Eros vs. Ares. Can the Ancient Olympic Ideal of Peace Survive Modern Realities?

Transcription

1 21 Eros vs. Ares Can the Ancient Olympic Ideal of Peace Survive Modern Realities? HEATHER REID - USA I. The Relevance of Ancient Ideals T o the ancients, an Olympic victory was imagined as a visit from the winged goddess Nike, who swooped down from Olympus to briefly bless the mortal athlete with a divine crown of sacred olive. To us modems, Olympic victory is more likely to be associated with Nike, the multi-national mega-company, which swoops down from Wall Street to briefly bless the athlete with a fat paycheck and temporary status as a corporate shill. Just as the corporate Nike differs from the goddess after whom it is named, the Modern Olympic Games differ in important ways from the ancient festival that inspired them. For one thing, they are a mere centurylong flash in the pan compared with the millennium-long history of the ancient festival. If the ancient philosophical foundations of Olympism are allowed to crumble, the slick modern festival will come crashing down just as fast. The strength of the Olympic Games, ancient and modern, derives from the ideals that inspire them. To preserve the spirit of Olympism, we must come to understand its philosophical ideals. In asking the modern movement to be inspired by ancient ideals, however, I am asking for us to do more than learn what our predecessors did. I am asking us to seek an answer to the question of why they did it, and to find common ground between their reasons and ours. In the language of the Greek philosopher Plato, we are seeking to understand universal "forms," so that their truth might guide us to better shape our reality. Peace is quite clearly this kind of universal ideal: simple to apprehend, difficult to comprehend, yet valued and sought by humanity at every point in history and in every part of the world. I would add that the promotion of idealism seems particularly urgent in today's "postmodern" world where personal and social lives are said to be driven by capitalism, individualism, relativism, and the pleasure principle. The more relevant point, however, is that the Olympism has always been idealist, and remained so in the face of countless challenges from those who would exploit it for profit, pleasure, or politics. Only insofar as the modern movement actively understands and 231

2 consciously preserves such core Olympic ideals as peace, does it have the chance of surviving the future. II. Eros vs. Ares: Can the Olympics Promote Peace with Conflict? Peace is widely recognized as the central goal of the Modern Olympic Movement. But what on earth makes us think that international peace and good will can be promoted through competition among national teams? Although the Olympic Charter states explicitly that the Olympic Games are competitions between athletes and not between countries (Article 9.1), there is no denying that the games provide a stage for the expression of international rivalry and conflict, which potentially breeds nationalism and divisiveness. This unsettling reality makes the goal of the Olympics seem paradoxical: can peace really be promoted by staging international conflict? Or should the Olympic movement remove all pretense of promoting peace and admit its status as a sports-entertainment product that profits by manipulating nationalistic emotions and staging mock battles among political foes? My position is that the Modern Olympic movement must retain the ancient ideal of peace and that international athletic competition can just as readily promote peace in the modern world as it did in ancient times. World peace is no more of a reality today than Pan Hellenic peace was at the time of the ancient games. Their society was at least as warlike as ours, and the Olympic Games featured cultural and political rivalries just as bitter as those seen today. Contests between Spartans and Athenians, between mainland Greeks and those hailing from Sicily or Asia Minor, were no doubt as emotionally charged as the modern battles between Belgium and Germany, China and Taiwan, or the USA-USSR. Political rivalries probably destroyed the contest on occasion in antiquity, as they did in Hungary's bloody water-polo match against the USSR in Nevertheless, the Ancient Olympic Games persistently promoted peace it was, after-all, the reason they had been founded. Although the games clearly failed to eradicate war and enmity, they tirelessly declared their truce and brought diverse people together to engage in rule-governed, non-violent struggle. 1 Athletes were supported, rewarded, and rooted on by their particular city-states, but the overall emphasis at Olympia was on everyone's common Greekness. To go to Olympia was in some sense, to be Greek. The Games' ability to promote an atmosphere of friendship and solidarity among diverse peoples is foundational in the noble and eternal struggle for peace. Like their ancient ancestors, the Modern Olympic Games can and do promote international peace though competition among nations. Such competition need not breed chauvinism, contempt, or violence. On the contrary, athletic competition among diverse groups of people promotes peace by transcending worldly conflicts, demonstrating cooperative, nonviolent struggle, and promoting human commonalities while respecting difference. The paradox of making competition a means to peace is typical of the Delphic Oracle that is said to have proposed it. This paradox can be resolved, however, if we take a closer look at the nature of athletic competition, specifically its suggestion of such concepts as mutual respect, equality before law, and 232

