Forum
Sport
in
the
Peace
Movement —
A
Challenge
for
the
Sport
Science
SVEN
GÜLDENPFENNIG
Zentraleinrichtung
Hochschulsport;
Technische
Universität
Berlin;
Straße
des
17.
Juni
135;
D-1000
Berlin
12
(West),
Fed.
Rep.
of
Germany
Abstract
Sport
stands
in
ambivalent
relation
to
war
and
peace.
The
actual
peace
movement
has
shown
that,
in
its
new
dimensions,
the
total
threat
to
mankind
by
nuclear
armament
requires
a
"Copernican
turning
point"
in
political
thinking
and
acting
in
all
social
spheres.
Some
aspects
of
the
responsibility
of
sport
for
peace
are
described.
In
sport
politics
and
science
this
responsibility
is
discussed
controversially
between
the
concepts
"proprium"
and
"political
mandate"
of
sport.
They
reflect
general
obligations
of
sport
science
to
political
counselling.
Peace-political
and
-pedagogical
meanings
and
margins
of
action
of
sport
are
illustrated.
-
"One
has
to
bring
the
habitual
terms
into
a
new
frame
of
reference.
They
have
to
be
rethought
with
regard
to
the
logic
of
political
thinking
in
the
nuclear
age.
In
the
history
of
science,
revaluations
of the
whole
terminology
repeatedly
took
place.
Each
time,
the
transition
to
a
new
way
of
thinking,
which
extended
over
decades
or
centuries,
was
accompanied
by
a
merciless
struggle.
But
this
time
there
is
no
time
available
to
mankind.
The
logic
of
thinking
in
the
nuclear
age
must
be
comprehended
as
quickly
as
possible."
(G.
Ch.
Schachnasarow)—
Sport
in
the
Peace
Movement
of
the
Federal
Republic
of
Germany
1980-1984:
A
New
Phenomenon
&dquo;Sport
and
Peace&dquo; -
this
type
of
phrasing,
like
many
&dquo;sport
and ...&dquo; - formulas,
has
become
an
everyday
occurrence.
Nevertheless,
this
theme
is
very
new.
In
the
sport
history
of
the
Federal
Republic
of
Germany,
for
example,
one
would
search
almost
in
vain
for
explicit
reference
points.
The
discussion
about
sport
and
peace,
indeed,
got
its
decisive
impulse
from
the
general
peace
movement
which,
in
its
dynamic
development
since
1980,
reached
sport
as
well.
This
peace
movement
is
also
a
seemingly
new
phenomenon;
only
during
the
last
few
years
has
it
found
a
permanent
and
prominent
place
in
the
public
consciousness.
Actually,
however,
war
and
peace
are
naturally
an
age-old
theme
of
mankind.
And,
as
such,
justifications
for
war
as
well
as
for
involvement
for
peace
have
a
central
place
in
the
whole
history
of
philosophy
(R6hrs
1983,
p.
12-44;
Jakobs
1983;
Scheler
u.a.
1984).
In
this
framework,
the
relations
of
physical
culture
and
sport
to
war
and
peace
have
always
played
a
role.
Thus
sport
has
turned
out
to
be
204
an
ambivalent
phenomenon
which,
in
principle,
is
open
for
use
in
connection
with
war and
peace
(Güldenpfennig
1984a;
Güldenpfennig/Meyer
1983).
Nevertheless,
the
present
peace
movement
in
the
Federal
Republic
(as
well
as
worldwide)
is
characterized
qualitatively
by
new
aims
and
quantitatively
by
new
dimensions
of
mass
mobilization.
The
concrete
starting
point
of
this
activation
was
the
so-called
NATO
double
track
decision
of
1979
in
which,
in
connection
with
a
negotiation
offer
(which
then
proved
to
be
a
pretext),
the
deployment
of
a
technically
new
generation
of nuclear
weapons
on
West
European
soil
was
announced,
with
a
corresponding
installation
of
new
rockets
by
the
East
Block.
The
quickly
increasing
protest
of
the
peace
movement,
especially
against
this
decision,
which
seems
to
be
only
a
partial
problem
in
the
politico-military
development
till
now,
is
motivated
by
a
special
fear:
Just
these
announced
new
weapons
could
initiate
a
development,
in
the
course
of
which
the
nuclear
armament
escalation
could
get
out
of
control
(Bredthauer
1983;
Bonk
u.a.
1984).
Therefore,
the
main
aims
of
the
peace
movement
are:
-
complete
and
serious
comprehension
of
the
absolutely
new
quality
of
the
threat
to
mankind
from
nuclear
armament
and
of
the
historically
unprecedented
responsibility
of
the
present
and
all
future
generations
(Jonas
1983);
-
breaking
off
of
the
nuclear
armament
race
between
the
military
alliances
in
West
and
East
before
its
continuation
on
an
even
higher
level’ ;
-
mobilization
of
sufficient
oppositional
social
power
against
any
governmental
security
policy
which
contributes
to
more
insecurity
and
enhanced
danger
of
nuclear
war;
-
outlining
and
realization
of
forms
of
intra-
and
international
conflict-mastery
which
make
possible
and
promote
the
survival
and
the
further
humane
unfolding
of
civilization.
