LETTERS: As the Olympic hype fizzles, one thing is certain - there will be no comparable excitement to revive it when the Paralympic Games open in Paris today.
This is despite the widely circulated announcement by the International Paralympic Committee (IPC) that this will be the first Games to broadcast all 22 sports live across more than 160 countries and territories.
The Paralympics have long played second fiddle to the Olympics, and an increased coverage is unlikely to be reciprocated with equivalent viewership.
The reality remains that society has yet to fully embrace the Games.
Granted, the performative displays at the Paralympics are markedly different from those at the Olympics, but it would be misplaced to perceive the former as inferior.
The immense physical and emotional strain that Paralympians endure, coupled with the high level of resilience required of them, deserves attention.
In fact, it would not be an exaggeration to argue that Paralympic performances, though less valued socially and economically, embody a purer form of sport; they represent a legitimate undertaking fuelled by passion rather than by status or financial rewards.
It must be accepted -without the need to feign political correctness- that the Olympics' greater appeal stems from social conditioning that normalizes able-bodied competitiveness as the benchmark for sporting excellence.
One contributing factor is the conventional education system, which has long been, albeit unwittingly, a custodian of normative ideals in society.
For example, though not explicitly taught, students are generally led to infer that discipline is reflected in the ability to adhere to rules without dissent; career success depends on securing strong grades; and good leadership is demonstrated through a leader's unwavering commitment to democratic ideals.
In essence, perspectives that widely correspond with local and/or global mainstream ideas are readily recognized as social norms.
However, history has shown that numerous iconic figures achieved status through acts of defiance, much like how many business magnates neglected academic priorities to pursue entrepreneurial aspirations.
Additionally, democratic values can become questionable during crises that call for autocratic measures. The nuanced contradictions within these institutionally propagated 'ideal' norms are largely masked by societal demand for excessive and unbalanced standards of excellence.
It is therefore unsurprising that in the realm of sports, excellence is defined by jaw-dropping, superior levels of athleticism that exceed the capabilities of most impaired athletes.
Pierre Bourdieu's theory of social reproduction offers a framework for expanding on this phenomenon, particularly in understanding how the majority, middle class-endorsed social norms reproduce inequalities across generations. As a process, social reproduction entails the passing down of values and resources that reinforce social hierarchies.
Central to this are the concepts of cultural, social, and symbolic capital. Applied to the context of the Olympics, cultural capital represents the ideal physical strength and skills of athletes, while social capital is signified by the strong public interest, lucrative sponsorships, and extensive media coverage accorded to the Games.
Together, they craft an image of prestige, a form of symbolic capital that reinforces able-bodied athletic standards. In principle, these different forms of capital converge to establish normative benchmarks i.e. the types of sporting excellence that are valued, which are then perpetuated by education systems, media and even family institutions.
This explains society's strong identification with Usain Bolt and Lionel Messi as sporting greats and role models, while athletes like Trisha Zorn, a 41-time Paralympic gold medallist, remain unheard of even among sports enthusiasts.
Conscientious members of society have increasingly strived to address such disparity by raising the visibility of disability groups. While encouraging, efforts to boost social awareness do not always achieve the desired results; they often lead to new forms of reproduction that continue to exclude the marginalized.
The portrayal of Paralympians, which often gravitates towards heart-wrenching stories of adversity, is a case in point.
These representations evoke a predictable wave of public compassion, often the default response to accounts of personal misfortunes.
Well-intentioned as it may be, directing attention to an athlete's disability can come across as patronizing, especially when considered from the perspective of Paralympians, whose impairment, rather than achievements, are spotlighted.
This is far from constructive, particularly at a time when the spirit of the Games is itself being questioned. As Keith Gilbert and Otto Schantz remarked in their book The Paralympic Games: Empowerment or Side Show?, the event is a source of novel entertainment based on physical differences- a sporting circus of curious bodies.
This is arguably far-fetched and represents an extreme view that need not be readily agreed with; the Paralympics, through its noble mission, has undoubtedly inspired and transformed the lives of many, both disabled and otherwise.
Nonetheless, there may be traces of truth in the authors' scepticism that should not be overlooked—not in relation to the integrity of the Games, but in the way audiences engage with them. In other words, there could be an unintended, subtle emotional attraction to the event due to its overt display of impairment.
This image of the Paralympics further undermines impaired bodies. Consequently, Paralympians are constrained in their ability to convert their 'compromised' cultural capital into the same level of symbolic capital afforded to other renowned able-bodied sports personalities.
One of Great Britain's most decorated Paralympians, Tanni Grey-Thompson, alluded to this in one of her interviews by pointing out how certain segments of society continue to devalue her competence by persistently offering unsolicited help, despite her polite refusals.
This certainly impacts an athlete's self-esteem, who, instead of being looked up to, is constantly seen as lacking autonomy. It is amidst this backdrop that navigating the sensitivity of social discourse on disability becomes increasingly important.
Efforts to gain social legitimacy must not be eclipsed by overly sympathetic narratives about the disabled, as this could reverse intended outcomes and perpetuate norms that disempower rather than uplift.
This is a concern that transcends sports and is relevant to a broad range of social settings. Each impairment-induced experience calls for a tailored, context-sensitive response.
However, striking the right equilibrium is challenging; it is not always clear how much empathy constitutes adequate care and at what point it becomes condescending instead.
Practically speaking, there is no set formula for determining this, and educational institutions cannot reasonably be expected to deliver standardized academic-based solutions for emotionally complex problems.
What can be expected of these institutions, however, is to foster an ecosystem that promotes critical examination of established societal standards, with a particular focus on their implications for social justice.
This includes permitting the interrogation of norms ingrained in its very own institutional practices. This is not an over-the-top plea, considering education's position as arguably the most powerful agent of social reproduction.
It therefore follows that any social transformation the sector seeks to initiate should first be reflected in its own environment, especially in the treatment of students with varying abilities.
Attempting to overhaul normative discourses through curriculum redesign alone is unlikely to succeed without concrete reforms in its broader operational structure.
As the Bourdieuan principle suggests, elevating an ideology from the periphery to mainstream status requires the activation of all forms of capital.
In this sense, a more inclusive ideological narrative on physicality requires cultural capital or organizational resources that focus not only on an ethically grounded curriculum but also on thoughtfully designed facilities and assistive technologies for impaired individuals who are part of its conventional systems.
Likewise, the same level of attention given to social capital such as industry engagements and internship placements must also be invested in support networks for underrepresented communities.
This includes counselling and career guidance tailored for students with special needs.
Effecting meaningful changes such as these and beyond is critical in equipping educational institutions with the ideal symbolic capital i.e. the reputational credibility to advocate for progressive social benchmarks, casting aside any lingering doubts about it merely being a tickbox exercise for compliance purposes.
Aligning these capital components sets in motion the process of establishing new social norms capable of dismantling existing inequitable hierarchies.
To reiterate, the aspiration for an equitable social order cannot be purely ideological; it must be accompanied by tangible forces within organizations that normalize the needs of the disabled.
That being said, this should not be misunderstood as an effort to negate perceptible distinctions between the able-bodied and the disabled.
Rather, it is geared towards advancing that the latter, while inarguably dissimilar from the majority population, should be recognized and treated as differently abled, not as abnormalities.
DINESH NAIR
UK Government's Chevening Scholar;
Graduate, Master of Arts in Social Anthropology (Distinction),
University of Manchester