3 moral community three ideas common to ancient and modern philosophies of peace. To the extent that the Modern Olympic Movement promotes and preserves these ideals in the face of challenges from power-politics, it can effectively promote peace within and among today's ever-belligerent nation-states. First I will examine the philosophical nature of peace, then I will look at its connection to sport and the Olympic Games, and finally I will consider some specific challenges to peace at the Olympics. III. What is Peace? The greatest good is [...] peace and goodwill among men. Plato, Laws I 628c As important a topic as peace is, surprisingly little philosophical writing has been dedicated to it. The philosophers, who do write about it, differ over whether peace is the natural state of humanity or not. Thomas Hobbes famously declared mankind's natural state to be one of warring enemies in a world dominated by "scarcity and fear." 2 The Renaissance Christian Erasmus counters that every sort of being--animal, vegetable, and mineral has a sense of peace and concord; human beings need simply to follow the examples given by Nature. 3 Whatever their disagreement about which state is the natural one, however, nearly all philosophers agree that war exists and will continue to do so despite the fact that peace is clearly the more desirable state of affairs. How, then, do we strive for peace? What are the proper conditions? The general philosophical conception of peace contains three major concepts: mutual respect, voluntary submission to common laws, and the idea of a world community. MUTUAL-RESPECT The foundational tenet of peace is directly connected to the Olympic value of humanism. It is simply recognition of others' humanity, a basic respect for human commonalities and needs. No matter what else I know about you, I know you are also a human being and therefore deserve a certain amount of respect and compassion just as I deserve basic respect and compassion from you. Mutual respect among human beings is precisely respect granted despite worldly differences such as race, sex, religion, or class. Even long-time enemies and condemned criminals deserve a basic modicum of respect--what we today term "human rights." Our ability to grant basic respect to one another, despite urges to the contrary is a defining characteristic of our humanity indeed we often describe such acts as "humane." The concept of human rights has at least some roots in Ancient Greece strange as that may seem for a society that accepted slavery and infanticide. One of the oldest and most identifiably Hellenic ideas is that of xenia or hospitality, a tradition that insisted Greeks welcome the stranger and provide for his basic needs all before knowing anything about him. It was a kind of unwritten pact among human beings, with obligations for the guest as well as the host, which was believed to be enforced by Zeus himself. 4 At least one Hellenic myth recounts a god, disguised as a traveler, being turned away from house after house before taking refuge with the poorest couple in town; by morning the couple's house was a palace and they never wanted for anything 233

