Sport is a tool: language in Sport for Development and Peace

I am a bit of a word nerd. I get a kick out of interesting turns of phrase and word play. I also get a bit too involved in word choice and deconstructing terms. Luckily I’m now a graduate student and my thesis will probably involve looking at the language that is used in sport for development curricula.

I am also lucky that sport for development, or development in general I suppose, are both overflowing with interesting uses of language. I wrote about buzzwords in an earlier post. Some development bloggers have already written about language. Aidthoughts has two posts - one onbuzzwords and one on the rhetoric of change. Allana Shaikh has written a few posts about language, including one on words she doesn't use.

I feel like a dork when I spend time deconstructing something seemingly harmless. I try to console myself with the belief that language plays a role in shaping the world in which we live, so investigating language can be a worthwhile endeavour.

Some of the most common phrases in sport for development derive from the idea of using sport, using the power of sport, or using sport as a tool.

We must use the power of sport as an agent of social change

– Kofi Annan

Using the transformative power of sport and play to build essential skills in children and thereby drive social change in communities affected by war, poverty and disease

– Right toPlay

'Sport & Development' refers to the use of sport as a tool for development and peace

– International Platform on Sport and Development

I could have easily included dozens of more examples.

So, what is the problem with this language?

Comparing sport to a tool - or talking about being able to use sport - is misleading. It presumes that sport is a functional object that can produce specific outcomes. It focuses the field on outcomes as opposed to the process. Whether you use a hammer to build a house, or you use a girlfriend to get access to her toy collection (sorry for the Seinfeld reference. Actually, after writing that, 'toy collection' sounds quite sexual, but it is very literal in referring to a toy collection. Maybe I should just think of another analogy as I am getting sidetracked...), anyways, when we are using something, the outcome is the focus and the object or person being used is not considered in more than an utilitarian sense.

I can’t get over the idea that when we use an object we are usually degrading, or devaluing, that object. I've wondered if it's the same with sport for development. We are using sport, but what does sport get out of it? I don’t mean to anthropomorphize sport, but only to consider that by focusing on the utility of sport and the outcomes that can be produced we may be neglecting the possibility that sport is a complicated process. It is not a hammer with a defined shape and function, but is more like a mixing bowl – ingredients can be added, but it is the process they undergo in the mixing bowl that will determine the outcome.

Additionally, I believe that in focusing on outcomes and downplaying the complex nature of development there is a risk of perpetuating an ineffective process. The prime example of this is the recent controversy with the Central Asia Institute and Greg Mortensson. The author of Three Cups of Tea was able to sustain somewhat dubious practices by hiding behind the mantra of education saving the world and having people want to believe it. Similar problems are occurring in the microcredit sector as well with hyperbolic rhetoric. I am not implying that education and microcredit are bad or ineffective. My concern is that it can be problematic to only preach about the power of an intervention and neglect the actual complexities involved.

I understand that simplified slogans may be needed to promote and raise money for causes. I also understand that a lot of organizations that use rhetoric are aware of the complexities involved in the sport for development process. However, I worry that when slogans are repeated constantly to promote and justify sport for development that they become taken-for-granted and ingrained in our thought processes. When this occurs I think there is a risk of implementing programs that are as superficial as the rhetoric that accompany them.

June 15, 2011

Does Sport for Development need a Razzies?

A couple of months ago I came across a recent initiative from Engineers Without Borders. They launched a new website www.admittingfailure.com. And a failure report for 2010. The motivation for these endeavors is based on a view that “The development community is failing… to learn from failure. Instead of recognizing these experiences as learning opportunities, we hide them away out of fear and embarrassment”.

When I first heard about this I thought it was connected to a ‘Fail Fair’. Similar to any conference I suppose, but it would encourage organizations to share previous difficulties and attempt to learn from them. I’ve done some research and now can’t remember where, or if, I heard about a ‘fail fair’, but it doesn't matter much.

