et al. 's (2012) comparison of the three most publicised Olympic boycott movements (Berlin 1936, Moscow 1980 and Beijing 2008) and it’s clear that there is fertile ground for an in-depth study of Olympic boycotts in the field of International Relations and related fields. The Berg et al (2012) text opts for a Realist framework through which to
observe events, in doing so becoming one of few sports-based international relations studies to go beyond the more typical cultural perspectives of race, gender or
transnational consumerism, or the more frequently used lens of liberal theory (Hunt, Kessler, and Berg 2012, p.307). They claim this is the case because historians and
political scientists have generally underestimated the importance of nation states in the operation of international sport. I would suppose that this could be put down to the mass media/televisual element being underdeveloped prior to the 21st century, before the global intensification of social and cultural ‘connectivity’ (Giulianotti and Robertson 2004, p.546). In this regard perhaps the appeal of hosting a mega sports event today offers the opportunity of 24/7 coverage of the show the country is putting on to the world whereas in the past, say before 1990 (this was the time that
Guilianotti would point to for when football transitioned into it’s postmodern era, characterised primarily by the globalisation of Europe’s top leagues and the worldwide television coverage of them (Giulianotti and Robertson 2004, p.552), this appeal wasn’t as strong. Though the boycott movements of the 1936 and 1980s were hugely significant at the time, perhaps they weren’t considered as worthy of academic rigour en masse as they were seen in isolation to the actual sport, a political process rather than a sporting one, whereby the nation-states and the athletes would naturally continue down their separate paths once the furore had passed. It’s somewhat hard to imagine when compared to today’s world in which commentators are quick to remind us that ‘you can’t separate sport from politics’ as each English Premier League football match begins with a ‘taking of the knee’ to show solidarity with the Black Lives Matter movement following the death of George Floyd in Police custody in the USA12. While some may question the need for this demonstration to continue for more than a year after the incident had passed, it at least demonstrates the acceptance of the interconnectivity of sport and politics as well as shedding light on the previously mentioned themes of the ‘global
12https://www.goal.com/en/news/players-will-continue-to-take-the-knee-until-the-end-of-the/6q03d0e58 c6g1typsfiqzhlnl#:~:text=Premier%20League%20players%20began%20taking,protesters%20in%20th e%20United%20States.&text=The%20incident%20occurred%20during%20the,began%20once%20pl ay%20started%20again.
consciousness’ and the intensification of global social ‘connectivity’ in which the most-watched, globally consumed sports events play a pivotal role.
In contrast to the more optimistic view of these kind of globalistic reactions, Berg et al. (2012) base their reasoning of utilizing a Realism-based lens to observe the Olympic boycotts calls on the manner in which nation-states have consistently used the Olympics to further their political or ideological agendas which would concur with the realist argument that in an anarchic international system, states primarily seek to maximise their relative power and further their national interests. Which goes against the more optimistic narrative that these unifying events allow for friendship, peace and understanding (Hunt, Kessler, and Berg 2012, p.308).
Their text is designed to highlight the temporal differences between the three boycott discourses, neatly encompassing periods of a pre-WW2 world (though one tightly connected to it), the Cold War and an age when the Global Market Economy was in full swing. While temporal differences will play a lesser role in my work, their section on Beijing 2008 focuses primarily on the public discourse of the boycott movement surrounding the games. Their reasoning is two-fold and I can echo their sentiments in researching for this study. On the one hand, many of the pertinent archival documents concerning Beijing 2008 remain classified (Hunt, Kessler, and Berg 2012, p.309). Whilst I’ve chosen to focus on publicly available information when considering the policy intentions behind China and Russia choosing to play host, archival documents would undoubtedly consolidate my findings. Secondly, the usefulness of conducting a discourse analysis on the leading policymakers public
statements can be summarised in the extract Berg et al. (2012) handpicked from Costigliola (2012, p.291);
“By evaluating the word choices of historical actors in describing their perceived reality, historians can learn something about the assumptions and agendas of those historical actors. Historians can also read the narrative of, say, an embassy, telegram or film, for evidence of what is being assumed, emphasized, and ignored. Such evidence can help reveal the author’s (or the director’s) perspective and agenda as well as assumptions about what the audiences understand and want.”
