Power, Politics and International Events.

Socio-cultural Analyses of Festivals and Spectacles

Udo Merkel, Udo Merkel

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2013
• ISBN:
  9781136250224
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Commerce
• Subtopic: Industrie de l'hôtellerie, du voyage et du tourisme

Although the event management field has grown considerably over the last decade, critical, social-scientific studies of the international events industry are rare. This book intends to help fill this void. It focuses on power, social and political relations, conflicts and controversies in the context of international events, popular festivals and famous spectacles. It draws on recent primary research and offers a diverse range of new and intriguing case studies, for example the Arirang Festival in North Korea, the Gay Games, the Gymnaestrada, horse-racing events, the London 2012 Olympics, regional and rural festivals, the World Baseball Classic, World Fairs/Expos and U2 concerts.

The main aim of this volume is to bring the critical, social-scientific analysis of events, festivals and spectacles more into the core of the teaching of events management degree programmes. The book draws extensively upon the disciplines of politics, sociology, cultural studies and history.In the process, it addresses key themes such as:

• political economy
• politics of popular culture
• the global and the local
• regionalism and globalization
• nations and nationalism
• international relations and foreign policy.

This groundbreaking collection of essays is unique and innovative. It will be an essential source for students, researchers and academics with a keen interest in critical, social-scientific analyses of events.

Part I

Introduction

1 The critical, social-scientific study of international events

Power, politics and conflicts

Udo Merkel

The central themes of this volume are the interrelated and interconnected issues of power and politics in the context of planned international events, festivals and spectacles. They are of local, regional, national and global significance (Roche 2000) and have, over the last few decades, become highly prized commodities, important forums for the articulation of politics and a vehicle for the exercise of power. ‘A lot is known how they can be organized more efficiently and effectively, how they can be marketed, how they can be managed safely and how appropriate venues can be selected for their delivery’ (Foley et al. 2012: 1). Much less is known about the politics of international events that are complex, diverse and multi-layered, ranging from both participants and non-participants seeking to utilize events for their own benefits, through the interplay and intrigues of the various stakeholders, to multinational corporations and governments putting pressure on the organizers. Glamourous and attractive international events, in particular, those with extensive media coverage, offer individuals, groups, institutions and organizations a high-profile stage to communicate their political messages, express their dissent and serve frequently as platforms for national and political rivalries. ‘Festivals provide important occasions for the exhibition of political power in particular demonstrated by the practice of the spectacle’ (Picard and Robinson 2006: 13). This happens both, overtly, in front of cameras as well as, covertly, behind the scenes. Such a thematic and conceptual focus inevitably requires paying attention to power relations, conflicts and controversies. It also demands a conceptual and analytical approach that draws extensively on the social sciences, in particular the theories and methods of sociology, politics and cultural studies.

Politics, in the context of this book, is not only concerned with the practice of managing and administering states or political units, the development of governmental policies and the mechanisms that a government employs to influence the content and implementation of its goals. Although that understanding of politics is widespread, it offers a very limited perspective. Politics, more generally, refers to the processes by which groups of people make decisions. Although politics is often seen as the behaviour of, and located, within civil governments, it is an integral and dynamic part of all human group interactions and social relationships. The term is most frequently used in two contexts: the resolution of human conflicts, and the sources and exercise of power. Consequently, politics is about social relations and decision-making processes that involve power and authority.

Harold Lasswell, an American political scientist, offered a very useful understanding of politics. He suggested that it is all about those political processes that determine who gets what, when and how (Lasswell 1936). Although one might immediately conclude that Lasswell’s focus is on the distribution and allocation of resources, his definition goes beyond that. He equates political behaviour, essentially, with power behaviour that is not at all confined to specific governmental decisions but part of any social situation. Power is not only exercised when a national parliament decides to fully support and finance a large-scale event but also when parents do not allow their children to attend that event. Therefore, politics is not only about ‘what politicians do’ but encompasses more broadly those processes that are characterized by the exercise of power, in particular control and constraint.

Power, in its broadest sense, is about the ability to realize intentions and to produce the outcome one sets out to achieve. In the context of human relations, power is often understood as the ability to make somebody do something which they would have otherwise not done (Dahl 1957: 202). That kind of an understanding goes back to one of the most influential British philosophers of the twentieth century, Bertrand Russell. His profound and convincing definition of power as the ability to produce intended outcomes (Russell 1938) was later modified in order to stress the intentional element and to exclude manifestations of power that happen accidentally. Wrong, therefore, suggests to conceive power as ‘the capacity of some persons to produce intended and foreseen effects on others’ (1995: 2). Russell’s definition allows for all kinds of power to be included. Most relevant for this volume are the notions of collective and distributive power. While the former refers to the ability of a group to achieve their common goals, the latter focuses on the issue of who has power over whom and what. Therefore, any analysis of the distribution of power needs to acknowledge inequalities among individuals and groups, and the resulting systems of social stratification.