4 again. Xenia is also demonstrated in Homer's Odyssey, where the Phaeacians welcome the stranger Odysseus to a feast and friendly athletic games (VIII.546-7), while the Cyclops and suitors dishonor the unwritten pact and suffer accordingly. The tradition of xenia shows the importance of overcoming such common human sentiments as fear and hostility in the face of a stranger. By doing this it effectively clears out a space where the roots of friendship and brotherhood might take hold. The need for such a space was not lost on Kant, who declared "universal hospitality" to be the third definitive article in his plan for perpetual peace among nations. No doubt aware of the ancient Hellenic tradition, Kant understood it to be guaranteed not by gods but by the fact that all human beings share common ownership of the earth's surface. 5 Nations may have certain borders and interests, but the globe itself is a kind of bordered community in which all human beings are entitled to certain basic rights. 6 He calls this "cosmopolitan right" borrowing the Greek term that means "citizen of the world." VOLUNTARY SUBMISSION TO COMMON LAW/RULES (SOCIAL CONTRACT) Kant's concept of cosmopolitan rights derives directly from the idea of a cosmopoliteia, or world community, although Kant stops well short of suggesting that all nations merge into one. Instead he suggests a civil contract among nations, akin to the classic concept of a social contract, in which individuals give up just enough individual freedom to secure the much greater freedom of peace. 7 This submission to a common law is viewed as completely voluntary because it is completely rational. By agreeing not to attack you, I can gain freedom from the threat that you will attack me. The inestimable good of human freedom depends on our cooperation as long as we must live together in a limited space. Since the world itself is limited in terms of space, rational nations must secure their freedom by making agreements to live together in peace. The nation that refuses such an agreement must be either irrational, or more interested in power than peace. Both Kant and Erasmus follow the Greek philosophical tradition of placing politics in the service of morality. Noting that differences of language and religion tend to push human beings toward war, Kant points to universal human reason as the basis for such morality. 8 In other words, whatever our national, cultural, or even personal differences, we are all subject to moral laws derived from universal human reason. Just as an individual's greed may lead her to violate the social contract and steal her brother's treasure, so a nation's lust for power (or wealth) leads it to violate the demands of morality and attack another nation. Nations who voluntarily agree to be governed by moral logic give up the freedom to steal their neighbor's lunch, but they also gain the freedom to eat their own lunch in peace. 234

5 INTERNATIONALISM/WORLD COMMUNITY From the seeds of mutual respect and voluntary submission to a moral law, the basic social contract among nations may grow into a richer world community in which diverse cultures and peoples not only avoid interference, but thrive. This is a dream, to be sure, but it is a very old dream that bloomed when the Socratically-inspired philosophy of Greek Stoicism faced the unprecedented racial and religious diversity of the Roman Empire. Both the Emperor Marcus Aurelius and the slave Epictetus embraced the essential unity of all mankind. Stoics viewed humanity as something like a single organism that depends for its health on the well-being of all its parts. 9 The stoic philosophers themselves hailed from every edge of the empire and must have found as much strength in their cultural diversity as philosophical agreement. Their cosmopolitanism did not advocate a withdrawal from particular communities (or even from participating in their communities' wars), rather it posited a higher human community of which each individual is simultaneously a part. For the stoics, the existence of nations and the wars between them was part of the imperfection of the world. The cosmopolis just was an unrealized ideal but such ideals change how we see the world, and especially how we come to see other human beings. Those who dream and write about ideal societies where peace prevails are frequently accused of uselessly building castles in the sky; but most often they are fully aware that the ideal is unrealizable. Throughout his plea for peace, Erasmus laments the warring he finds ubiquitous among mankind even among professors in the University and monks in the monastery. 10 Kant ends Perpetual Peace with the declaration that making a just and peaceful world is a duty, "though only through an unending process of approximation to it." 11 In philosophy, peace is always an ideal, but one that inspires mutual respect and voluntary cooperation among human beings, with an eye toward a world community that values diversity. IV. What is Olympic Peace? Some people are surprised to leam that peace is the ultimate goal of the Olympic Games, but the connection runs deeper than the olive crown and olive branch. It goes back almost as far as the Olympic idea itself. According to Pindar's 10 th Olympian Ode, Heracles was the mythological founder of the Games. He marked off the altis and dedicated it to peaceful competition, using part of the spoils of war against the King who had cheated him from payment for cleaning his stables. Because he had conquered the area through war, however, the locals thought of him as an enemy, and at some point his games stopped. Pausanias (V, 4, 6) tells us that King Iphitos of Elis re-established the games upon the suggestion of the Delphic oracle as a solution to the problem of enmity and warring among the Hellenes. 12 The oracle's wisdom in suggesting competitive games as a way of promoting peace may be surprising, but the thousand year success of the games and the truce that accompanied them is strong testament to the power of an international sports festival to promote peace. The Olympic festival instantiates the three philosophical aspects of peace discussed above: mutual-respect, voluntary cooperation under common rules, 235