If
one
realizes
what
central
importance
military
power
and
security
needs
have
had
in
the
relations
between
and,
correspondingly,
in
the
political
thinking
of
peoples
at
all
times;
if,
at
the
same
time,
one
realizes
the
qualitative
and
quantitative
level
which
the
corresponding
armament
and
wide-reaching
politico-
military
strategies
today
have
reached
worldwide -
then
it
becomes
manifest
what
an
immense
revolution
in
the
political
thinking
and
acting
of
peoples,
and
of
their
political
and
social
institutions,will
be
necessary
to
interrupt
simple
extrapolation
of
classical
military
and
armament-political
tendencies
and
to
&dquo;turn
them
around&dquo;
into
true
peace
policies.
All
essential
politico-philosophical
thinkers
on
this
theme
emphasize
the
necessarily
revolutionary
character
of
this
rethinking
(Jaspers
1982;
Welzsdcker
1980;
Eppler
1981;
Jonas
1983;
Schell
1984;
Schachnasarow
1984;
Hocke/Scheler
1982).
In
this
connection,
the
necessity
of
a
&dquo;Copernican
turning
point&dquo;
has
even
been
spoken
of
(Holz/Sandkiihler
1982;
Gfldenpfennig/Meyer
1983).
Obviously,
it
can
only
succeed
if
it
is
actively
sustained
and
supported
by
all
social
spheres.
In
this
sense,
all
social
institutions
bear
common
responsibility
for
the
preservation
and
advancement
of peace.
That,
in
principle
and
unrestrictedly,
also
applies
to
sport
and
the
organized
sport
movement.
Correspondingly,
the
above-mentioned
general
targets
of
the
peace
movement
found
early
assistance
from
sport:
With
resolutions,
petitions,
demonstrations
and
peace
sport
festivals,
sportsmen,
officials,
physical
education
teachers
and
sport
scientists
support
those
general
aims
(Beck
et
al.
1983;
Gfldenpfennig
1984b;
Gfldenpfennig/
205
Wiewiorra
1984).
Also,
the
specific
ways
in
which
sport
is
affected
and
its
particular
forms
of
expression
always
play
an
important
role.
In
conferences,
seminars
and
educative
measures,
in
scientific
and
journalistic
publications,
the
intellectual
discussion
of
the
basic
problems
in
the
relations
between
sport
and
peace
has
been
initiated
(Güldenpfennig/Meyer
1983;
Gesellschaftliche
Funktionen
des
Sports
1984;
Sport
und
Frieden
1985;
Olympische
Spiele
1984).
There
are
two
reasons
given
for
this
involvement
of
sport
in
the
peace
movement:
On
the
one
hand,
an
&dquo;egoistic&dquo;
motive,
the
particular
vulnerability
of sport
to
general
political
developments
and
especially
to
politico-military
tension
or
d6tente,
war
or
peace2;
on
the
other
hand,
an
&dquo;altruistic&dquo;
motive,
the
above-
mentioned
general
responsibility
for
developments
relevant
to
peace
policy.
Protest
against
such
involvement
arose
early
as
well,
especially
from
the
great
majority
of
the
sport
association
leaders,
who
unquestionably
could
rely
on
the
support
of
a
large
number
of
members
of
the
sport
organizations.
For
this
point
of
view
also,
two
other
arguments
are
put
forward:
On
the
one
hand,
security
policy
should
be
the
exclusive
concern
of
government
institutions,
but
not
of
social-
cultural
organizations
like
sport;
on
the
other
hand,
(at
least
as
could
be
implied
from
the
relevant
statements)
the
political
position
summarized
in
the
NATO
double
track
decision
is
justified
for
the
defense
of
the
&dquo;freedom
of
the
West&dquo;
and,
consequently,
worthy
of
support3.
Behind
these
two
standpoints,
advocated
by
the
peace
movement
nation-wide
and
by
the
Deutscher
Sportbund
(more
precisely,
by
a
minority
and
a
majority
trend
in
the
sport
movement),
are
two
fundamentally
differing
opinions
about
the
general
socio-political
responsibility
of
sport:
-
The
majority
trend
explicitly
or
implicitly
supports
the
concept
of
the
&dquo;proprium&dquo;
of
sport
(Herms
1985).
Its
substantial
elements
are
presented
as
follows:
Sport
could
only
be
politically
effective
indirectly,
by
creating
its
own
specific
forms
of
activity.
Only
individuals,
but
not
the
organizations
of
sport
could
form
political
opinions,
and
they
could
be
represented
legitimately
only
in
political
institutions.
The
strict
general
political
neutrality
claimed
by
the
sport
organizations
is,
in
fact,
permanently
suspended
in
favor
of
support
of
the
prevailing
political
trends
in
the
Federal
Republic.