Although the study of politics and power relations owes much to the groundbreaking sociological work of Karl Marx, this volume is not limited to the analysis of class relations and the unequal distribution of economic power. Marx saw power relationships being built upon the economic arrangements of a society that led to the domination of one class over another, with the shape of domination and exploitation taking different forms in different socio-historical eras. For Marx, political power and economic power go hand in hand, which enables the dominant economic class to rule the subordinate social groups, to protect their wealth and maintain their dominant position in society. Considering political and economic power as symbiotic has become highly problematic as it ignores the complexity of contemporary power relations.

Indeed, Russell’s definition of power acknowledges that there are various types and sources of power without offering a hierarchical system that identifies some powers as more important (or more powerful) than others. For Russell, no one form of power is more fundamental or influential than any other:

The fundamental concept in social science is Power in the sense in which Energy is the fundamental concept in physics. Like energy, power has many forms, such as wealth, armaments, influence on opinion. No one of these can be regarded as subordinate to any other, and there is no form from which the others are derivable.

(Russell 1938: 10)

Russell’s understanding of this core concept even provides for the possibility that different forms of power may collude, establish hybrid forms and develop a multi-dimensional axis, depending on different locations and periods of time.

Research into power, power relations and conflicts tends to address one or more of the following four issues and indicators: first, who rules or governs? Who occupies influential institutional positions and is centrally involved in decision-making processes? Second, who gains or benefits from the unequal distribution of power, with particular reference, for example, to wealth, life chances, health and educational opportunities? Third, who tends to win arguments and conflicts over power? Fourth, who is widely considered to be powerful, who has a reputation of being powerful and who is labelled as a power broker? This book deals with all of these four indicators, although the last one is the least prominent.

Equally important to these four sets of questions, which have in common that they focus on the distribution of power, is, of course, the issue of the sources of power. ‘Michael Mann’s fourfold classification of the sources of power that, in shorthand, he refers to as the IEMP – ideological, economic, military and political’ (Sugden and Tomlinson 2002: 6) offers a valuable starting point. This quartet of categories refers to the existence of ‘overlapping and intersecting sociospatial networks of power’ (Mann 1986: 1) that operate within and through institutional structures. They also draw our attention to the role and impact of social classes, states and governments, ideological and military organizations. According to Mann, these four networks provide the most effective organizational bases for generating and exercising power. It is noteworthy that one source of power can generate and turn into another form of power, for example, economic success can lead to political influence. These four variations of power are not monolithic and separate but often overlapping. They also vary in size and impact at different times and in different settings in history. Therefore, any investigation into political and power relations requires not only a detailed understanding of the distribution and sources of power but also a thorough knowledge of the social context in which these power relations exist.

Although at first sight these four categories of power – ideological, economic, military and political – appear to be abstract concepts with little relevance for the social-scientific and critical study of international events, it does not take long to discover that there are actually a large number of events that focus on, celebrate and publicly display distinctive sets of ideas, wealth, the armed forces and political power. Royal celebrations, such as coronations, jubilees, birthdays, weddings and funerals, are not only concerned with the achievements or important days of individual members of the royal family but also ideological events as they support and advocate monarchism as a belief system. Although publicly displaying one’s wealth has generally become more subtle, there remain a number of events that are exclusively for the rich and famous, such as the Vienna Opera Ball, movie and theatre premieres and participating in a polo tournament. All these occasions have in common that they offer an opportunity to conspicuously and uninhibitedly display one’s economic power. Military parades have a long tradition and celebrate military power and prowess. They have become less popular since the end of the Cold War but some countries still hold them to mark important historical days, such as, the National Day in China (1 October) and Victory Day in Russia (9 May) that, annually, marks the USSR’s military defeat of Nazi Germany in 1945. The demonstration of political power in the context of international events is complex and multi-faceted but in many cases also blatantly obvious. Cuba’s May Day celebrations in Havana are highly organized annual shows of support for the political regime that are frequently attended by up to one million people. In Europe, May Day marches are usually organized by the trade unions to show their political gravitas. International Workers’ Day, as the 1 May is officially known, was intended to be a celebration and appreciation of working class people worldwide.

One of the reasons why the public celebration of military power and economic wealth has steadily declined over the last decades is related to the increasing significance of soft power. According to Joseph Nye, who introduced this term in the late 1980s, the concept of soft power describes the ability of a country to attract and persuade rather than coerce or use force. While hard power is based on and utilizes economic and military might, soft power arises from a country’s attractiveness, reputation and popularity of its culture, norms and values, political ideals, and policies. Nye suggests that ‘seduction is always more effective than coercion, and many values like democracy, human rights, and individual opportunities are deeply seductive’ (Nye 2004: x). In addition to these assets that tend to generate attraction, favourable public opinion, credibility and even legitimacy, the successful hosting of and participation in glamorous international events provide another high-profile resource of soft power. Extravagant shows, such as the Olympic opening ceremonies and royal parades, offer unique and high-profile opportunities to showcase a country’s wealth of soft power. Although soft power can be exercised by states, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and international institutions, it is most frequently states that try to strengthen its soft power. The 2008 Beijing Olympics and the 2010 Shanghai Expo clearly showed that China is taking this task very seriously. These events also celebrated the country’s main assets: its rich civilization, cultural heritage, desire for global harmony and its status as an athletic powerhouse. For 2013, China has planned to consolidate and expand its soft power capabilities through the establishment of an organization, the China Public Diplomacy Association (CPDA) whose goal it is to promote, plan, coordinate and manage the country’s soft power assets. The widespread political protests surrounding the Beijing Games in 2008 have also shown that the use of soft power as a foreign policy tool inevitably creates potent sites of opposition.

