申办奥运会:争论剖析

Douglas Booth
{"title":"申办奥运会:争论剖析","authors":"Douglas Booth","doi":"10.5406/26396025.5.1.04","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n In this article, I draw on the philosopher of history Hayden White's typology of arguments to explain different accounts of bidding for the olympic games. White's typology helps explain the irreconcilable disconnect between representations of bidding for and hosting the olympic games put forward by the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and its academic supporters in olympic education, on the one hand, and their critics, on the other. While I advocate for contextual-based arguments as the most appropriate for understanding bidding at different points in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, I conclude with an irony: the IOC's representations of bidding and hosting, which are based on organicist arguments presented in romantic and idealized narratives, continue to resonate better with a broad audience than fact-laden and eloquent contextualist arguments.","PeriodicalId":497710,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Olympic studies","volume":"20 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Bidding for the Olympic Games: An Anatomy of Arguments\",\"authors\":\"Douglas Booth\",\"doi\":\"10.5406/26396025.5.1.04\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n In this article, I draw on the philosopher of history Hayden White's typology of arguments to explain different accounts of bidding for the olympic games. White's typology helps explain the irreconcilable disconnect between representations of bidding for and hosting the olympic games put forward by the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and its academic supporters in olympic education, on the one hand, and their critics, on the other. While I advocate for contextual-based arguments as the most appropriate for understanding bidding at different points in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, I conclude with an irony: the IOC's representations of bidding and hosting, which are based on organicist arguments presented in romantic and idealized narratives, continue to resonate better with a broad audience than fact-laden and eloquent contextualist arguments.\",\"PeriodicalId\":497710,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Olympic studies\",\"volume\":\"20 2\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Olympic studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"0\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5406/26396025.5.1.04\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Olympic studies","FirstCategoryId":"0","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5406/26396025.5.1.04","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在本文中,我借鉴历史哲学家海登-怀特的论证类型学来解释关于申办奥林匹克运动会的不同说法。怀特的类型学有助于解释国际奥林匹克委员会(IOC)及其奥林匹克教育学术支持者和批评者对申办和举办奥林匹克运动会的表述之间不可调和的脱节。虽然我主张以背景为基础的论点最适合于理解二十世纪和二十一世纪不同时期的申办工作,但我以一个具有讽刺意味的观点得出结论:国际奥委会对申办和主办奥林匹克运动会的表述是以浪漫和理想化的叙述方式提出的有机主义论点为基础的,与充满事实和雄辩的背景主义论点相比,这些表述仍然更能引起广大受众的共鸣。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Bidding for the Olympic Games: An Anatomy of Arguments
In this article, I draw on the philosopher of history Hayden White's typology of arguments to explain different accounts of bidding for the olympic games. White's typology helps explain the irreconcilable disconnect between representations of bidding for and hosting the olympic games put forward by the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and its academic supporters in olympic education, on the one hand, and their critics, on the other. While I advocate for contextual-based arguments as the most appropriate for understanding bidding at different points in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, I conclude with an irony: the IOC's representations of bidding and hosting, which are based on organicist arguments presented in romantic and idealized narratives, continue to resonate better with a broad audience than fact-laden and eloquent contextualist arguments.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信