Critical left-realism and sport interventions in divided societies

Abstract

What, if any, is the value of sport to processes of peace and reconciliation? After introducing the largely rhetorical arguments for and against the value of using sport as a vehicle to promote peace building in divided societies, this article makes a more detailed and forensic examination of the evidence based on: the role played by sport in South Africa before and after apartheid; and second, drawing upon the author’s own experiences garnered over more than two decades of conducting research and leading sport-based intervention initiatives in Northern Ireland and Israel. The article argues that sport is intrinsically value neutral and under carefully managed circumstances it can make a positive if modest contribution to peace building. The mobilization of an engaged sociological imagination in the context of a broader human rights agenda is central to this contribution. Drawing upon notions of pragmatism, left realism and praxis, the article concludes by presenting a ‘ripple effect’ model that illustrates the circumstances under which sport can make a difference in the promotion of social justice and human rights in deeply divided societies

Sport-for-Development in the South Pacific Region: Macro-, Meso-, and Micro-Perspectives

“…In line with previous work in the SFD sector (see e.g., Khoo et al, 2014;Sugden, 2010), their research underscored the importance SPORT-FOR-DEVELOPMENT IN THE SOUTH PACIFIC 10 of understanding and considering local context within a SFD program. Here, this related to putting relevant strategic parameters in place that would help facilitate future benefits, including macro-level education impacts.…”

“…disadvantaged groups or marginalized communities -we argue that our study still applies directly to Sugden's (2010) model; in particular, it shows how challenges experienced at the different levels -including that of the participantscan impact, limit, reduce, or undermine the desired benefits of SFD programs. For instance, SPORT-FOR-DEVELOPMENT IN THE SOUTH PACIFIC 31 the NNFs consistently noted difficulties when trying to achieve broader social outcomes; in particular, structural barriers limited the delivery of school-based netball programs.…”

“…In particular, given the many socioeconomic and cultural differences among the countries, the PNP would have benefited from a process that allowed for the establishment of locally determined program goals on a case-by-case basis. Such a process would have also allowed for more targeted research programs that are specifically relevant for the local context (see e.g., Schulenkorf et al, 2013;Brest, 2010;Sugden, 2010). Like a stone dropped into a pool of water, the ripple effect of a development intervention dissipates as it moves further away from the center.…”

“…Sugden (2010) demonstrated this development of agency through collective beliefs and behaviors via a "ripple effect model", illustrating how social impacts experienced at the individual and small group level can effect positive change in SPORT-FOR-DEVELOPMENT IN THE SOUTH PACIFIC 7 multiple layers of community and society. This requires, however, a holistic perspective of SFD programming, accounting for a broad range of development processes and driven by a deep understanding of stakeholder needs, including an appreciation of the sociocultural context.…”

“…In particular, if the strongest impact is created at the center of an SFD program, then community members and local representatives (micro level) should play a key role in the investigation. At the same time, the program organizers and a network of activists SPORT-FOR-DEVELOPMENT IN THE SOUTH PACIFIC 8 and institutional partners that represent the surrounding circles of the model need to be represented (meso and macro), given that they are in charge of articulating and influencing the way in which projects, programs and events can have an impact on the wider political agenda (see Sugden, 2010). Here, the ripple effect model is in line with the previously described TOC, as both concepts share an inclusive, community-focused approach to planning, development and research.…”