With the onset
of the Olympic games, there have been plenty of areas of controversy. Whether its security, Russia’s anti-gay
stance, or their general preparedness for such a large global event, plenty of
banter dominates the media. However,
another interesting viewpoint is if the Olympics are still needed and do they
actually promote the international cooperation that they originally sought to
attain? The security argument
immediately comes to mind. Global events
such as the Olympics are breading ground for terrorist threats, a perfect
target for terrorist groups who hope to disrupt international peace. Is the threat worth the games? Also, the games were intended to bring
revenue to host cities and boost local economies, but the added cost due to
intense security measures and the expectation to hold the most elaborate of
events, certainly negates the argument that cities see much benefit
economically. And one might also wonder
if the Olympics are just a way to promote Western domination. Time slots that cater to American time zones,
a medal count that is predominately western countries, and a media that
criticizes the host city. Bill Plashke
writes in the Los Angeles Times, "The
strong-armed dream of Russian President Vladimir Putin has thus far succeeded
not in embellishing the Olympic motto, but altering it, from 'swifter, higher,
stronger' to, 'unfinished, unsettling and uninviting.” (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-echochambers-26092729). So are the
Olympics just another form of universalism, which “works as a mechanism of
exclusion that perpetuates the existing hierarchy of discourse and power
structure” (Yin, 285)?
To answer some of your questions, my view on the need of the Olympic games is very much shaped by the environment in which I grew up. Sports to my family took precedence over all else. I regularly missed school for games, matches or meets, and pretty much every holiday was celebrated in a basketball gymnasium in one high school or another until my dad stopped coaching a few years ago. The idea that the Olympics are not necessary at first seems absurd to me. It is the ultimate competition with athletes training for years to achieve worldwide recognition and fulfill their life's goals and dreams. On the other hand, as you pointed out, the games have never been just about the athletes. They have been used for political statements, to show superiority of some nations over others, and maintains the power structure that can be set by those who have the money and the facilities to support their athletes' expensive ambitions. Being an Olympic athlete still means something, but I would argue it doesn't mean as much as it once did. If the Olympic Games were to become more about these athletes and competitions and less about this need to maintain power structures, they could be the site of international cooperation as they possibly once were.
ReplyDelete