Consequently, as Berg et al. (2012) recognise this assertion in underpinning their subsequent findings, it can be used as, if not a blueprint, then certainly a guidebook for my own work, with regards to the Beijing discourse in particular.
Finally, Cottrell & Nelson’s empirically-guided analysis of political protest activity at the modern Olympic Games from 1896 to 2008 inNot just the Games? Power, protest and politics at the Olympics (2010)provides a great deal of breadth to the literature. Once again, the authors note their surprise at the lack of academic groundwork in the realm of International Relations for the modern Olympic Games, citing the range of actors these events pull together as a unique phenomenon which is deserving of more critical scrutiny.
By mapping out the protest activity in a chronological order, they identify a common trend in International Relations and a theme that backs up Marshall
Mcluhan’s theory that the sense of living in a ‘global village’ has now enveloped the masses. They show the trend of Olympic protests has shifted from a state-orientated practice, which would result in bans and boycotts, to protests that are now enacted
by transnational activists that tend to manifest themselves in on-site demonstrations (Nelson and Cottrell 2011, p.730). In this sense, it’s more of a disparate, non-specific group of people from across the globe brought together by a common disapproval that are vocalising their ire in the latter stages of the modern Olympic era. This would help shed light on the outcomes of the two boycott movements covered in this thesis;
while individual actors (such as Steven Spielberg who would step down as artistic advisor for Beijing 2008 due to his disapproval of China’s role in the conflict in Sudan’s Darfur region in the build-up to the event13) were forthcoming in taking action, perhaps nation-states didn’t feel the need to do likewise due to the pressure on states to boycott being widespread and non-specific, leaving it to individuals to act as they see fit instead. This can be seen in the recent letter calling on Mars Wrigley, the confectionary company to withdraw their product, the Snickers bar, from being the official chocolate supplier of the Beijing 2022 Olympics. The letter was signed by 200 global campaign groups who decided to bypass the state, putting pressure on the multinational corporation instead14.
Furthermore, the nature of the protests, shifting from boycotts and bans to on-site demonstrations, also falls in line with how a symbolic manoeuvre would be more effective in this era of mass-media/mass-communication; the optics sent around the world from on-site demonstrations offer a more visually striking message through stark imagery than the non-appearance that a boycott can offer. If a group of the leading nations were to boycott, this might have the desired effect as it would ultimately dissuade potential audiences from tuning in but just one or two nations
14https://www.insidethegames.biz/articles/1106131/snickers-beijing-2022-sponsorship-letter
13https://www.reuters.com/article/us-olympics-spielberg-idINN1231478420080212
boycotting may seem as little more than a symbolic gesture, which the global audience would manage to shrug off and put to one side.
Cottrell & Nelson’s (2011) piece also addresses the limitations of viewing this through a Realism perspective, a framework employed by the previously cited work of Berg et al. (2012). They point out that their perspective doesn’t account for the independent effects that the Games have had, given their narrow scope of focus only concerns the relative advantages independent states may gain in the international system (Nelson and Cottrell 2011, p.731). They claim a realist perspective’s
state-centrism doesn’t help explain the more symbolic implications of the event, such that activist groups target this platform, seeing them as a symbolic reference point to pressure states into changing their behaviour. Or how the IOC has emerged as a big-time player, in terms of constraining states’ behaviour, with regards to the Games. Or how it would explain such scenarios when states don’t gain a material advantage and perhaps even end up with their more nefarious activities being put in the spotlight (Nelson and Cottrell 2011, P.731), an example of ‘soft disempowerment’
which occurred, for example, when Channel Four (a broadcaster in the UK) released a documentary about the treatment gay people are subjected to in Russia around the same time that the Sochi Olympics were starting15.
Furthemore, they highlight the limited transnational impacts these protests have that can be considered meaningful, often due to the competitive environment that activist groups operate in, leaving onlookers with an array of causes to appetize from but without a main cause to sink their teeth into (Nelson and Cottrell 2011, p.733).