I was recently able to sit down with a colleague and during our conversation I brought up the EWB idea and he had an interesting insight. He mentioned the fact that it might be antithetical for people from a sporting background to celebrate failure. As well, it might be difficult for organizations that need to compete with each other for funds to high light their failures. However, I think the most successful athletes and teams would admit that it is necessary and productive to learn from failure.

While I was in Lesotho I had thought about writing a post on the number of award ceremonies connected to sport for development – it might seem like I’m going off-topic, but I’ll bring it around in a second. Maybe I was just selectively focusing on it, but during the World Cup and even now it seems like there are quite a few sport for development award ceremonies. I think we have more award ceremonies than the entertainment industry. But, at least the entertainment industry has the Razzies

(I heard about this for the first time this year. It's an event held each year at the same time as the Oscars to recognize the worst. I believe this year The Last Airbender was the big winner/loser).

It would be a bit extreme and counter-productive to high light the worst sport for development initiatives, but I wonder how productive it is to constantly be patting ourselves on the back.

Movember and the Commodification of Social Causes

Movember has been around for a couple of years, but seems to be catching on more this year. I haven’t joined in. I just think I look pretty good with a moustache.

I apologize for the hair, but it is a hangover from Oc-fro-ber (raising awareness of electrical safety). Actually I don't apologize. I think the hair compliments the moustache quite well. I also just made up Ocfrober (electical safety month), but if BC Hydro wants to use it I only charge a small consultancy fee.

I don’t have a problem with Movember. I think it can be a good thing if people are willing to put themselves out there to raise money and attention for a cause. What interests me is that there seems to be a commodification taking place in which advocates are focused on marketing and selling their causes through gimmicky or viral methods. I recently listened to an old LSE (London School of Economics) talk on celebrities and humanitarian work and it gave me the same impression. The speakers touched on many issues, but the one thing that stood out for me was the fact that many humanitarian organizations are using, and sometimes hiring, celebrities to advocate for their cause in the same way that a company would hire the celebrity to advertise their product.

It would seem that organisations are now targeting possible supporters as consumers. Give people a catchy superficial glimpse into your cause, or do something attention getting – like growing a moustache, climbing Mt. Kilimanjaro, or riding a long board from Nairobi to Mombasa – and people will reach for their wallets, forward an email, click the 'like' button, or paste something on their status on facebook.

For the most part we are a market-driven attention deficit society, so maybe humanitarian organizations need to compete for our attention and money the same way that profit-making organizations do. The problem I see is that by looking at people simply as consumers there is little chance for any meaningful engagement. When causes need to be sold as products then the people affected will need to be packaged in a certain way.

An example of this is a recent awareness raising campaign for autism – Communication Shutdown Day for Autism - that called on people to participate in a day of social media silence. I assume this was to give people an appreciation for communication difficulties. However, a number of people with autism felt that this awareness raising campaign did not represent them and started a counter-campaign, Autistics Speaking Day, which was planned for the same day as the Communication Shutdown and called on people with Autism to use social media to tell their stories.

November 12, 2010

FIFA, the IOC, and Sport for Development: Is the flock being led by wolves in sheep's clothing?

When Liu Xiaobo won the Nobel Peace Prize earlier this month I came across a couple of articles that briefly mentioned the possibility of the International Olympic Committee (IOC) receiving the award. At the Winter Olympics in Vancouver this past February, some IOC members also stated that the IOC should campaign for the prize.

I am working in sport for development. On some level I believe sport can have a positive impact on individuals and communities, so I should support the IOC. I don’t want to generalize, but I believe most people in sport for development would welcome the IOC winning the prize (if you have read my blog before you might notice that I usually preface a generalization by stating that I don’t want to generalize. It is how I plan my escape if I am ever confronted with facts). I attended the Olympics in Beijing and I was in Vancouver for the build up to the Winter Olympics there. I am a fan. I think they are entertaining events and I will probably attend more in the future. Preceding the Olympics in Vancouver the IOC was granted observer status by the United Nations. Observers have the right to speak at UN General Assembly meetings, participate in some voting, but not vote on anything substantive. Again, this is something that you think I would support. It was supported within sport for development. A comment from a reader of the article I have linked to makes the connections between the IOC and sport for development:

“The observer status for the IOC at the General Assembly is not only a great result for the Olympic family, but is a special occasion to express the potential of sport for peace and development. I hope next step could be to support the idea of Nobel Price for Peace for the IOC.”