-
The
peace
movement
in
sport
explicitly
or
implicitly
supports
the
concept
of
a
&dquo;political
mandate&dquo;
for
sport
(Gfldenpfennig
1984c).
These
substantial
elements
are
presented
as
follows:
Sport
should
have
an
active
and
direct
influence
upon
those
social
developments
on
which,
according
to
historical
experience,
the
development
of
sport
itself
crucially
depends
(social-cultural
progress,
democratization,
promotion
of
peace).
Today,
the
whole
of
society
increasingly
brings
about
and
shares
the
responsibility
for
government
action,
even
in
international
relations.
In
today’s
complex
societies
each
large
social
institution
ought
to
take
part
in
the
transmission
of
the
meaning
of
the
crucial
problems
to
their
members
in
order
to
keep
those
problems
comprehensible
and
controllable.
Sport
organizations
could
not
be
politically
neutral
on
principle
and,
if
necessary,
should
be
capable
of
opposition
in
the
face
of
unreasonable
government
decisions.
What
does
the
sport
science
say
about
this
controversy?
206
Possibilities
and
Obligation
of
Sport
Science
for
Political
Counselling
on
the
Subject
of
Peace
in
Particular
Sport-policy
decision-making
of those
bearing
responsibility
in
the
sport
organizations
of
our
country
still
is
largely
restricted
to
pragmatic
weighing
of
actual
opportunities.
Critical
scientific
consultation
and
politico-ethical
examination
of
sport-political
action
are
hardly
sought
after.
This
pattern
of
behavior
is
based
on
the
expectation
that
policy
will
simply
continue
to
tread
the
traditional
paths
&dquo;as
usual&dquo;.
To
this
expectation
and
to
this
seemingly
small
need
for
enlightenment
corresponds
a
sport
science
which,
in
its
main
tendencies,
has
not
yet
perceived
the
fundamentally
changed
social
facts
and
perspectives
on
development
in
the
nuclear
age,
and
has
not
seriously
taken
them
into
consideration
with
regard
to
its
own
work.
For
the
first
time
in
the
history
of
mankind
the
Apocalypse
has
become
a
real
threat.
And
it
will
remain
so
for
the
rest
of
history,
because
nuclear
and
other
mass-destruction
weapons
can
never
be
&dquo;dis-invented&dquo;.
Henceforth
the
world
is
unavoidably
in
a
pre-war
situation
before
the
last
war
(Sternberger
1983).
Under
these
conditions
it
is
not
only
the
question
of
where
the
crucial
decisions
for
the
existential
problems
of
the
protection
and
advancement
of
peace
are
made
that
counts,
but
also
the
opposite:
Each
social
sphere
has
to
discover
all
its
specific
possibilities
and
to
put
them
into
practice
in
social
disputes,
no
matter
what
amount
of
political
influence
each
has.
The
Copernican
turning
point
in
political
thinking
and
acting,
to which
we
are
forced
by
the
nuclear
threat
if
we
want
to
survive
and
to
continue
developing
as
mankind,
unconditionally
demands
this
reversal
of
our
point
of
view.
Sport
is
also
not
absolved
of
this
responsibility.
The
science
of
sport,
with
few
exceptions
so
far,
has
gone
on
&dquo;diving
station&dquo;
in
the
face
of
the
task
of
enlightenment
in
that
required
mental
and
practical-political
reversal.
This
also
was
so
in
the
case
of
the
&dquo;overture&dquo;
to
the
actual
controversy
about
this
topic -
at
the
purportedly
peace-motivated,
but
in
fact
confrontative
Olympia
boycott
of
1980.
Some
insights
obtained
on
that
occasion
can
be
summarized
as
follows
(Gfldenpfennig
1981
and
1983):
Aside
from
the
controversial
questions
in
science
theory -
whether,
on
principle,
a
neutral
or
a
biassed
status
is
attributed
to
science -
the
following
can
be
considered
unquestionable:
Considering
current
political
problems
and
conflicts
and
the
corresponding
necessity
for
decisions,
the
scientist
can
assume
several
roles
and
tasks
(Heinemann
1980):
- He
can
supply
relevant
background
knowledge
about
the
political
setting
for
a
decision;
- He
can
outline
concepts
and
patterns
of
interpretation
for
the
evaluation
of
the
conflict
situation
and
offer
alternatives for
a
reasonable
choice;
- Afterwards,
he
can
carry
out
longer-term
systematic
research
projects
on
the
actual
conflict
and
its
applicability:
- Based
on
a
longer-term
survey
of
political
events
already
in
progress,
he
can
work
out
spontaneous
analyses
about
current
events
which
include
special
interests,
strategic
aims
of,
and
measures
taken
by
participants
in
the
conflict;
- He
can
address
the
direct
participants
in
the
conflict
or
more
or
less
directly
concerned
groups
with
analyses
and
commentaries,
the
form
of
communication
207
(expertise,
planning
paper
or
campaign
program,
popularizing
commentary
etc.)
differing
accordingly;
Finally,
motivated
by
his
scientifically
based
insight
into
the
current
conflict,
he
can
himself
actively
intervene
in
the
occurrence
through
political
action -
by
appeals,
petitions,
participation
in
demonstrations
etc.
in
case
of
perceived
undesirable
developments.