15https://www.channel4.com/news/hunted-russia-gay-dispatches-channel-4-video
Chapter 3: Research Methodology
3.1 Overall Approach and Rationale
My research methods will undertake acomparative qualitative discourse/content analysis of the case study examplesin the form of sporting events taking place in countries considered global powers; China and Russia respectively, who were at time enjoying differing relations with the West. The Beijing 2008 Olympics was in a period of Peace while the Sochi 2014 Winter Olympics was in a period of unrest with the invasion of Crimea by Russian forces taking place towards the end of those games.
With regards to my research design I will base it on theSubstantive Case Report Model.This framework has been suggested by Lincoln & Guba (1985) for conducting a substantive case report which I will adapt slightly to accommodate my
two case studies. Their framework is as follows (numbers refer to each step needed);
1. A need for the explication of the problem 2. A thorough description of the context/setting
3. A description of the transactions observed within said context.
4. Saliences at the site (elements studied in depth) 5. Outcomes of the inquiry/ “lessons learned”.
Using this framework, I will initially outline the symbolic discourse surrounding major sporting events and other Olympic boycotts and how the discourse has evolved over time. This part will incorporate theories of sports diplomacy and soft power (and soft disempowerment) due to their relevance both politically and for the theory I have chosen to use as the theoretical framework (symbolic interactionism).
Following this, I will then carry out steps two, three and four for both the Beijing boycott claims and the Sochi boycott claims, giving more weight to the Beijing analysis. The Beijing 2008 boycott calls will provide the ground basis whereas the Sochi 2014 boycott will be used to complement it. I will analyse them in a text-by-text manner i.e., one following the other. The discourse that will be analysed will come from sources most relevant to the boycott’s reasoning and discussion, both academic and non-academic i.e. news reports etc.
Under step two, for each case study I will touch upon the western narrative and the narrative of the relative country (China or Russia) for the topic concerned. For example, I can lay out western and Chinese narratives regarding Tibet/Hong Kong
as it encapsulates certain contradictions between them. The soft power element will be discussed for both countries.
For step five, I will coalesce the findings for the two case studies, comparing the varying outcomes to weigh up the similarities and the differences, how their context affected them and what implications the cases may have going forward.
Chapter 4: Sports Diplomacy
4.1 Symbolic Interactionism and Sport
With its roots in social sciences, symbolic interaction theory has gained increased prominence over the past century as communication mediums have evolved with the technological advancements that now define our current era. The theory essentially describes the process through which we characterise the world we live in and how we perceive our reality. ‘Symbolic interaction’ can almost be seen as a byword for
‘meanings’, as it focuses on the outcomes of reciprocal interactions between
individuals in a social environment, placing focus on the meanings and symbols that derive from these interactions and how the symbols each social actor had in their mind influenced the outcome of the meanings produced. This idea purports that objects don’t actually have meanings but they are in fact given to them by the social actors involved in the interaction in question (Aksan 2009, p.902).
One of the earliest proponents of the theory, George Mead (1934), who is
considered it’s founder, asserted that there are four basic premises that characterise this theory which are worth repeating here as they really get to the nub of the matter.
They are as follows (Weiss 2001, p.402);
1. “Human communication & behavior are dependent on significant symbols that label and classify the world and allow cooperative behaviour among people. A symbol is significant when it transmits meanings that are shared by others in a group.
2. The meanings of a thing are not inherent in the object; rather, meaning is a social product and is socially created.
3. Meanings may be modified and things redefined by social interaction.
4. Identities, in the same way as meanings, are also developed and verified through social interaction with others.”
This extract dates back to 1934 but has been used as the foundations of this theory ever since as it will do likewise in examining the symbolic interactionism prevalent in Olympic boycott discourse. George Mead was of the opinion that both the mind and the ego are products of society. He claimed that the symbols encountered in society, which come about through interactions within it, help develop the mind whilst being of paramount importance for thinking and communication. Mead saw the quotidian interactions that humans experienced as being predicated on a symbolic interaction which in turn, created meaning and order for the individuals and the society they inhabited (Aksan 2009, p.903). In Mead’s line of thinking, symbols are essentially signs used to convey the same meanings to a ‘partner of communication’, they are recognised by the individual on the receiving end of the symbol with the same
understanding to the individual who delivered the symbol (Mead 1973, p.87). What this essentially means is that symbols hold significance because they transmit meanings shared by others in the group, as alluded to in the first premise of this theory.