At the time of the UN announcement and more recently with the Nobel Peace Prize articles I found myself having some nagging thoughts. Is the IOC in a position to represent sport for development? It is impossible to deny that the IOC is a profit-making entity. It is an organization that some may identify as being self-serving, corrupt, and complicit in violations of human rights. Some may point to the Olympic Movement and claim that the ideals enshrined in this movement are Nobel noble and worth supporting. I agree with that, but the question still remains as to whether the IOC is the appropriate flag bearer for these ideals? The IOC seems to try. In addition to numerous partnerships with the UN it has also undertaken its own initiatives. Last year it launched its Sports for Hope Project. This involves building sport-for-all facilities in developing countries. It appears similar to a programme it started in the late 80s called the Olympafrica Programme, which seems to have faded away. Are these partnerships and programmes representative of the ideals that the IOC claims to value? During the 2010 Winter Olympics, the IOC and the Vancouver Organizing Committee decided to the banish Right to Play from the athletes' village. RTP is an organization that was borne from the Olympics. It evolved from an entity called Olympic Aid that was formed during the 1994 Olympic Games in Lillehammer and is dedicated to providing children in some very difficult situations with opportunities to play. In previous Olympics they were allowed to establish a presence in the village to promote their work. General Motors, Kodak, and Royal Bank of Canada were official sponsors of the Olympics in Vancouver; Mitsubishi, Scotiabank, and Canon sponsor RTP. As a result of this sponsorship conflict, RTP was excluded from the Olympic village. IOC is guided by profit and it will make decisions based on finances and not on ideals.

Until this point I have only talked about the IOC, but I could have replaced that acronym for another and it would be pretty much the same. A couple of weeks ago two FIFA executives were caught offering to sell their votes for the 2018 and 2022 World Cups. It is not the first time this has happened, it will not be the last time, and it is not even that bad compared to other FIFA dealings. I would recommend checking out a book by Andrew Jennings called FOUL! the Secret World of FIFA: Bribes, Vote Rigging, and Ticket Scandals, or his website, or the website for Play the Game.

Since João Havelange campaigned and won the presidency of FIFA in 1974, and then continuing through Sepp Blatter’s reign, there has been a significant amount of investment in football development in developing countries. I say investment in football development, but what I mean is that FIFA gives money to national football associations with the stated purpose being to develop the game, but then does little in the way of monitoring or holding the associations accountable. From a political stand point it would not make sense for FIFA to hold the national associations accountable. The presidency of FIFA is decided on a one-country-one- vote system. If Sepp Blatter gives large sums of money to the national associations of poorer countries with few or no strings attached then it is likely that those countries will want to keep him in power.

Money has been distributed through the Financial Assistance Programme and the GOAL Programme. Lesotho is part of both of these programmes and has received over $500,000 for projects over the past 5 years according to the FIFA website. According to a newspaper article earlier this year in Lesotho, LEFA (Lesotho National Football Association) is receiving $250,000 per quarter - $1 million a year. From the FIFA documents, 6% of funding should go towards youth football and 12% towards technical development including female football. Well, there are no youth football structures in Mafeteng - I can’t comment on other districts - and the leaders within women’s football have called on FIFA to cease funding female football because the funds don’t reach them.

This has been going on for some time, but now FIFA is also becoming involved in the sport for development scene. The distinction is that sports development aims to develop the sport itself. Sport for development aims to use sport to accomplish any number of social objectives. A few years ago FIFA initiated its Football for Hope and Win in Africa for Africa campaigns. Both involve using the power of football to address various social or development issues. Part of the Football for Hope programme involves another project called 20 centres for 2010. One of the centres will be built here in Lesotho through an organization called Kick 4 Life.