Thus
the
palette
of
possibilities
for
influence
includes
scientific
research
and
scientific
counselling
of
politics,
as
well
as
scientifically
based
personal
political
action.
The
degree
of
directness
and
effectivity
of
that
influence,
however,
can
vary
greatly.
It
depends
on
the
legitimation
need
and
the
assimilation
capacities
of
the
&dquo;receiving&dquo;
political
system,
on
the
quality
of
the
relevant
contributions
of
the
scientist,
on
his
general
acceptance
in
the
particular
political
environment.
The
basis
of
each
of
these
possibilities
of
influence,
however,
must
be
consideration
of
the
criteria
of
scientific
verification
and
verifiability
of
the
influence-seeking
statements,
if
he
wants
to
make
use
of them
as
a
scientist.
All
these
insights
could
and
should
be
brought
to
bear
on
the
sport-peace
theme
as
well.
In
some
of
the
treatises
already
mentioned,
approaches
to
this
can
be
found.
But
up
to
now
the
solely
pragmatic,
power-based
&dquo;reason&dquo;
for
politico-
institutional
action
in
sport
definitely
still
prevails.
As
in
other
social
spheres,
in
consideration
of
the
above-mentioned
altered
demands
on
sport,
this
is
no
longer
adequate.
Not
only
should
it
be
possible
to
submit
sport
in
practice
to
ethical
examination
and
justificationa,
but
the
policy
acted
upon
by
institutional
representatives
of the
sport
movement
should
also
be
theoretically
substantiated
and
ethically
justified.
To
this
end
a
thorough,
scientifically
systematic
study
of
the related
problems
is
necessary,
among
other
things.
It
must
be
removed
from
the
context
and
the
anti-
differentiating
habits
of
everyday
thinking.
Science
must
make
a
contribution
to
the
working
out
of
a
common
frame
of
reference
for
political
disputes,
a
common
basis
for
politically
conflicting
standpoints.
Only
in
this
way
can
the
prevailing
arbitrariness
and
the
&dquo;bar-room&dquo;
level
of
disputes
over
sport
policy
be
overcome.
Significance
of
Sport
in
Policy
and
Education
to
Peace
and
its
Margins
of
Activity
For
lack
of
space
the
available
preliminary
studies
toward
the
scientific
penetration
of
the
problem
area
of
sport
and
peace
cannot
be
summarized
and
discussed
here.
The
bibliography
should
be
a
stimulus
to
further
reading.
Only
some
further
considerations
can
be
presented.
Latitude
for
interpretation
and
activity
in
peace
policy
are
some
aspects
of
the
general
relations
between
sport
and
politics.
Thus
scientifically
founded
statements
are
only
possible
if
some
basic
elements
of
these
general
relations
are
clarified.
However,
scientific
as
well
as
everyday
thinking
are
mostly
characterized
by
oversimplification.
As
a
result,
the
opinion
that
sport
is
&dquo;political&dquo;
is
often
encountered
in
discussions
along
with
the
opinion
that
sport
is
‘’unpolitical&dquo;.
And
both
viewpoints
can
give
a
number
of
examples
from
real
life
to
support
them.
To
resolve
this
apparent
paradox,
a
theoretical
concept
is
needed
which
includes
both
provable
and
apparently
conflicting
positions
and
shows
that
they
are
actually
compatible
(Guldenpfennig
1981,
p.
15-41).
208
In
the
sport
system
two
aspects
can
be
differentiated:
sport
as
an
action
system
and
sport
as
an
organizational
(or
institutional)
system.
If
the
aspects
of
sport
practice
and
action
are
regarded
as
the
focal
point,
then
sport
is
in
essence
to
be
considered
non-political,
as
are
all
specific
patterns
of
action
beyond
political
action
itself.
Action
in
sport
is
carried
out
according
to
substantially
non-political
structural
principles,
peculiar
to
its
own
world
(Franke
1978).
Nevertheless,
practical
action
in’sport
can
also
be
a
point
of
departure
for
politically
relevant
experiences,
or
a
bearer
of
the
symbolization
of
political
circumstances
(e.g.,
sports
competition
as
a
model
of
peaceful
settlement
of
conflicts).
If
the
institutional-organizational
aspect
are
the
focal
point,
then
sport
can
be
regarded
as
political,
as
can
any
other
social
sphere.
The
internal
organizational
decisions
concerning
practical
action
in
sport
and
their
prerequisites,
as
well
as
the
mediating
functions
of
the
sport
institutions
between
sport
and
society
are
in
principle
subject
to
the
general
mechanisms
of
political
opinion-making
and
education,
decision-making
and
implementation.
In
this
sense
sport
is
thus
political
as
well
as
non-political.