A student of Mead, Herbert Blumer, was the first to coin the term ‘symbolic interaction’ as such is also considered to be one of the theory’s key thinkers. He would further scrutinise the element of ‘meanings’ in this theory, claiming humans form meanings through interactions with other members of society and that objects (or events, phenomenon etc.) don’t actually have a meaning as an intrinsic feature of them (Aksan 2009, p.903). ‘Meanings’ form one of the three core principles Blumer had set out to view symbolic interaction theory; the other two arelanguageand thinking;Humans give meaning to symbols which are expressed via the medium of language. This way symbols are an indispensable aspect of any communication act and are in fact what separates the level of communication of human beings to that of animals. Where the thinking principle comes in is that the individuals can alter their own interpretations of the symbols communicated to them, despite the intentions of the sender (Nelson 1998, via Aksan 2009, p.903).
Furthermore, Blumer’s condenses Mead’s basic premises into just three which amount to a similar interpretation to that of his mentor’s but are slightly more prosaic;
(1) Human beings’ actions towards things are shaped by the meanings they have for these things (using things as an umbrella term for essentially all objects be they abstract, animate/inanimate, ideas phenomenons, events, etc.). (2) The meanings these things hold derive from the social interactions one has with fellow members of
society. And (3) these meanings go through an interpretive process by each individual which encounters them, in which they may eventually be modified (this amounts to the thinking element previously mentioned) (Blumer 1969, p.2).
Just by outlining the core principles of this theory it’s clear how Olympic Boycott discourse falls into the theory’s scope for interpretation. Those advocating boycotts often accuse nation-states of enabling the host nation’s perceived wrongdoings by not boycotting but this is simply a meaning attached to it, derived from discussions, largely in the media, in which influential voices have interpreted these things as such (these opinions quite often come from the same voices). However, the
counterargument that the nation-state doesn’t want to deprive it’s citizens of the chance to compete in a competition which has the meaning attached to it of being prestigious, illustrious and for many sports, something to which the rest of an
athlete’s calendar and lifestyle should be orientated around, rests on the premise of how that nation-state perceives itself, how it is perceived by its citizens, how it thinks it’s perceived by its citizens, as well as the messages potentially sent out to the onlooking global audience. On the one hand, some may believe it should keep its nose out of sport in the first place, those of a more patriotic disposition would see this as a chance for their fellow countrymen to put one over its’ rivals (whichever state they may attach that meaning to) while others could perceive the role of the nation-state as something more matriarchal, in which case it should let it should either let it’s children blossom or play a more protective role. Often the limelight is cast onto the leading nations to set an example in boycotting. The USA, for example, often bears the brunt of the demands of those erring on the side of outrage. This is because the USA has interpreted itself as a kind of ‘guardian of the world’ - a mantle
the country cast upon itself after WW2, in which it’s role was critical, and has influenced its foreign policy ever since, exemplified by it’s numerous interventionist policies over the decades since this envisionment16. This has led many people to look towards the US's actions as pivotal in matters concerned with International Relations, despite how the USA may view its own role and the meaning they attach to the Olympic Games (which of course doesn’t exist in vacuum and will be
influenced by the meanings others attach to it).
To put this theory into more of a practical context, we can look towards how it is applied to sport. Whilst taking place within the context of society’s significant symbols, sport can be thought of as a sort of social subsystem with it’s classic, socioculturally valid and transparent norms (Weiss 2001, p.393). Top-level sport in particular has a vital social dimension making it an ideal paradigm in which to view symbolic interactionism as it manages to combine social recognition with
self-recognition. In going through his types of social recognition that sport provides, Popitz (1987) cites the symbolic gestures prevalent throughout his typology. For instance, the sense of intimacy and security that the recognition of being a member of a group gives is tested through continual symbolic ritual such as the
communication between players on the field or in the bar for post-match drinks (Weiss 2001, p.394). The fourth in his typology is relevant to the Olympics which is that, symbolically, it provides recognition in a public role. The public expects visible performance and sport caters to this requirement. Top-level sport also projects to crowds at the venue or individuals watching through the television screen. A circus performer for example would similarly achieve such recognition, both being
16https://courses.lumenlearning.com/boundless-politicalscience/chapter/the-history-of-american-foreig n-policy/
contingent on the element of a general interest to the public in attendance (Weiss 2001, p.395).