Similar to my posts on Poverty Porn and donating equipment, there are positives and negatives that could be identified with the involvement of the IOC and FIFA. Being involved with both would be a huge boost for funding, exposure, and publicity. In addition, having large well known organizations supporting your cause can lend legitimacy and credibility to what you are doing, particularly for a relatively new field of work. On the other hand when I see FIFA or the IOC claiming to represent or champion for the field of sport for development I cringe. Many sport for development organizations seek to provide opportunities to those who lack opportunities. Kick 4 Life targets orphaned and vulnerable children – particularly street children. FIFA and the IOC, through their actions, have proven that they do not care about marginalized individuals, or people who lack opportunities. Previous Olympic Games and the World Cup in South Africa brought with them complaints of displaced peoples, suppression of rights, and crack downs on already marginalized groups: street vendors, the homeless, street children, minority groups.

FIFA and the IOC care about making money. They are basically corporations, albeit corrupt, nepotistic corporations without systems of transparency or accountability. The centres and funding that they are providing for sport for development organizations should be seen as a form of corporate social responsibility and nothing more. If you are running a healthy living campaign maybe you decide to accept some funding from McDonalds. That’s fine. I wouldn’t judge that decision – maybe I would a little bit actually. You put a little Golden Arches logo on the bottom corner of your posters, no harm done –actually maybe there is a little harm done. However, if McDonalds uses the opportunity to portray their organization as a beacon for the healthy lifestyles movement then I think things would need to be reassessed. If healthy living organizations submit to McDonalds' self-selected position as a contributer to their movement then there is a risk that the movement itself will lose credibility. The same is true for sport for development. If we can consider sport for development a sector, or a field of work, or a movement, then to have FIFA and the IOC set themselves up as pillars within this sector is dangerous for the credibility of sport for development.

October 30, 2010

Sport-for-Development and Social Capital – Where’s my t-shirt?

From my previous posts I think it is obvious that, in my own mind, I am still trying to articulate how, or if, sport can be used to address various issues. I think that the predominant dogma within sport for development and peace (SDP) is focused on life skills and behaviour change.

(Image from Right to Play Website)

I have a hard time with these concepts. Trying to identify why people do what they do is already difficult, if not impossible, so I am slightly skeptical of organizations that believe their programmes can change behaviour.

As an alternative I am interested in a concept called social capital. I have been reading a book called ‘Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community’ by Robert Putnam, which focuses on social capital. Putnam describes it as the following:

'Whereas physical capital refers to physical objects and human capital refers to the properties of individuals, social capital refers to connections among individuals – social networks and the norms of reciprocity and trustworthiness that arise from them.’

I may be accused of being a hypocrite as I am dismissing one debatable social theory for another debatable social theory. However, I see sport as having the potential to bring people together and form connections. Sports programmes, if organized appropriately, can provide safe social spaces for people to bond. According to Putnam these social connections will ultimately benefit society. Others within development are also aligned with this. The World Bank has stated that ‘social cohesion is critical for societies to prosper economically and for development to be sustained.’ However, similar to behaviour change, it is difficult to prove if sport can contribute positively to building social capital.

Until recently I did feel that SDP could play a role in building or maintaining social cohesion. I still believe that sport can accomplish this, but I fear that many SDP projects may actually hinder this process. The distinction that I should make clear is that when I say 'sport', I am referring to the common conception of locally developed community-based sports structures. By SDP, I am referring to external organizations, such as Right to Play, that target specific groups, offer resources and support, and possibly implement programmes.