Accordingly,
there
are,
applied
to
the
specific
relations
between
sport
and
peace,
directly
as
well
as
indirectly
politically
relevant
aspects:
Directly
politically
relevant
aspects
of
the
relations
between
sport
and
peace
are
on
the
institutional-organizational
level.
They
consist
of
the
political
dispute
over
the
setting
up
of the
prerequisites
to
practical
action
in
sport -
over
the
amount
and
provenance
of
material
resources
for
the
advancement
of
sport
(e.g.,
ratio
between
the
military
and
cultural
budget
of
a
given
country),
over
the
conditions
in
the
political
environment
of
sport
(e.g.,
a
climate
of
confrontation
or
cooperation
in
international
relations),
over
social
access
to
sport
(e.g.,
racial
segregation
or
non-discrimination),
over
the
procedures
for
participation
in
sporting
events
(e.g.,
boycott)
etc.
In
this,
general
political
conditions
are
effectual
in
the
development
of
sport,
to
which
therefore
the
sport
organizations
themselves
also
have
to
take
a
political
position.
In
this
context,
sport
has
a
political
mandate
and
thus
basically
also
a
mandate
regarding
peace
policy.
However,
sport
organizations
should
act
on
it
under
three
conditions
only:
-
reasonable,
non-sophist
provability
of
sport’s
susceptibility
to
general
political
developments.
This
is
clearly
possible
in
consideration
of
the
goals
of
the
peace
movement
mentioned
at
the
beginning
of
this
article.
-
the
existence
of
an
established
intra-organizational
tradition
of
opinion-
making
regarding
the
political
aspects
of
sport.
This
often
does
not
exist
with
regard
to
the
current
topic
of
peace.
However,
this
cannot
be
used
as
a
legitimation
for
inactivity
or
neutrality
in this
area.
In
view
of
the
above-
mentioned
susceptibility
of
sport,
it
is
rather
a
challenge
calling
for
increased
efforts
to
overcome
the
deficits
in
competence
in
sport-related
everyday
communication,
in
educational
measures,
and
in
the
establishment
of
political
counselling
organs
in
sport
organizations
as
well
as
in
sport
research.
-
Possibilities
of
sport
in
political
action.
There
are
various
types
of
political
activity
possible
with
peace
as
their
goal,
e.g.,
demonstrations,
resolutions
and
the
organization
of
topically
oriented
sport
festivals,
in
which
a
position
is
taken
to
current
politically
relevant
peace
problems
from
the
point
of
view
of
sport,
whereby
society’s
influence
on
related
government
decision-making
processes
is
strengthened
(Giildenpfennig
1984c).
209
Naturally,
given
the
generally
limited
economic
and
political
impact
of
sport,
these
possibilities
for
influence
will
likewise
be
limited
for
sport
by
itself.
However,
the
possible
demonstrative
and
symbolic
effects
should
not
be
underestimated
in
consideration
of
the
effect
on
the
masses
and
the
special
attractiveness
of
sport,
especially
within
the
framework
of
other
activities
of
the
peace
movement.
But
there
are
also
indirect
political
aspects
of
the
relationship
between
sport
and
peace.
They
are
on
the
practical
level,
especially
in
some
of
the
specific
structural
characteristics
of
sport
activity
itself.
Action
in
sport
can
be
designed,
interpreted
and
diffused
as
a
model
for
peaceful
competition,
and
beyond
this
as
a
model
of
the
indispensable
(in
politics
for
peace)
limitation
of
conflict,
as
an
institution
of
encounter
between
different
cultures
and
opposing
social
systems
among
many
other
things
(Gfldenpfennig
1984d).
This
potential
for
influence
by
sport
in
politics
(and
education)
is
comparatively
weak
in
day-to-day
political
controversies.
For
it
touches
upon
the
political
topics
only
in
a
general
and
symbolic
way,
and
is
not
applicable
as
power
politics.
Still,
it
provide
chances
for
a
longer-term
peace-promoting
effect.
Sport
can
make
use
of
its
possibilities
for
peace
in
politics
and
education
only
if
it
is
working
on
both
levels
simultaneously
and
to
the
same
extent.
But
these
findings
must
be
relativized.
It
is
a
question
of
possibilities,
not
of
actual
facts.
These
can
be
left
untried,
also.
Sport
is
an
ambivalent
phenomenon.
It
is,
in
principle,
open
and
&dquo;free&dquo;;
it
contains
the
tendency
to
peace
as
well
as
to
dissension.
Thus,
decisive
significance
is
given
to
the
free
decisions
of
the
supporters
of
sport
and
their
appropriately
designed
influencing
of
the
content
and
the
social
environment
of
sport
activities
and
organization.
History
shows
that
especially
the
peace-promoting
possibilities
of
sport
on
the
practical
as
well
as
political
level
are
not
automatically
effective.
But,
in
the
current
world
situation,
just
these
are
significant.
Sport
and
the
science
of
sport
must
therefore
accept
the
challenge
offered
by
the
threat
to
peace
and
by
the
peace
movement.