At the core of the symbolic interactionist argument is the understanding of human beings as social animals whose idiosyncrasies and mannerisms are intertwined with the social settings they find themselves in and the history of socialisation that has moulded them. Humans relate to those around them within a system of central
relationships (Mead 1934; Weiss 2001, p.396). Mead (1934) first made the argument that humans anticipate the reactions of others to enable themselves to see
themselves through the eyes of others which essentially leads to the development of the ‘self’. Firstly, they anticipate the reaction of ‘significant others’ i.e. the people they actually know, followed by the reaction of the ‘generalised other’ - the people they don’t know. Consequently, this ‘self’ can be understood as a set of different identities.
Every person accumulates an array of identities over time. Just one individual can be a student in a classroom, a member of a rowing team trying to win the race, the oldest sibling, etc. (Weiss 2001, p.397).
Moreover, viewed through this prism, human behaviour can be interpreted as a continual process of trying to confirm an identity, with self-esteem being a core element that is derived largely from social recognition. Should one re-adjust one's'
‘self’ in alignment with the recognition of his/her peers, this amounts to
‘self-awareness’ which is essentially having confidence in this self-esteem, circling the term back to the more common understanding of the idea (Weiss 2001, p.397).
Homans (1961) believes striving for social recognition is an elementary form of human behaviour (Weiss 2001, p.397). The way in which humans relate to
themselves, incorporating an outsider’s perspective into their self-perception, is one of the key differentiators of the human race and animals. But this self-awareness needs to be reinforced at a social level and we can observe this process when any action is rewarded in the form of the socially manufactured accolades of respect, status, prestige and the like. The outcome of this dynamic results in ‘the extension of man’ which manifests itself in artifacts, forms of human behaviour, social
organisations like sports teams and the events in which they compete i.e. the Olympic Games (Weiss 2001, p.397).
In this respect, with regards to the act of boycotting, the implications of social recognition are obvious. It’ll clearly be an act that one’s significant others would consider to be valiant and noble, though this category would also be better placed to assess whether there are any more sinister intentions afoot, such as the implications of scandal or controversy that some individuals may find appealing. For instance, one of the more high-profile cases of sports and politics crossing over in recent years is the case of Colin Kaepernick who famously ‘took the knee’ during the national anthem as part of the pre-match formalities. It was an act considered by some to be one of ignominy, so much so that the President at the time, Donald Trump, spoke out against his actions. That his actions led to Nike making him a brand ambassador in a deal worth millions17at a time when his career was generally considered to be on the decline18is suggestive though not indicative of an ulterior motive at play. Though this example is a clear indication of how, as per Mead’s second assertion of the theory, that meaning is socially created the simple gesture of kneeling on the ground has it’s meaning wrapped up in the context in which it happens; in other instances it can be
18https://www.sportscasting.com/how-good-was-colin-kaepernick-when-he-left-the-nfl-in-2017/
17https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2794022-report-colin-kaepernicks-nike-contract-worth-millions-will -get-branded-line
a precursor to a marriage proposal whereas if the context is a sporting one with a national anthem playing in the background, as it was here, it’s seen as a
transgressive act of rebellion.