Therefore, any serious research focusing on the sources and dynamics of power must also address the issue of resistance. For two reasons, these two terms, power and resistance, should not be treated as dichotomous. First, they are in a symbiotic relationship: ‘where there is power, there is resistance’ (Foucault 1981: 95); second, any challenge to existing power structures constitutes a form of power itself. Holding or occupying a position of power is hardly ever complete and inevitably causes resistance. Again, there are numerous international events that emerged as an expression of and offer a platform for resistance. The origins of both Gay Pride parades in various countries and London’s Notting Hill Carnival are closely linked to protest and resistance. Whilst the former emerged in response to homophobia, discrimination and violence towards lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LBGT) people, the latter was a form of cultural resistance, emerged in the late 1950s and was a result of the problematic and tense state of ethnic relations in Britain. The history of the Notting Hill Carnival is the story ‘of how a marginalised community built, protected and promoted what is now the largest street party in Western Europe, using the radical cultural politics of the Caribbean to confront Britain’s racist political culture’ (Young 2002: 25).

The issue of resistance is also one of the key insights of Antonio Gramsci, who views and conceptualizes the idea of power as ‘hegemony’ and argues that the latter is constituted in the realm of ideas and knowledge. Gramsci’s work (1971) has considerable influence on academic and political debates about the role of civil society that the Italian philosopher considers to be an important public platform for political struggles, the contestation over norms and values and the articulation of new ideas and visions. Whilst political society governs through force and coercion, civil society rules through consensus. It is the latter in which hegemony is achieved when subordinate groups generally accept the fundamental and central structures, patterns, practices and relationships of a particular social arrangement as natural, normal and inevitable. However, as hegemony is rarely complete, the dominant group(s) always face(s) potential demands and challenges from ‘below’. In order to sustain their positions of power they employ a variety of political, social and cultural institutions and strategies to maintain consent. Although this process of negotiating consent often leads to economic, political or cultural economic concessions, which appear genuinely to accommodate the demands of the subordinate groups, the outcome does only very rarely change the fundamental structures of an existing social system. Hegemony is essentially a synthesis of moral, political and intellectual leadership by one powerful group that has successfully influenced and gained the consent of all other social groups. International events, festivals and spectacles are deeply involved in these processes and provide high-profile, public environments, in which dominant ideas, social structures and the unequal distribution of power are both consolidated and challenged. One might be tempted to refer to the famous Edinburgh Fringe Festival in this context. It was established in 1948, one year after the juried Edinburgh International Festival whose progamme was dominated by ‘high culture’, in particular theatre, classical music, opera, ballet, art exhibitions and talks. In comparison, the Fringe does not have a selection committee and anybody who can raise the funds to pay for a venue is welcome to participate. This versatile and colourful arts festival offers various genres a public stage, such as music, theatre, comedy, dance and physical theatre, and children’s shows. It also showcases experimental works that might not be welcome at more conservative cultural festivals.

There is also little doubt that events themselves are very powerful as they can produce long-term impacts that range from economic benefits (and problems) to the transformation of collective identities. The power of the Olympic Games was clearly demonstrated in 2008 when the pre-event concerns about China’s human rights record, press freedom, the country’s tense relationship with Tibet and environmental issues were replaced by an enthusiastic media discourse that praised Beijing for its spectacular architecture, high-tech facilities, smooth organization, efficient delivery, rich culture, prosperous modernity and generous hospitality. Most commentators agreed that China’s international standing had significantly improved as a result of hosting this mega event, despite a few calls to boycott the spectacle and the disastrous torch relay that was accompanied by political protests and demonstrations across the world.

This brief example already illustrates that political conflicts, power struggles, ideological clashes, controversies and resistance in the context of international events are very complex and involve a wide variety of different social groups, local and international organizations, national and global movements, governmental and non-governmental institutions, and various other stakeholders.

The following five examples will demonstrate this complexity of the relationship between power, politics and international events in more detail. They touch on questions of governance, political conflicts, protest and dialogue, and the appropriation, consolidation and contestation of power and control. So far, these issues have been utterly neglected in the emerging academic field of Events Management. At the centre of such degree programmes is usually the acquisition of vocationally relevant academic knowledge and practical skills, drawing extensively on business and management studies. Hall argues that such a curriculum is ‘geared strongly towards the interest of event associations, organizations and the event market. This has meant that the understanding of politics and political economy, or even recognition of their broader significance, is cursory at best’ (Hall 2012: 190). This collection of essays intends to fill this void and will bring the social-scientific study of events, festivals and spectacles more into the core of the teaching of Events Management d...