Sport in Capitalist Society: A Short History
No TL;DR found
Abstract
post-Apartheid, post-cold war, post-colonial and post-Beijing period. It is written from a critical liberal perspective, one which is devoid of rhetoric or attempts at point-scoring, and one which, after Hill and Houlihan, is as interested in internal Olympic politics of sport as it is in the interface between the Olympics and diplomatic flashpoints. This is evident from the start, where Beacom outlines his interest in diplomatic discourses, and his emphasis on the different political strands that go into Olympic diplomacy: bidding, hosting, boycotting, bridge-building, mediation and development all feature. The book is organised into two parts. Part One covers ‘Themes in Olympic Diplomacy’, and provides both historical and contemporary surveys on the International Olympic Committee, diplomacy, bidding, boycotting and, refreshingly for an international relations book, the Paralympic movement. Part Two is more historical, ranging from 1896 to 2012, with a case study emphasis on the British experience. This provides a narrative in which we can see certain trends mature over time, notably the British state’s sense of how to deal with dictatorships hosting the Olympics from Berlin 1936 to Beijing 2008. We can also see how new priorities have emerged in line with changing contexts, including devolution within the UK, the growth of public diplomacy, the role of the media in shaping diplomatic agendas and the rise in Olympic security since 9/11. In all of these areas, Beacom draws on extensive archival and press research, enhanced by interviews with diplomats and sporting administrators to help fill in the gaps in the state record created by the 30 Year Rule of the 1967 Public Records Act. Beacom also undertook action research interviews and observations at the pre-2012 training camps, which gave access to networks where he could see policy being played out at local levels. This fascinating mix of methods sets Beacom’s book apart from most other titles on Olympic politics, although there is inevitably the risk that the chosen case study – in this case, the UK – is atypical. However, Beacom sees this off and makes a good justification for using case studies to shed light on both the specific and the general. Overall, this book will be of great interest to Olympic scholars across the disciplines. While some of the historical material, particularly that relating to the twentieth century, is already familiar, Beacom’s interest in discourses, and his 2012 perspective, make it a challenging and stimulating read for historians, social scientists and scholars of international relations and politics. Beacom’s style is jargon-free and he has an eye for great quotations from his sources. This is a welcome addition to the growing library of Olympic scholarship that is already the key intellectual legacy of London 2012.