6 and a spirit of multiculturalism in the following way. First, it provides a peaceful gathering of representatives from all around Hellas in ancient times and all around the world today. Second the games themselves demonstrate that diverse people can be governed voluntarily by the common rules of the game. Third, the games celebrate the excellence and diversity of humanity generally as the current Olympic slogan "Celebrate Humanity" neatly attests. PEACEFUL WORLD GATHERING The ancient and modern Olympic games instantiate the first philosophical foundation for peace, mutual respect, quite simply by marking off a time and place in which diverse peoples, who might otherwise be strangers or even enemies, can come together and interact peacefully. In ancient times, the vehicle necessary for such a gathering was an official truce, known as ekecheiria, which did not actually stop wars, but allowed people from all over Greece to travel safely to Olympia, transcending the worldly conflicts between their city-states. The Olympic festival provided such an opportunity for peaceful interaction that it was frequented by historians, philosophers, poets, and many others who relished the opportunity to share their particular excellences. Of course, the religious dimension of the ancient games helped to "enforce" the truce, and of course, it was not fail-safe. 13 But truce violations were notable for their rarity, and the effectiveness and duration of the ancient Games and their truce stands as a monument to the struggle for peace. 14 The Modern Games and their own attempt at Olympic truce have been both more ambitious and less successful with regards to creating a time and space for mutual respect. Very early in their history, the Games were stopped by world wars. On the other hand, they lack the religious basis of the ancient games and they seek to unite even more diverse groups of people. Despite differences of language, culture, and religion much greater than those faced in Hellas, the modern Olympic festival consistently strives and frequently manages to be a place where everyone in the world is welcome and expected to respect everyone else in stark contrast to the world as presented on the evening news. Furthermore, although the modern Olympic Truce usually fails its goal of stopping conflicts around the world for the duration of the games, the successes they have are remarkable. For example, a brief cease-fire during the Balkan war allowed thousands of children to be vaccinated. The passing of the Olympic torch has prompted brief periods of truce as well. The point of truce is to get one's foot in the door, to create that time and place where mutual respect is demanded and peace may have a chance to take root. This, then is the first aspect of Olympic peace: the establishment of a peaceful world gathering. VOLUNTARY COOPERATION The second philosophical aspect of peace I discussed was a kind of social contract among nations: the voluntary submission to common rules. Noting that a free man would subject himself to the possibility of a public flogging if he violated the rules of the contest, archaeologist Stephen Miller concludes that isonomia or the concept of 236

7 equality before the law may be the greatest "creation" of ancient athletics. 15 In our modern world where international law is already a fledgling reality, the idea that athletic games could be at the root of such a concept may seem strange. But just try to name another place where citizens from different communities governed by different laws get together and agree to be guided by one set of rules. Remember too that at time of the first modern games, there weren't standardized international rules. Competitors in the discus and shot events didn't know what weight they would be throwing. It was in fact the establishment of the Olympic festival that spawned most international sports federations and the subsequent standardization of the rules. Meanwhile, recent archaeological evidence suggests that competitors in the ancient hoplitodromos used standard equipment that was stored at the stadium. 16 But more important than the standardization of rules is the general fact that athletic contests require all athletes to voluntarily adopt them. No matter their social or political status, the rules of the contest treat them as equal to every other competitor and, in a sense, force them to treat others as "equal under the law." Athletes may do this grudgingly, especially where worldly differences exist, but they must enter the agreement in order to have the chance of victory. But perhaps more important for the goal of peace, international contests such as those in the Olympic games provide a spectacle in which the world sees diverse people treating each other as equals and voluntarily submitting to common laws. So the Olympic Games manifest the second philosophical aspect of peace, voluntary submission to common law, in the structure and administration of their athletic contests. In fact, athletic contests may have created the notion of equality before law. MULTICULTURALISM (COMMONALITY & DIVERSITY) The final philosophical aspect of peace discussed was internationalism or the notion of a world community. In its ancient manifestation, the Olympic Games could reach no higher than the unification of all Hellenes, but that we should not underestimate that task. Imagine making the modem inhabitants of the same regions of Greece, Turkey, and Italy feel like one nation! Amazingly, however, the Olympics have been able to simultaneously emphasize commonalities while pointing out differences another paradox that reflects the nature of humanity itself. What might now be called multiculturalism is another notion as old as sport itself. In a simple contest like a 100 meter race, all the competitors start as equals, then the victor is celebrated for the difference in excellence her performance reveals and get this the whole thing is celebrated. The key is that sport is grounded in our common humanity, then by teasing out differences in excellence, it celebrates not just the excellence of the victor but of humanity itself. Look how fast human beings can run! This celebration of humanity is a cosmopolitan spirit. In ancient sport, the victor was associated with the victim of ritual sacrifice. 17 This makes sense because religious sacrifice just is the act of dedicating the best that you have to the god or gods. So in choosing the winner, we are choosing the best among us, and we are celebrating their excellence as an ideal example of our human community, the cosmopolis. Athletes are 237