But of course, the ‘generalised’ other has an undeniably large bearing on the decision to boycott. Given that the majority of those boycotting would be doing so in the hope of kickstarting a movement, the ‘generalised’ other, such as those working in the media or athlete’s participating in the Olympic Games, take on greater
prominence. The way they interpret the initial boycotts (under thethinkingelement of symbolic interactionism according to Blumer) will depend on how they frame
themselves within the wider picture. Often it’s the case that athlete’s seek to distance themselves from the wider political context encapsulating the era. Michael Jordan was a prime example. Given the influence he attained following his ascent to global superstardom due to his status as the best basketball player of his, and possibly every other, generation some expected him to exert that influence and speak out on issues of race in the US given his African-American background. That the entirety of his political commentary during his playing days amounted to saying “Republicans buy sneakers, too”19demonstrates his own perception of how he felt someone in his position should conduct themselves. His assertion that he simply “wasn’t a
politician”20speaks of a bygone era free from the shackles of the culture wars that frame much of the discourse in our current sporting era.
20Ibid.
19https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/29130478/michael-jordan-stands-firm-republicans-buy-sneaker s-too-quote-says-was-made-jest
4.2 Symbolic discourse of the Olympic Games
In assessing why the Olympic Games have been seen by many as a platform for political gesturing it’s worth pointing out that, along with it’s obvious appeal as a platform for worldwide media exposure, the Olympic Charter, which outlines the spiritual and ethical guidelines for the competition, has in many ways pushed the Olympic Games into conversations that goes beyond just sporting ones. The Charter was made with good intentions but can be somewhat of a hindrance to the IOC when the issues that will be discussed in the two case studies come to the fore and offer an easy stick to beat them with, when often it’s a case of simply opting for the country offering to put the show on, with all the financial burdens that comes with it, regardless of the political undertones of the host-elect brings with it.
Within the Olympic Charter is the outlined goal of Olympism which states the aim
“to place sport at the service of the harmonious development of man, with a view to promoting a peaceful society concerned with the preservation of human dignity”.
Given this humanitarian mission that the Olympics has made its stated purpose, protests and boycotts at their events have a more meaningful hue about them. The perceived symbolic implications of the Olympics is that it facilitates collective
claim-making and widens political opportunity (Nelson and Cottrell 2011, p.733). If those doing the protests consider where their actions will have the biggest impact and where their actions would ‘fit’ most effectively, they may see the Olympics as a discourse arena providing a ‘common lifeworld’ in which the actors can relate due to a common set of references (Nelson and Cottrell 2011, p.733). In this sense, the Olympics can be seen as an even playing field in which most voices are not only given the time of day but also encounter a receptive audience. Moreover, this
Charter, in outlining the spirit of ‘Olympism’, effectively pushes states to subscribe to this spirit and their ‘rules of the game’. This notion then enables protesters to use the Olympic institution to frame their gripes and challenge the validity of others, as it’s taken as a powerful external resource of symbolic capital (Nelson and Cottrell 2011, p.734).
In one sense, this ‘Olympism’ spirit permeating through the occasion serves as a necessary counterbalance for the more cynical intentions that fall into the thinking behind what states hope to gain from hosting the Games. The Realist argument that states use the games to advance political agendas is concurred by Kissoudi (2008) who states that “history shows that governments have used international sports events, especially the Olympic Games, to pursue their own interests rather than understanding, friendship, and peace” (Kissoudi 2008, p.1692). In this respect, when a national government enacts an Olympic boycott as a means of formal protest it’s seen as one of the most controversial sports-related decisions a government can make. Made under the consideration of the level of international attention on offer in comparison to most other non-sport platforms (Hunt, Kessler, and Berg 2012, p.308) it allows for a chance to gauge the reaction of the ‘generalised other’ who will
undoubtedly sit up and take notice.
Furthermore, despite steering clear of any references to statehood within the Charter, instead promoting peace and prohiting a range of forms of discrimination, including ‘political’, the Charter still uses existing geopolitical nation states as the foundational basis for it’s competition. Not only is it how the competitors are
differentiated (and largely defined when considering the country-based medal count
leaderboard), it’s also how they’re selected in the first place. There are 206 National Olympic Committees (NOC) and one must be a national of a state of one of these committees to be in contention. Although these NOCs have been instructed to remain autonomous from their governments, they are financially dependent on them and are often governed by public office-holders (Caffrey 2008, p.808).
