Even as custom or tradition that has outlived its
justification—which is not the same as usefulness—is
essentially deadwood, there is presumptuousness in redefining a concept or
event without regard to how it is understood. For example, Stephanie Meyers
disregarded one of the major confining attributes of the vampire lore in enabling the vampires of the Twilight saga to not only stand in the
sunlight, but actually sparkle! It was
as though Meyers felt she need not be constrained to fit into the folklore; she
could essentially redefine it. Were a reader to object, “that’s not a vampire then!” she would presumptuously state matter-of-factly, “yes it is.” This is
essentially subjectivity presuming to define social reality as a projection of
whatever the self wills. Any constraint on the self is presumptuously thrown
off as though with impunity. Modernity
itself may have this attitude in paying too little heed to established
definitions and practices in seeking to redefine them (mindlessly retaining
customs being the other side of the coin). The Olympics may be a case in point.
In February 2013, the International Olympic Committee
decided to remove wrestling form the 2020 Olympics. That the sport was among those
of the ancient Olympic games in Greece was apparently an easily-dismissible
factor. Although the committee did not disclose its reasons, the desire to draw
younger viewers, who follow potential alternatives such as climbing and
wakeboarding, was likely among the committee members’ reasons.
Wrestling was a sport in ancient Greece, as depicted here on this ancient vase. BBC
Although including new sports to make the Olympics relevant
to a contemporary audience is advisable, and keeping the games from growing
without limit is doubtlessly prudent, taking from one of the most Olympic sports
risks removing the distinctiveness of the games, as rooted in the sports of the
ancient games. “I think this is a really stupid decision,” an Olympic historian
said. “It was in the ancient Olympics. It has been in the modern Olympics since
1896.” The decision looks even more stupid relative to the committee’s action
to retain “rhythmic gymnastics,” which is basically dancing to music. In one
manifestation, the “gymnastic athletes” conduct artistic movements with
ribbons. Watching the performance, a
viewer is apt to wonder how dance had become a sport—not to mention an Olympic sport. Meanwhile, the ancient Olympic sport of wrestling is
expendable.
Two underlying problems, or mentalities, are evinced in this
case study. First, if rhythmic gymnastics is a sport simply because it is
scored and has an international federation, then virtually anything under the
sun could be classified as a sport.
The very term sport could become a
near-tautology. One person could mean one thing by the term while another
person means something else. The term
itself could become mere reflections of personal ideological agendas.
Secondly, dismissing something elemental to a concept while
continuing to admit and tolerate applications
exogenous to the unmolested concept essentially “morphs” the concept into
another without being intellectually honest in renaming the concept. If dance
rather than wrestling is the way the Olympics are to go, then at least shouldn’t
the games be renamed so people do not expect them to be the modern expression
of the ancient games. In other words, in expressing the basis of the games
still in ancient Greece, such as by starting the torch at the original site,
and yet shifting the games away from the ancient games and toward activities
that may not even be sports, the International Olympic Committee was at the
very least sending mixed signals—or worse, trying to have it both ways. The
result could be that the concept, Olympics,
becomes severely blurred in meaning. The culprit is the presumptuous ego bristling at any possible constraint.
Sources:
Mandi Bierly, “Olympics:
What’s Your WTF Sport? And Don’t Say Rhythmic Gymnastics!” EW.com, August
9, 2012.