It
is
scientifically,
politically
and
pedagogically
fruitless
to
idealize
sport
and
make
it
appear
to
be
an
oasis
of
primeval
peacefulness,
as
has
often
been
done.
Rather
a
&dquo;peace
and
conflict
research
in
sport&dquo;
must
be
developed.
The
ambivalence
of
sport
in
regard
to
peace
must
be
seriously
considered
in
this.
On
this
basis,
it
must
remind
the
sport
world
of
its
responsibility
for
the
preservation
and
promotion
of
peace
and
illuminate
its
possibilities
for
action
from
all
sides.
Thus,
the
task
of
the
science
of
sport
is
to
outline
and
clarify
the
theoretical
framework
of
possibilities
and
the
margins
for
action
for
sport.
On
this
backdrop .
of
the
hypothetically
possible,
the
awareness
of
the
perils
and
omissions
of
the
possible
can
be
increased.
Therefore,
through
criticism
and
counselling,
the
science
of
sport
can
help
to
define
and
promote
the
role
of
sport
in
the
peace
movement.
210
Notes
I
For
the
Federal
Republic
of
Germany
this,
above
all,
is
formulated
in
the
so-called
&dquo;Krefelder
Appell&dquo;:
Bredthauer
1983.
As
an
example
for
constructive
ways
out
of
the
dilemma
of
the
armament
race:
the
proposals
in
the
Palme-Report
1982 and in Schell
1984.
2
This
concernedness
can
exemplarily
be
read
in
the
sport-related
consequences
of
the
two
World-Wars
of
this
century
and
in
the
boycott
events
of
1980
and
1984
(Guldenpfennig
1981
1
and 1984e).
3
The
decisive
elements
of
this
political
thinking,
which
is
orientated
on
the
absolute
priority
of
defending
&dquo;freedom&dquo;
against
&dquo;totalitarianism&dquo;,
have
already
been
exposed
in
detail
by
Jaspers
1982.
4
See:
Menschenwurde
im
Sport
1984. -
The
section
Sociology
of
Sport,
of
the
Deutsche
Vereinigung
fur
Sportwissenschaft,
held
its
symposium
in
November
1984
under
the
theme
&dquo;Sport
and
Ethics&dquo;
References
BECK,
M./LANGKOPF,
P./MEYER,
H.
(1983):
Die
Initiative
"Sportler
gegen
Atomraketen -
Sportler
für
den
Frieden".
Ein
Beispiel
für
allgemeinpolitisches
Engagement
im
Sport.
In:
Güldenpfennig/Meyer
1983
BETZ,
K./KAISER,
A.
(eds.)
(1983):
Wissenschaft
zwischen
Krieg
und
Frieden.
Berlin
(West),
Verlag
Ausbildung
und
Studium
BONK,
H./FRANKE,
K./PFAFF,
W.
(1984):
Friedenssicherung
und Abrüstung—zentrale
Fragen
des
Kampfes
im staatsmonopolitischen
Kapitalismus.
Berlin
(GDR),
Dietz
Verlag
BREDTHAUER,
K.
D.
(ed.),
(1983):
Sage
niemand,
er
habe
es
nicht
wissen
können.
Köln,
Pahl-Rugenstein
Verlag
EPPLER, E.
(1981):
Wege aus der
Gefahr.
Reinbek,
Rowohlt
Verlag
FRANKE,
E.
(1978):
Theorie
und
Bedeutung
sportlicher
Handlungen.
Schorndorf,
Hofmann-Verlag
Gesellschaftliche
Funktionen
des
Sports
(1984):
Schriftenreihe
der
Bundeszentrale
für
politische
Bildung
Band
206,
Bonn
GÜLDENPFENNIG,
S.
(1981):
Internationale
Sportbeziehungen
zwischen
Entspannung
und
Konfrontation.
Der
Testfall 1980.
Köln,
Pahl-Rugenstein
Verlag
— (1983):
Sprachlosigkeit
und
Einflußmöglichkeiten
der
Sportwissenschaft
bei
sportpolitischen
Entscheidungsprozessen.
Das
Beispiel
der
Olympischen
Spiele
1980.
In:
hochschulsport,
Vol.
X,
Nr.
1
— (1984a):
Philosophy
of
Relations
between
Sport
and
Peace.
In:
Dialectics
and
Humanism. The
Polish
Philosophical
Quarterly,
Vol.
XI,
Nr.
1
— (ed.)
(1984b):
Sport
und
Frieden.
Beiträge
zur
Meinungsbildung
innerhalb
des
Deutschen
Sportbundes.
Darmstadt,
ADH-Dokumente
zur
Sportpolitik,
Nr.
6
— (1984c):
Friedensengagement
in
der
Sportbewegung —
ein
Anwendungsfeld
des
politischen
Mandats
des
Sports.
In:
hochschulsport.
Vol.
XI,
Nr.
6
— (1984d):
Friedensfördernde
Werte
des
Sports.
In:
Gesellschaftliche
Funktionen
des
Sports
1984
-
(1984e):
Stirbt
Olympia?