Social capital requires interpersonal trust and reciprocity. It is difficult for externally driven SDP programmes to accomplish this. If anything, programmes risk creating resentment and suspicions. A recent conversation with one of the coaches I am working with highlighted the challenge. The conversation took place at a youth tournament. The coach was watching the matches, but I had anticipated that his team would be participating. He informed me that his team had collapsed and he was in the process of finding more players. I asked him what happened to his team and he explained that the problem was the result of an earlier tournament we hosted.

In July we held a small event to celebrate the World Cup. As with most events here, we had planned on distributing t-shirts to participants. As an aside, I should just say that the t-shirt culture connected to events is interesting. As an example, the English Football Association hosted a workshop here in July. They did not give out any shirts. The participants did not react well and blamed the Lesotho Football Association for taking the shirts. It became a major issue at the workshop and escalated to the point where the Lesotho Times reported on it. Anyways, through a combination of my poor planning and the last-minute involvement of a number of teams we did not have enough t-shirts for everyone at the July event. As a result we decided that the shirts would be divided up equally and given to the teams; after which, the coaches and their players would decide what to do with the shirts. The coach I am referring to decided to use the shirts to reward those players who had been the most committed and were attending sessions on a regular basis. This rationale didn’t seem to placate the parents of the children who did not receive any shirts. The parents pulled their children off of the team. They accused the coach of using the team as a means to attend these events and benefit personally. Even some of the children who did receive shirts were pulled from the team as parents believed that at the next event maybe their child will be the one who does not receive anything. I think that the collapse of the team may have also involved some other issues, but our involvement contributed to the mistrust that resulted in the team dissolving.

The fact is, SDP programmes introduce resources and opportunities into communities that may lack both. When I meet people and explain what I am doing many people will ask if they can be involved; even if they have never been involved in football and are not interested in sport they still want to participate. It is seen as an opportunity. They might receive a certificate that they can mention on their resume, they might believe that the project will expand to include jobs for which they can apply, or there might be some other way they can leverage their involvement. The problem that results is that everyone wants to participate, so in the process of including and excluding people you are creating ‘haves’ and ‘have-nots’. This may actually foster resentment within the community.

This situation is exacerbated through the process in which SDP programmes target specific groups. Because of the size of NGOs, as well as the requirements of donors, many projects will have a narrow focus. This narrow focus is also encouraged by funding organizations and is supported by individual donor behaviour. A programme that targets orphaned and vulnerable children, children with disabilities, former child soldiers, children living on the street, or girls is more likely to get funding. This narrow focus, with particular attention to marginalized groups may be derived from our own (Western) drive for inclusion and providing marginalized groups with access to services. It is not my intention to argue against providing services to traditionally excluded groups. However, I wonder why it is necessary to target specific marginalized groups with services that are lacking for nearly everyone. Why would an organization introduce a sports programme targeting street children when almost all children lack access to similar programmes? There may be a social agenda tied to targeting the specific group, but again, this process will exclude people and create ‘haves’ and ‘have-nots’. Will this have a positive impact on social cohesion?

In saying that I still believe sport can contribute to social capital I am referring to locally conceived, developed, and implemented programmes. If international SDP programmes want to have a positive impact I believe their mission should focus on supporting locally developed programmes and sporting structures.

Oa Hao Lipapaling (Yours in Sports)

September 25, 2010

Oa Hao Lipapaling – Yours in Sport

One of the coaches I am working with came into the office yesterday and asked if I could help him draft a letter of invitation for a tournament he is organizing. Formal letters of invitations are a fairly common occurrence here and I still haven't developed the literary skills to pull off such a letter, so I suggested the coach write a draft of the letter in Sesotho and then I would print it out on my computer.

He took a couple of minutes to write the invitation and then passed it over to me. My Sesotho still isn’t that great so as I was typing it up I would only pick up the occasional word or phrase. At the end of the letter, where you have the complimentary close – such as ‘sincerely yours’ (I actually had to do a google search to find the appropriate term for this) the coach had written ‘Oa Hao Lipapaling’. I recognized this pretty quickly as meaning ‘Yours in Sport’. I am not sure if this is a common way to close a letter in other parts of the world, but it resonated with me immediately because of a book I recently read during the World Cup.

