Toward a Theory of Olympic Internationalism
Journal of Sport History, Vol. 22, No. 1 (Spring 1995)
Toward a Theory of Olympic Internationalism
John Hoberman University of Texas at Austin
“Well, all right then, let’s talk about the Chairman of the World. The world gets into a lot of trouble because it has no chairman. I would like to be Chairman of the World myself.” —E. B. White, Stuart Little (1945) “But when it comes to our age, we must have an automatic theocracy to rule the world.” —Sun Myung Moon (1973)
Back in 1967, Dr. Wildor Hollmann, one of Germany’s most prominent sports physicians and longtime president of the International Federation for Sports Medicine (FIMS), was visiting the International Olympic Academy at Olympia on the day of its annual inauguration, with King Constantine himself in attendance. Naively assuming that the Academy was an open forum for thinking about the past, present, and future of the Olympic movement, Dr. Hollmann expressed the view that, in the not-too-distant future. the “Olympic idea” itself would inevitably fall victim to the logic of development inherent in the professionalization and commercialization of elite sport. The words were hardly out of his mouth before Dr. Hollmann was engulfed in a storm of indignation, during which an Italian member of the IOC declared that merely expressing such thoughts was in his view nothing less than a desecration of this holy site.1 Olympic historiography has long been inseparable from the Movement’s status as a redemptive and inspirational internationalism. Like so many readings of its founder, Pierre de Coubertin (1863-1937), historical interpretations of the Olympic movement have generally taken the form of “either hagiographies or hagiolatries,” and not least because the founder himself “proclaimed Olympism beyond ideology.”2 Historical treatments of the Movement since the launching of that provocative claim have thus had no
1. W[ildor] Hollmann, “Risikofaktoren in der Entwicklung des Hochleistungssports.“ in H.
Toward a Theory of Olympic Internationalism
John Hoberman University of Texas at Austin
“Well, all right then, let’s talk about the Chairman of the World. The world gets into a lot of trouble because it has no chairman. I would like to be Chairman of the World myself.” —E. B. White, Stuart Little (1945) “But when it comes to our age, we must have an automatic theocracy to rule the world.” —Sun Myung Moon (1973)
Back in 1967, Dr. Wildor Hollmann, one of Germany’s most prominent sports physicians and longtime president of the International Federation for Sports Medicine (FIMS), was visiting the International Olympic Academy at Olympia on the day of its annual inauguration, with King Constantine himself in attendance. Naively assuming that the Academy was an open forum for thinking about the past, present, and future of the Olympic movement, Dr. Hollmann expressed the view that, in the not-too-distant future. the “Olympic idea” itself would inevitably fall victim to the logic of development inherent in the professionalization and commercialization of elite sport. The words were hardly out of his mouth before Dr. Hollmann was engulfed in a storm of indignation, during which an Italian member of the IOC declared that merely expressing such thoughts was in his view nothing less than a desecration of this holy site.1 Olympic historiography has long been inseparable from the Movement’s status as a redemptive and inspirational internationalism. Like so many readings of its founder, Pierre de Coubertin (1863-1937), historical interpretations of the Olympic movement have generally taken the form of “either hagiographies or hagiolatries,” and not least because the founder himself “proclaimed Olympism beyond ideology.”2 Historical treatments of the Movement since the launching of that provocative claim have thus had no
1. W[ildor] Hollmann, “Risikofaktoren in der Entwicklung des Hochleistungssports.“ in H.