In:
Olympische Jugend,
Vol
XXIXX,
Nr.
7
GÜLDENPFENNIG,
S./MEYER,
H.
(eds.),
(1983):
Sportler für den
Frieden.
Köln,
Pahl-
Rugenstein
Verlag
GÜLDENPFENNIG,
S./WIEWIORRA,
S.
(ed.),
(1984):
Sportler
gegen
Atomraketen —
Sportler für
den
Frieden.
Dokumentation.
Hamburg,
Eigenverlag
HEINEMANN,
K.
(1980):
Wissenschaftliche
Beratung
in
der
Sportpolitik.
In:
Sportwissenschaft,
Vol.
X,
Nr.
4
HERMS,
E.
(1985):
Die
Grundlagen
der Beziehung von
Frieden
und
Sport.
In:
Sport
und
Frieden
1985
211
HOCKE,
E./SCHELER,
W.
(1982):
Die
Einheit
von
Sozialismus
und
Frieden.
Zu
philosophischen
Problemen
von
Krieg
und
Frieden
in
der
Gegenwart.
Berlin
(GDR)
Dietz
Verlag
HOLZ,
H.-H./SANDKÜHLER,
J.
(ed.),
(1982):
Für
den Frieden -
Aufgaben
der
Philosophie
und
der
Wissenschaften.
Köln,
Pahl-Rugenstein
Verlag
JAKOBS,
K.-H.
(ed.),
(1983):
Das
große
Lesebuch
vom
Frieden.
Frankfurt/Main.
Robinson-Verlag
JASPERS,
K.
(1982):
Die
Atombombe
und
die
Zukunft
des
Menschen.
München/Zürich,
Piper-Verlag
(first
edition
1958)
JONAS,
Hans
(1983):
Das
Prinzip
Verantwortung.
Versuch
einer
Ethik
für
die
technologische
Zivilisation.
Frankfurt/Main,
Insel-Verlag
Menschenwürde
im
Sport.
Symposium
Januar
1982
(1984):
Akademieschrift
der
FVA
des
Deutschen
Sportbundes,
Nr.
19,
Berlin
(West)
Olympische
Spiele
in
Los
Angeles -
ein
Beitrag
des
Sports
in
der
internationalen
Friedensarbeit?
(1984):
Tagung
März
1984.
Protokolldienst,
Nr.
19,
Bad
Boll
Palme-Report
(1983):
"Common
Security".
Report
of
the
Independent
Commission
on
Disarmament
and
Security
Issues.
London.
Pan
Books
Ltd.
RÖHRS,
H.
(1983):
Frieden -
eine
pädagogische
Aufgabe.
Braunschweig,
Westermann-
Verlag
Agentur
Pedersen
SCHACHNASAROW,
G.
Ch.
(1984):
Die
politische
Logik
des
Nuklearzeitalters.
In:
Blätter für
deutsche
und
internationale
Politik,
Vol.
XXIX,
Nr.
11
SCHELER,
W.
(1984):
Die
Philosophie
des Friedens
im
Kampf
gegen
die
Ideologie
des
Krieges.
Berlin
(GDR),
Dietz-Verlag
SCHELL,
J.
(1984):
The
Abolition.
New
York,
Alfred
A.
Knopf Publ.
Sport
und
Frieden
(1985):
Akademiegespräch
November
1983.
Akademieschrift
der
FVA
des
Deutschen
Sportbundes,
Nr.
24,
Berlin
(West)
STERNBERGER,
D.
(1983):
Wir
leben
im
Unkrieg.
Der
Friede
ist
der
letzte
Sinn
der
Politik.
In:
Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung,
18.11.1983,
p.
7
WEIZSÄCKER,
C.
F.
von
(1980):
Der
Garten
des
Menschlichen.
Beiträge
zur
geschichtlichen
Anthropologie.
Frankfurt/Main,
Fischer-Verlag
Le
sport
dans
le
mouvement
pacifique -
Un
defi
pour
les
sciences
du
sport.
Résumé
Le
sport
a
des
rapports
ambivalents
avec
la
guerre
et
la
paix.
Le
mouvement
pacifique
actuel
a
d6montr6
cette
corrdlation
dans
ses
nouvelles
dimensions:
la
menace
totale
de
I’humanit6
5
l’époque
nuci6aire
r6quiert
un
&dquo;retournement
copernicain&dquo;
de
la
pens6e
et
de
1’action
politique
dans
tous
les
domaines
sociaux.
Quelques
aspects
de
la
responsabilit6
collective
du
sport
en
faveur
de
la
paix
sont
decrits.
Dans
la
politique
du
sport
et
les
sciences
sportives,
cette
responsabilit6
collective
est
discut6e
de
manière
controverse
entre
les
concepts
&dquo;proprium&dquo;
et
&dquo;mandat
politique&dquo;
du
sport.
Ces
concepts
refl~tent
l’obligation
g6n6rale
des
sciences
du
sport
envers
la
consultation
politique.