8 most able to appreciate the excellence of their competitors, because they know that the quest for excellence is a human struggle and not a national or racial one. Indeed, it is the athletes in their Olympic interaction, inside and outside of the competitive arena who display a kind of international community to the world. And it is the athletes, when they abandon national ranks and enter the closing ceremonies as one united world, who provide perhaps the greatest symbol of cosmopolitanism known in the modern world. So finally, the Olympic games manifest the philosophical ideal of internationalism, by creating a temporary (and peaceful) world community on display around the globe. V. Can Peace Survive Politics? Little time and space remains to discuss modern challenges to this Olympic ideal of peace, but it will have been obvious from the beginning that I take an understanding of the ideal to be more important than the particular challenges to it. The most obvious challenge to the Olympic ideal of peace may seem to be the use of national teams in national uniforms and the raising of a nation's flag during the award ceremonies. I do not believe that these are an impediment to the peaceful goals of the games. Nations need to be unified too, and athletes such as Spiridon Louis or Jesse Owens have helped to overcome internal barriers to peace. Furthermore, athletes are certainly better representatives of a nation's citizenry than soldiers or politicians (who are the usual representatives on the world stage). Just as athletes can compete in a spirit of friendship and solidarity, it is possible to root for one nation without becoming chauvinistic and focusing on the belittlement or destruction of other nations. Since it is usually nations that go to war, it is a beautiful thing for nations to go to peace every four years at the Olympic Games. The games remind us that we are so much more than nations and that the beauty of our diversity greatly overrides the weight of our worldly differences. 238

9 Endnotes Here I am using the term 'violence' to contrast games with war, in which the objective of the activity is to kill or disable one's opponent. Although such ancient sports as boxing and pankration were violent, and sometimes resulted in death, death was not the intention of the contest and in some cases the dead man was posthumously awarded the victory. Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan (Indianapolis, IA: Library of Liberal Arts[1651] 1958), p Erasmus, "The Complaint of Peace," in The Essential Erasmus, translated by John P. Dolan (New York: Mentor Books[1510] 1963), p Walter Burkert, Greek Religion, Translated by John Raffan (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1985), p ImmanuelKant, Perpetual Peace and Other Essays, Translated by Ted Humphrey (Indianapolis, IA: Hackett [1795] 1983), 358. Ibid., p Ibid., p Ibid., p William L.Davidson, The Stoic Creed (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1907), p Erasmus, p Kant,, p Pausanias, Guide to Greece: Volume 2: Southern Greece, Translated by Peter Levi (London: Penguin, 1971), p There is even one account of a battle taking place within the Altis during the games. On the other hand, the city-state of Elis, that organized the games, felt no need to construct protective walls so widely recognized was their dedication to peace (Pausanias x) For more on the ancient games' ability and effectiveness in peace see Stephen G.Miller, Ancient Greek Athletics (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2004), p Ibid., p. 18 and p Ibid., p See especially D.Sansone, Greek Athletics and the Genesis of Sport (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988). 239