Other characteristics that lead to this kind of activity at the Olympics include the profile of the people encountered there; heads of states are invited (and tend to attend), while the participants are uniquely diverse, coming from across the globe.
Due to this, those protesting can expect to form new alliances and receive fresh support for their cause (Nelson and Cottrell 2011, p.733). In instances where the ire is directed towards the host government, as in the cases of Sochi and Beijing, the Olympics are used as a means of raising awareness of certain policies with the intention of increasing international and domestic pressure upon the host
government. This is also known as the ‘boomerang pattern’ in transnational activism whereby claimants bypass their national government to reach out to international allies to help fight their cause (Nelson and Cottrell 2011, p.733). Safe in the knowledge that while the spotlight is on them during the games, their ability to repress those protesting is drastically lowered, given the potential costs.
The symbolic implications that comes with broadcasting elite and mass sport with regards to international relations is that it’s long been seen as a form of geopolitical posturing, a way of elucidating legitimacy and prosperity for other nation states to take note of. As such, authoritarian governments have historically been quick to implement sports into their arsenal of mechanisms for control and though the
association is apparent for many, this hasn’t rendered it useless and doesn’t dissuade governments from going down this path. A striking example from history can be seen when England played against Nazi Germany at the Olympic Stadium in Berlin, in 1938. As part of the pre-match rituals, the England players were made (against their wishes) to give a Nazi salute as a sign of respect to their hosts21. Given that this signified recognition to the Nazi state it was considered a massive
propoganda victory for Hitler, one year before he’d attempt large-scale Nazi expansionism.
Authoritarian regimes have often pursued the symbolic fruits that sport can offer, with the unique offering of a potential nationwide sedative, keeping the masses distracted, as well as the prospect of the unity and jubilance that comes from a victory or a successful campaign at least. Keeping in mind that humans integrate the feelings of those around them into their worldview this can amount to a ‘we haven’t got it too bad after all’ collective feeling. Anssi Paasi (1996, p.98-99) has made the point that “owing to its emotional expressions and nationalistic symbolism sport should have a key place in general research into nationalism and national culture.”.
Sporting spectacles and nationalist politics share the same “symbolic repertoire” with regards to widespread demonstrations of a country’s flag and colours and thus, authoritarian regimes have seen this as a ‘soft’ means of coercion, i.e. not violent, and have thus invested great deals of capital to win over the masses (Koch 2013, p.44). Alongside other strategies to invoke a positive image of a regime and evoke nationalist sentiment amongst the masses, sporting spectacles manage to “allow the state to mobilize citizens in ways that create an illusion of participation, without
21https://bleacherreport.com/articles/247645-germany-v-england-1938-before-a-state-of-war-existed-b etween-us
allowing any actual citizen input into the process” (Adams, 2010 p.96). Whether acting as a participant or merely observing, events like the Olympics offer the
general population a location for people to express their patriotism and participate in the relatively abstract idea of ‘nation’. Given this, many have noted that sport has acted as a strategic mechanism for nation-building (Rheenen 2014, p.129). This quote from Eric Hobsbawm sums up the symbolism nationalist politicians look to achieve in the realm of sport;
“What has made sport so uniquely effective a medium for inculcating national feelings, at all events for males, is the ease which even the least political or public individuals can identify with the nation as symbolized by young persons excelling at what practically every man wants, or at one time in life has wanted, to be good at.
The imagined community of millions seems more real as a team of eleven named people. The individual, even the one who only cheers, becomes a symbol of his nation himself.” (Hobsbawm 1990, p.143).
Large-scale sporting events like the Olympics and the World Cup have been ascribed the symbolic connotations of ‘putting a place on the map’ (Koch 2013, p.43) which is largely due to the previously mentioned global media coverage but also because “International sport is likewise an effective means of stimulating capital accumulation in the global market and ‘lubricating the international political
economy’” (Rheenen 2014, p.129). When it comes to conveying symbols of prestige and excellence, nations focus on preparing the actual athletes competing to get the gold medals. Sporting victories often fall into the narratives of nationalist mythology and so governments prepare as well as possible for the chance to add another chapter. In the Cold War era, the USSR were so intent on achieving victory, as they