While I was travelling around South Africa for the World Cup I used the time to stock up on some books. Fittingly, I ended up purchasing a number of books relating to soccer in Africa. I read two during the World Cup – ‘Feet of the Chameleon’ and ‘Football United’.

Both were quite good. The chapters covered a variety of stories relating to soccer in different African countries. Another book that I bought, but didn’t read until I returned to Lesotho was called ‘More than Just a Game’. It told the story of how the prisoners on Robben Island – the prison that was used during apartheid to hold political prisoners – organized and ran their own soccer league for a number of years. It detailed the struggle that they had to go through to have the ability to play and then how the league itself became a political tool for the prisoners in their negotiations for better living conditions.

The league was very well organized and incredibly formal. The author theorized that the inmates were governing their soccer league the way they expected their country to be governed. All correspondence had to be done through written means, which wasn’t easy since paper was difficult to access. At the end of each letter the sender would finish with the complimentary close ‘Yours in Sport’. Before reading this book I had never come across this expression, but when I read the Sesotho version of it I couldn’t help but smile.

Oa Hao Lipapaling

September 9, 2010

Problem of Proximity - Outsiders and Social Change

The work that I am doing now means that I am cast as the outsider. Through the blogs that I read I recently came across an excellent analysis of being an outsider in international work (click here). In the post itself the author briefly mentions the possibility of local knowledge containing biases. Even before I read that post I was writing my own reflections on being an outsider and questioning the impact of outsiders on social change. In some of my meetings in Lesotho I am often confronted with local experience as rationale for supporting or criticizing an initiative – I don’t mean to imply that this is either all good or all bad. Sometimes this local knowledge is relevant and necessary, but at other times it has come across as biased or fatalistic. I have wondered if proximity to a problem develops this bias.

In 2007 I was able to travel to Tibet while I was living in China. I was there for about a month. What confuses me to this day is how issues around Tibetan-Chinese relations are such a popular cause – I suppose the Dalai Lama and Richard Gere had something to do with it. I guess I was expecting some serious repression by the Chinese, but the amount of cultural and religious practices that seemed to be preserved surprised me. I am not sure how the comparison came into my head and it may be completely inappropriate, but while I was in Tibet I started to think about the situation of First Nations people in Canada (Native Canadians/ Americans). To me, it seems that the Tibetans have been able to retain their cultural and religious practices to the same extent or even more so than First Nations in Canada - This judgement may be slightly biased because I was a tourist in Tibet and may have been exposed to more culturally relevant experiences.

I understand that it is asinine to discuss which of two oppressed groups is ‘better off’. I think this would be about as effective as a school yard argument about whose dad would win in a fight or which super hero is stronger. I am just interested in how people perceive social problems that occur within their society and within external societies.

I believe that many Canadians dismiss issues involving the First Nation population as problems that can be attributed to the First Nations themselves. These same Canadians may decry what the Chinese government has done to the Tibetans and take on Tibetan independence as a social cause.

People may be incredibly interested in issues relating to global poverty, but at the same time dismiss the homeless man situated on the street corner outside their apartment as a drug addict, or alcoholic, who is responsible for his own problems. I think I could be included as an example as well. I am currently working internationally, but I haven’t been as interested in working with similar issues in my own community.

Is it easier to join a cause that addresses an external social problem so that it is simpler to rationalize away your responsibility for, or involvement in, that social problem? If I identify local issues as societal problems then I am being critical of the society that I live in, participate in, and contribute to. Unless I am hypocritical or delusional I would need to examine my role in that society and how I may be contributing to those social problems. However, if I take up an external cause I don’t have to waste my time with any of that introspection and reflection.

If people are less likely to identify problems as societal problems then is an outside perspective necessary?I am not trying to justify or rationalize my involvement in international work, but am also referring to outside influences such as media, education, or travel

September 7, 2010