Rethinking Sporting Mystification in the Present Tense: Disneylimpics, Affective Neoliberalism, and the Greatest Transformation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I found it very difficult to evaluate the paper and I am not sure that can do  justice to it. The paper has certainly a number of strengths. It is well-written. The author is an expert in the critical literatures on the Olympics and neo-liberal capitalism. I can also relate to the concept of affective neo-liberalism.

There are, however, a number of weaknesses. First of all, the paper reads as just one more critical contribution on the Olympics. The informed reader has been confronted with the arguments before. Sure, the modern Olympics have not much to do with the ancient games. The modern Olympics invoke a contradictory mix of ideological kitsch, they are over-commercialized money-making machines. They celebrate capitalist values and nationalism at the same time and present the audience a polished, highly idealized image of the events as well as of sports. These arguments sound familiar. I am afraid that many readers will not realize the innovative contribution of the paper. The author has to work harder to emphasize the newness of the concept.

From a theoretical perspective, I got the impression that affective neo-liberalism is another concept, which aims to explain everything. Moreover, it is suggested affective neo-liberalism is successful. I have serious doubts about this. In the Global North, anti-capitalist sentiments among young academics are rather dominant, which often involves a rejection of meritocratic ideology in general and elite or high-performance sport in particular. The ideological hegemony of neo-liberalism seems to wane also in the Global South where countries seem to have become also highly critical of the neo-liberal world order and are wiling to challenge it. 

In some respects, the paper is a little bit too Western-centric. The militarization of sport seems to be a particular feature of post 9/11 U.S. sports. Outside the U.S. it is hardly common to celebrate army veterans before a major match and to see fighter jets performing stunts over a stadium. I admit that in the wake of the recent geo-political conflicts, a re-politicization of the Olympics is likely to materialize. However, the conflicts about Russian athletes at the Olympics indicates that the West is not able to impose its political aims completely on the IOC, which invokes its neutrality and autonomy. 

The author should also abandon the implicit assumption of uniform effects of an event such as the Olympics. Audiences from the Global North might indeed perceive the Olympic athlete as incarnation and celebration of neo-liberalism, while audiences from the Global South might perceive the athlete as representative of their nations challenging the powers that be. 

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please check the attached file below regarding my detailed response. Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This is an interesting 'think-piece' that brings together strands of analysis that individually demonstrate a grasp and enthusiasm for complex material.

The overall coherence of the argument could, however, be made more explicit. The linkages of the individual strands to each other should be more transparent. This might be merely presentational (if they do cohere) but may also be more fundamental (if they do not).

I find the penultimate paragraph very revealing. The intellectual curiosity that is made transparent here is a powerful argument for the epistemophilic yearning. This paper attempts to bring together some very interesting and thought-provoking themes - but isn't yet fully successful in doing so.

My main reservation about the manuscript as currently drafted is the connectedness of the main themes and how these contribute to the development of a novel concept (affective neoliberalism). As presented, the overall argument lacks rigour and precision. Specifically,

·       Sport as uncontested linked to celebration capitalism and affective landscapes.

·       Linkages between between idealization of sport, neoliberalism and militarization need to be clearer.

·       Disney imagination and enforcement of unequal power relations (105-106)

·       The unfolding connectivity of the argument within the The Greatest Sporting Myth Ever section needs to be clearer. The reader is being required to do too much inferring throughout this section (276-406).

·       The link to the work of Schmitt, Agamben and Klein is under-developed and requires further explanation (276-282).

·       The central importance of 'anxiety' is asserted but not sufficiently justified (292 ff.)

·       Affective neoliberalism as 'never prearranged and passive but rather contingent and complex' (363-364).

The manuscript has been widely researched but there are some notable omissions. Although Tomlinson (2004) has been cited, given the nature of the argument being advanced and its theoretical point of departure, I was surprised that more of his work was not included – e.g., Tomlinson & Whannel 1984, Tomlinson & Sugden 2002, Tomlinson & Young 2006, Sugden & Tomlinson 2011, Tomlinson 2015. Also, Schaffer et al. 2000.

There are some specific matters that might be made clearer:

3-4         Although it isn't appropriate to include references in the abstract, what is the basis for the assertion about sport and physical culture as uncontested terrain? There's plenty of evidence over the last 40 years in the UK sport studies literature especially that it's anything but (e.g., Holt, McNamee, Tomlinson, Sugden, Horne, Scraton, Flintoff, Brackenridge, Hylton, Long, Bramham).

13-15    The inclusion of the 9/11 attacks as an illustrative example requires further explanation in the manuscript – this is not provided later. To what extent does this really elaborate the theoretical exposition that has preceded it?

45-48    The critique of sport's invisibility is argued by drawing selectively on some useful source material. There are alternative views about the societal place of sport that have not been accommodated. The conclusion that sport became ‘an uncontested, trans-historical entity’ looks too bold.

57-59    The introduction about sport and physical culture within a popular cultural realm promises modest suggestions. The final sentence of the manuscript (581-584) is the only part of the narrative that seeks to do this, and is not especially effective.

