27th CESH International Congress Making World(s). Sport Globalization & Olympism
4-6 Jun 2024 Université Paris Nanterre
Call for Papers
“The most important thing is for national propaganda to keep pace with the new conditions created, if such language can be used, by the “globalization” of all things. What’s essential is that, without delay, in the right places, a living flame replaces the dying reflection“.
(P. de Coubertin, Le Figaro, December 13, 1904)
While the word “mondialisation” entered the French language in the early 1980s, it was first used by Pierre de Coubertin, in an article in Le Figaro, entitled “Le flambeau à sept branches”, dated December 13, 1904 (Capdepuy, 2014; Markovits, Singaravélou, Todd, 2021). In this respect, sport appears to be an early player in the cultural dimension of globalization, long before it became part of the economic logic of the phenomenon.
Scientific Project
Following the discovery of America and the rise of transatlantic trade, globalization accelerated in the 19th century, from its anchor in Victorian England, the leading imperial and commercial power. It was relayed by the planetary influence of the Western powers, and manifested in the intensification of cultural, social, political and economic exchanges.
The globalization of sport was first studied by geographers (Bale, 2003; Augustin, 2007; Holz, 2011) and economists (Bourg, 2010; Andreff, 2021), then by sociologists and anthropologists (Harvey & Saint-Germain, 1995; Appadurai, 1996), and finally by historians who initially focused on political, diplomatic (Gygax, 2013; Dichter & Jones, 2014; Murray, 2018; Rofe, 2018; Postlethwaite & al., 2023) and international relations (Houlihan, 1994; Arnaud & Riordan, 1997; Allison, 2005; Keys, 2009; Giulianotti & Armstrong, 2011).
Then, historical works dedicated to sport and Olympism (Guttmann, 1978, 1992; Milza, 2002; Arnaud, 2002; Milza, Jéquier, Tétart, 2004), first studied the development and spread of modern sports (Maguire, 1999; Darbon, 1995) under the effects of colonization (Baker & Mangan, 1987; Mangan, 1998), imperialism (Stoddart, 1988; Guttmann, 1994; Gems, 2006; Singaravélou & Sorez, 2010), nationalism (Bairner, 2001; Grainger & Andrews, 2005; Stoddart, 2009; Archambault, Beaud, & Gasparini, 2016), geopolitics (Augustin & Gillon, 2004) and developments in transport that intensified global exchanges (Galtung, 1991).
However, all did not always agree on the existence of globalization, or on a distinct historical phase (Lanfranchi, Taylor, 2001), or even on the fact that this phenomenon can influence sport (Rowe, 2003; Giulianotti & Robertson, 2007). The congress can provide an opportunity to discuss scientific debates on the periodization of sport globalization, as proposed by the sociologies of dependence and configurations, taking a long-term view (Maguire, 2006). This scientific moment also offers an opportunity to highlight the crystallization of positions between defenders, skeptics and reformists (Held & al., 1999) of the globalization of sport through studies conducted by, on the one hand, “experts” (in geopolitics, sport management, journalism, finance, etc.) and, on the other hand, researchers specializing in the social sciences of sport (historians, sociologists, political scientists, economists, etc.).
While some researchers believe that the phenomenon began at the dawn of the twentieth century, between 1870 and 1920 (Maguire & al., 2002), others, inspired by the new political economy (Harvey, Houle, 1994) and Cultural studies (Miller & al., 2001), consider the globalization of sport to be more recent. The latter situate its onset after the Second World War, distinguishing its advent from economic and cultural imperialism.
Be that as it may, the globalization of sport has been the subject of numerous studies – some authors even list them (Gems & Pfister, 2013 ; Rahal, Campillo, Richard, 2021) – which analyze this complex phenomenon, with its many issues and ramifications, as it is traversed by long-term processes (Bairner, 2001) such as the progress of the democratic ideal, the development of mass culture (Arbena, 1988; Holt, 1990), the affirmation of feminist demands (Hargreaves, 2015) or the expression of male domination (McDevitt, 2008). Lastly, globalization is criss-crossed by such landmark historical events as the Cold War (Edelman & Young, 2020; Dufraisse, 2023), post-colonization (Bale & Cronin, 2003; Bancel & al., 2018), doping (Houlihan, 2003), the development of sporting cultures (Fuhua, 2013), ecology and Olympism (Cantelon & Letters, 2000) or the development of sport for peace (Hoberman, 2011), etc.
Although based on the increasingly numerous and rapid interactions between individuals, human societies, companies, states and NGOs, the globalization of sport does not only result in the standardization of cultural practices, techniques and the values associated with them (Sudre & Genty, 2014). It also opens up to relations of interdependence, adaptation of global characteristics to local requirements (glocalization) (Harvey, 2013; Falcous & Maguire, 2006), reconfiguration, resistance, and differentiated appropriations by actors with varied ambitions and resources (Heinmann, 2010).
They raise questions by highlighting the tensions between local realities and global trends: what are the effects of Americanization and/or Westernization on sporting practices? What issues are driving nations and states to make sport a global phenomenon? How do multinational firms link up with the sporting world to develop their brands? Do the military and religion see sport as a medium for disseminating their actions and values? How do media discourses contribute to the global dissemination of sport? To what extent do NGOs have an interest in development through sport? Finally, can the Olympic movement constitute a world, or is it the creation of interacting sporting worlds (International Olympic Committee, International Sports Federations, National Olympic Committees, etc.)?
These are only some of the questions that the congress will address, with the aim of improving our understanding of the interactions between individuals and groups that shape more or less interdependent worlds, the dynamics of which set the pace for the globalization of sport and Olympism (Young, Wamsley, 2005). Thus, the analytical approach favoured by this congress will pay particular attention to the multiple ways, situations and (re)configurations of making (worlds) (Becker, 1982, 1986) of sport and Olympism – be they cultural, political, social or geographical; in relationships of complementarity or conflict (Harvey, Rail and Thibault, 1996) – which enable us to apprehend the historical process of globalization and its variations in space, societies or in terms of scales of analysis.
Congress themes
1- Diffusion, circulation & mediatization of sport
The aim is to examine the worldwide diffusion of sport, its conditions of reception and circulation (bodies, values, knowledge, techniques) and its mediatization, in order to understand the forms of homogenization and/or resistance induced by colonization and imperialism, the construction of normative discourses and discrimination (gender, disability, etc.).
2- Individuals, communities & sporting identities
The globalization of sport contributes to the creation of sporting worlds by individuals and/or communities – sometimes imagined – with plural identities and diverse representations, in situations of cooperation and/or conflict, such as long-distance supporterism or sport as an instrument of community identity claims and nationalism.
3- Institutions, internationalization & transnationalization of sport
Globalized sport is also shaped by sporting (and non-sporting) institutions that produce a world of sport through the national, via politics, diplomacy, international relations and economics; whether to develop a brand associated with the image of a sportsman/sportswoman, impose its hegemony in the Cold War or develop peace through sport.
4- Sporting interdependencies between the local and the global: homogenization/resistance
The universality of sport also calls into question the confrontation between the worlds that make it up, through the interpenetration of the local and the global, prompting us to analyze these multiple adaptations as part of the process of acculturation, mimicry, reappropriation and sportivization of sporting practices, or when a locality hosts a world sporting event.
5- Making the worlds of sport and the Olympics
Finally, we’ll be looking at the nature and coherence of relations between (sporting and non-sporting) institutions in the creation of sporting and Olympic worlds, such as those between amateur and professional sport, and between the International Olympic Committee and its component parts, the International Sports Federations and the National Olympic Committees.
6- Other themes