L’importance
et
le
champ
d’action
de
la
politique
et
la
p6dagogie
pacifiques
du
sport
sont
illustr6s
a
I’aide
d’une
description
theorique
du
caractère
politique
du
sport.
Sport
in
der
Friedensbewegung -
Eine
Herausforderung
fur
die
Sportwissenschaft
Zusammenfassung
Der
Sport
steht
in
ambivalenten
Beziehungen
zu
Krieg
und
Frieden.
Die
aktuelle
Friedens-
bewegung
hat
diese
Zusammenhdnge
in
ihren
neuen
Dimensionen
gezeigt:
Die
totale
Be-
drohung
der
Menschheit
im
Nuklearzeitalter
erfordert
eine
&dquo;kopernikanische
Wende&dquo;
im
politischen
Denken
und
Handein
aller
gesellschaftlichen
Bereiche.
Einige
Aspekte
der
Mit-
212
verantwortung
des
Sports
fur
den
Frieden
werden
beschrieben.
In
Sportpolitik
und
Sport-
wissenschaft
wird
diese
Mitverantwortung
kontrovers
diskutiert
zwischen
den
Konzepten
&dquo;proprium&dquo;
und
,.politisches
Mandat&dquo;
des
Sports.
Diese
Konzepte
stehen
im
Rahmen
der
allgemeinen
Verpflichtungen
der
Sportwissenschaft
zur
Politikberatung.
Mit
Hilfe
einer
theoretischen
Beschreibung
des
politischen
Charakters
des
Sports
werden
friedenspoliti-
sche
und
-p5dagogische
Bedeutungen
und
Handlungsspielr5ume
des
Sports
erldutert.
El
Deporte
en
el
Movimiento
Pacifista-un
Reto
para
la
Ciencia
del
Deporte
Resumen
El
deporte
se
encuentra
en
una
relaci6n
ambivalente
con
respecto
a
guerra
y
paz.
El
movimiento
pacifista
actual
ha
demostrado
que,
en
sus
nuevas
dimensiones,
la
amenaza
total
de
la
humanidad
en
la
era
nuclear
exige
un
&dquo;punto
coperniano&dquo;
en
el
pensar
y
actuar
politicos
en
todos
los
sectores
sociales.
Se
describen
algunos
aspectos
de
la
responsabilidad
del
deporte
para
la
paz.
En
la
politica
y
ciencias
del
deporte
se
discute
de
forma
controversial
esta
responsabilidad
entre
los
conceptos
&dquo;proprium&dquo;
y
&dquo;mandato
politico&dquo;
del
deporte.
Estos
conceptos
se
situan
en
el
marco
de
las
obligaciones
generales
de
la
ciencia
politica
para
el
asesoramiento
politico.
Se
describen
significados
politico
y
pedag6gico-
pacifistas
y
margenes
de
acci6n
del
deporte..
213
CnOpT 14
gBxweHme
CTOpOHHI4KOB
Mupa -
BbI30B
HayKe
O
cnopTeo
Pe3»Me:
CnOpT
HaXOfII4TCH
B
fIByCTOpOHHI4X
OTHOIIIeHI4HX
K
M14py 14
K
BOfiHe.
3Ty
CBH3L M
3aBMCMMOCTb
oco6eHHO
OCTpO
nOKa3aJI0
COBpeMeHHOe
IXBm)KeHme
3a
M14p :
TOTanbHan
yrp03a
qeROBeqeCTBY
B
aTOMHOM
BeKe
Tpe6yeT
&dquo;nepeBopOTa
KonepHZZKa&dquo;
nor»THUeCKOH
Mncjin M
AeA-
TeIIbHOCTLi
BO
Bcex
06WeCTBBHHbIX
06JIaCTRX.
Eanee
OnYIC6IBalOTCFf
HeKOTOpbIe
acneKTM
pOn14
CfIOpTa
B
KOJYJIOKTHBHOn
OTBeTCTBeHHOCTI4
3a
Mxp.
B
nOJILiTLIKe
cnopTa
B
HayKe
o
cnopTe
pa3pa6oTaHEi
cnopHMe
KOHuenumm
O
TaK
Ha3bIBaeMOM
&dquo;npOnp14yM&dquo;
T.
e.
CBOHCT-
BeHHOM
criOPTY 14
&dquo;nOnI4TI4UeCKOM
MaHnaTe&dquo;
cnopTa.
3TLi
KOHUenUI414
BnHCHBaMTCH
B
o6myIO
o6H3aHHOCTb
HayKYI
0
cnopTe
COBeTOBaTb
no-
n14T14Ke
no
onpezen6HHMM
BonpocaM.
flpl4
nOMOIIII4
TeOpeTHUecKOro
onrzcaHrrtR
nOYrT4TmqeCKoro
xapaKTepa
cnopTa
nOKa3aHb!
ero
3HaueHHe
KaK
fiaKTOpa
6opb6bl
3a
Mvtp
B
riejlarori4Ke m
nontzTHKe rz
ero
B03-
MOXHOCTH
npaKT14UeCK14X
fle%CTBI4%.