146        'natively unequal' - I do not think the adjective 'natively' is especially helpful here. In some parts of the English-speaking world it may attract unwanted attention for its unintended associations. And there are plenty of alternatives.

226-244              It is not clear to me what point is being made in the examples of Pistorius and the Sochi winter Olympics – i.e. how the point in these examples relates to the overall argument being advanced. (Again, this may be merely a matter of 'sign-posting.)

276-406              The unfolding argument within the The Greatest Sporting Myth Ever section needs to be made clearer. The reader is required to make too many inferences throughout this section.

297-304              The interpretation and account of anxiety is a departure from how psychologists use the term. Greater clarity and precision would help – if only to mark the distinction.

407 ff    The choice of 9/11 as an illustrative example of the rapid rise of neoliberalism is not explained adequately.

412-413              It is asserted that the ‘sporting popular’ was deployed as 'soft-core weaponry' but this analysis is not argued convincingly.

528 ff    Whilst implicit in any discussion about the Olympics as a sporting mega-event, the idea of 'nation' is only advanced at a late stage in the manuscript and then linked to oil-based Gulf nations as an example of something - it is not clear what.

The manuscript is admirably error-free in its presentation.

In terms of the style, there are rather too many very short quotations which do not (in my opinion) add value to the power of what's being argued (e.g., 70,71, 74-75,82 177, 180, 181, 195, 205-207, 215, 224, 227, 257-259, 312, 317, 326, 352, 368, 380, 382-3, 388, 415, 540).

275        The development of the affective neoliberalism concept could be achieved more succinctly (and have engagingly) with less of the personalised 'first person' narrative/commentary.

447        If the conclusion/summary section begins here it would help for this to be explicit.

Figures I and 2 require careful explanation. At present they are unclear and seem to lack purpose.

Keywords: Given my reservation (above) about 'anxiety', if this is a reasonable position to take, is it going to be a useful keyword to enable this article (if published) to be found by those seeking work on its main emphases?

References: 551 Should Davis (2016) be Davies (2016) - as listed in the references (621) ?

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please check the attached file below regarding my detailed response. Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

I seldom score a paper this high in a review.  The quality and intellect of this paper far exceeds what is normally expected.  I have no problems with the construction, the argument, or the purpose of this paper.  My only criticism is the difficulty of reading level (sentences of over 40 words with multiple concepts offered in each) and the number of citations in each sentence.  It becomes distracting when a paragraph may have a reference cite after every sentence. If you are able to read material this dense, this is a good article to challenge the self.    I did not enjoy reading this, but I appreciate the work, the diligence, the expansive argument, and the wherewithal to write such a piece.  Sadly, I doubt many people who should read it, will read it. 

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please check the attached file below regarding my detailed response. Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I still do not fully agree with some claims made in the paper but I nevertheless feel that the paper is relevant, interesting and inspiring. I certainly will cite some thoughts and the rest is up for academic debate.

Author Response

Thank you! I again sincerely appreciate your time and effort in reviewing my paper. 

Reviewer 2 Report

The strengths of the manuscript were acknowledged in the first review. They have not changed and I do not intend to repeat them here.

The author’s letter is helpful. Readers will indeed have to make their own logical inferences. I suggest that the argument would be understood better if these were more transparent. The author makes two of my points for me: "it would be difficult to readers (primarily who do not know Grossberg/Polyani and their work) to clearly understand this section.”  And later: “The connection between 9/11 attacks and affective neoliberalism is not strong.” I suggest the manuscript would be clearer and therefor stronger without the inclusion of this material.

In spite of the changes that have been made - especially around sign-posting in the summary (439 ff), the overall coherence of the argument is not yet compelling (at least to me).

I have already provided examples of where the manuscript lacks coherence – specifically (with pagination from the first submission):

- Sport as uncontested linked to celebration capitalism and affective landscapes.

- Linkages between between idealization of sport, neoliberalism and militarization need to be clearer.

- Disney imagination and enforcement of unequal power relations (105-106)

- The unfolding connectivity of the argument within the The Greatest Sporting Myth Ever section needs to be clearer. The reader is being required to do too much inferring throughout this section (276-406).

- The link to the work of Schmitt, Agamben and Klein is under-developed and requires further explanation (276-282).

- The central importance of 'anxiety' is asserted but not sufficiently justified (292 ff.)

- Affective neoliberalism as 'never prearranged and passive but rather contingent and complex' (363-364). 

Some comments on the first submission have been addressed – these are the less substantive matters. Others have not and the position is argued in the accompanying letter. It would have been more effective had the clarification been added to the redrafted manuscript.

I still remain unclear about the purpose of figures 1 and 2. What value do they add to the narrative. This kind of visual representation would normally be for simplification, elucidation, illustration or illumination. I do not see the function of these figures.

Author Response

Thank you again for the second review. Following the comments in the first review, I acknowledged several weaknesses inherent in this paper. For this second response, I tried my best to include a more advanced, succinct explanation. Please check the attached file below. Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf