1 Introduction: Theorizing the History of Sport-for-Development
The high profile of sport-for-development programs in the early twentyfirst century, emphasized by the support of the United Nations, the International Olympic Committee, and corporate social responsibility, has suggested that such initiatives are a relatively recent phenomenon. Nevertheless, the use of sport to achieve social, economic, and moral ends—“sport-for-good”—has a long history. From the colonial period to the current neoliberal era, sport and physical activity have been used as a development tool both because sport is so frequently positioned as apolitical and non-threatening and because it is understood to have universal, transnational, and transhistorical meanings. This book considers the historical context in which sport has been organized and deployed as a means of development, by examining the intersections between the history of sport and the history of development. This chapter sketches out the landscape of contemporary sport-for-development scholarship and outlines the ways in which this argument is pursued in the chapters that follow.
The significance and profile of what is commonly referred to as sport-fordevelopment reached new heights in August 2013 when the United Nations proclaimed April 6 to be the annual “International Day of Sport for Development and Peace.” At the time, it was noted that for the international community “the adoption of this day signifies the increasing recognition by the United Nations of the positive influence that sport can have on the advancement of human rights, and social and economic development.”1 The announcement was one in a series of events in the early twentyfirst century that contributed to the institutionalization of the notion and
© The Author(s) 2019
S. C. Darnell et al., The History and Politics of Sport-for-Development, Global Culture and Sport Series, https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-43944-4_1
S. C. Darnell et al.
practice of sport-for-development on a global scale. Others included the establishment in 2003 of the International Platform on Sport and Development (sportanddev.org), the creation in 2005 of FIFA’s “Football for Hope” initiative,2 and the efforts of the Sport for Development and Peace International Working Group, which published a series of policy documents such as “Harnessing the Power of Sport for Development and Peace: Recommendations to Government” in 2008.
This book argues that these important milestones constitute but another chapter in the long narrative of sport-for-development whose arc extends back to the nineteenth century.
The programs, policies, and practices that fall under this banner of sport-for-development today aim to organize and mobilize sport and physical activity in order to contribute to gender empowerment, health promotion, economic development, and peace and conflict resolution, among other goals. Such activity tends to take place in the global South or so-called developing countries (though this is not always the case) and also tends (with important exceptions) to follow the traditional vectors of international development whereby funding and expertise flow from the relatively rich (and almost exclusively White) to the relatively poor (and almost entirely non-White).
Sport-for-development efforts are also tied together by several conceptual or ideological threads: they tend to promote a universal and positive notion of sport and its social and political characteristics (what are often referred to as the social or moral benefits of sport); they encourage stakeholders (both governmental and non-governmental) to deploy sport in the service of development and support other organizations to do the same; and they position sport as a relatively non-threatening and depoliticized means, or even tool, of pursuing development and peace, particularly in regions and contexts where such efforts have been difficult and where violence and poverty have proved intractable.
This book takes the current popularity and institutionalization of sport-for-development as an opportunity to revisit the histories of sport and international development and consider their intersecting narratives. It is concerned with the historical context in which sport has been organized and deployed as a means of social development, particularly on an international scale, and how this history has shaped
Introduction: Theorizing the History of Sport-for-Development
and led to the current conjuncture in which sport-for-development has been institutionalized. The central argument is that the contemporary notion that sport can make a positive contribution to social development is not new but in fact has a long history. At various stages, and for various reasons, social and political actors have argued for the social benefits of sport and attempted to mobilize sport to such ends but have often done so in ways that stemmed from, reproduced, and therefore largely served particular social and political interests, agendas, or worldviews. The broad brushstrokes of this argument may be familiar to students and scholars of sport history and the history of development, but the recent institutionalization and current popularity of sport-for-development, and the emergence of the Sport for Development and Peace (SDP) sector, renew the importance of such lines of inquiry.
Sport-for-development was not just the result of a political vision for the integration of sport and development but was also a site and means for a range of policymakers and sport advocates to test this vision. Such social engineering—through sport—is neither new nor unique to Northern interventions in the South. Consider the example of Midnight Basketball. Born amid increasing concerns about urban poverty and crime in the US in the 1980s, Midnight Basketball programs saw basketball games organized in inner cities with the goal of keeping young men occupied while ostensibly instilling positive values and skills. Games began after 10 p.m., involved 17- to 21-year-old players, and were also attended and monitored by at least two local police officers. Midnight Basketball was an example of American interest and investment in sport-for-development (although was not framed using this term) in the late twentieth centur y with a domestic focus and was, as Robert Pitter and David Andrews argue, part of a larger and emerging “social problems industry” that positioned sport as a means of social intervention generally and crime prevention specifically.3
Not only did it reflect the neoliberal policies of the time, Midnight Basketball helped to legitimize them, offering an attractive and accessible structure to support the broader political shift away from state service provision and toward private agency, social control, and incarceration. As Douglas Hartmann argues, Midnight Basketball emerged within a political
climate in the US that was supportive of, and amenable to, neoliberalism amid concerns of inner-city crime and the perceived threats posed by young Black men.4 The ways in which basketball was understood to be popular in American Black culture (and even “natural” for Black men) dovetailed both politically and socially with broader fears around Black masculinity and crime. At its root, Hartmann concludes, Midnight Basketball may have been more significant in assuaging (White) fears of presumed Black deviance than it was for improving the life chances of the urban poor in the US.5
Race and racism were central to Midnight Basketball. But the intervention also helped to legitimize a particular vision of neoliberal social policy through sport. In this way, Midnight Basketball was exemplary of sport-for-development and its basic tenets, contexts, and ideologies. The difference was that it focused on the poor and underserved within the borders of the US, rather than organizing and exporting such programs to other countries. From an American perspective, Midnight Basketball saw familiar ideologies and politics playing out in domestic, rather than international contexts. In the tradition of modernization theory (see Chap. 4), notions of sport and social development “at home” could subsequently be deployed elsewhere.6 There may not have been a direct through-line from Midnight Basketball to the emerging global SDP sector, but they inhabited the same conceptual and historical frame.
Describing the “beneficiaries” of such efforts requires some historical specificity—even if suggesting some of them have been acted upon risks undermining their agency. Myriad labels have been invoked over time to describe the “targets” of development: the poor and impoverished; developing nations; underdeveloped, underserved, and under-resourced; the Third World; and the global South. The text that follows tries as best as possible to employ these terms in their historical context, reflecting the era in which they were in common (if not unproblematic) usage and the argot of contemporary actors. While “Third World” acquired a derogatory meaning, its original intent, as articulated first by French philosopher Alfred Sauvy, was to distinguish (and unify) those nations emerging from under colonial rule from the material and geopolitical circumstances of the superpowers (see Chap. 5). S. C. Darnell
Similarly, “global South” refers to the spaces—cultural, political, and discursive—that constitute the part of the world which is understood as separate, and often othered by and resistant to, the culturally and economically global North.7 Despite its strengths in referencing relations of power as they are constituted through space and social relations, the term “global South” is not without its problems. It invokes a binary division between North and South that negates the possibility of the colonized taking up or remaking colonial cultures and suggests a unitary “Southern” culture, often overlooking ambivalent or hybrid colonial identities.8 Lowand middle-income countries (LMICs)—those nations that are deemed to be at an economic disadvantage relative to the rest of the world—is another shorthand for those nations that are generally understood to be targets of development logic and interventions. At the same time, the term references and privileges a dominant yet rhetorically benign First World and affords it an authority of voice to speak about Southern nations and communities in attempts to better them.9
In addition to issues of geographic identity, it is worth noting that “development” as a practice also has a contested history. As David Black contends, what “development” is remains elusive, as he points to “the inherently contentious and contested character of this ubiquitous concept.”10 If development itself is a slippery construct then understanding sport put to development ends and consequently historicizing it is a challenge. As discussed in Chap. 4, some historians point to US President Harry Truman’s 1949 inaugural address as the origin of modern international development. But as Ruth Craggs argues, “although development as a global project and academic discipline may have begun in this period, many scholars now argue that the ideas and practices that underpinned post-war development had their origins earlier, in the late colonial period.”11 This is the same era in which modern sport was organized and codified and this confluence of the history of sport and the history of international development is taken up further in Chap. 2, as are the other historians who position nineteenth-century colonial endeavors as an important precursor on the continuum of development initiatives. Finally, a discussion of terminology is also needed, if only because of the various ways that scholars refer to sport in the service of development. The list of potential terms is long: sport-for-development, sport in Introduction: Theorizing
S. C. Darnell et al.
development, development through sport, sport and social development, sport and peace, peace and sport, sport for development and peace. This book focuses on two main terms: sport-for-development and Sport for Development and Peace (SDP). “Sport-for-development” (lower case and hyphenated) refers in general terms to the processes, theories, and/or ideologies of using sport to attain “positive” social outcomes. The outcomes sought through this paradigm have varied and continue to do so, and include social development (e.g., gender empowerment), economic development, peace building and conflict resolution, international cooperation and understanding, and health promotion. This notion of sportfor-development has a long and wide-ranging history, and it is this history that constitutes one of the main narrative trajectories of this book. By contrast, “Sport for Development and Peace” (upper case, not hyphenated) describes the global sector (albeit a loose one) of organizations and stakeholders that now champion, organize, and implement sport-fordevelopment programs. In comparison to sport-for-development, SDP is a contemporary phenomenon and illustrative of but the latest incarnation of sport-for-development as well as its increasing institutionalization.
A particularly useful way to approach the history of both the ideologies of sport-for-development and the practices of the SDP sector is to consider not just the history of sport but also the history of international development. The points of intersection between these two histories illustrate the extent to which different eras of development thinking, politics, and practices have been evident in the organization and mobilization of sport. As noted, many historians of development argue that Truman’s 1949 inaugural address marked the birth of the modern development era, as he spoke of the need for the world’s prosperous nations to support the poorer ones in their struggles out of poverty. While US initiatives in the 1950s, in the wake of these remarks and in the explicit context of the Cold War, constituted a distinct new stage of international development, the efforts of the industrial countries to “improve” the economies and social structures of those in the less advanced and invariably colonized countries began much earlier. To evidence this claim, the history of sport can be productively read in conversation with these kinds of moments in development history and important links can be made to and between sport and development’s historical trajectories, conflicts, and debates.
This book considers some of the main development paradigms of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries and explores their utility in recasting important themes in the history of sport to understand the formation of contemporary sport-for-development.
That the connections between the history of sport and the history of international development have not been thoroughly detailed previously constitutes a significant gap in what is still a burgeoning literature on sport-for-development and SDP. It is true that a host of scholars have looked at the effects of sport-for-development programs on young people’s personal development, health, social mobility, and social integration.12 There have also been important analyses and assessments of the organizational features of the SDP sector, its theoretical underpinnings, and its practices of monitoring and evaluation (M&E).13 In addition, critical scholars have called attention to issues of race, gender, sexuality, and forms of subjugation in the construction and implementation of SDP programs.14 Yet, as Robert Millington argues, “there has been little research conducted through an historical lens to map the links between sport and international development, nor an engagement with how these processes articulate with the broader context of development policy at a global governance level.”15 Despite the scholarly attention paid to sportfor-development and SDP, few efforts detail and contextualize the historical underpinnings of sport-for-development, and the social and political implications of this history.
This is a significant omission, even as some analyses have drawn specific attention to the social and political shifts that were necessary to give rise to the current incarnation of SDP, shifts that have historical foundations. For example, Richard Giulianotti argues that the current SDP sector can be framed in a three-stage historical model: in the late eighteenth to mid-twentieth centuries, sport was implicated in European colonial projects; from the 1940s to 1990s, sport was a “highly contested field in colonial and post-colonial contexts,” while the mid-1990s onward has seen a fuller articulation of the ideology of sport-for-development and the establishment of the SDP sector.16 Similarly, Fred Coalter contends that the move in the 1990s away from international development policy based heavily on economics and toward approaches that embraced more comprehensive development goals such as promoting social capital
S. C. Darnell et al.
provided a context in which champions of sport’s social benefits could secure an ideological and political footing for their programs.17 The shift from economic development targets to broader social programs is highly political, favoring as it does different interests. Critics of the SDP sector have also noted, as Martha Saavedra does, that sport-for-development is often taken up in ways that are “de-historicised” and “depoliticised.”18 The self-presentation of the SDP sector as nearly ahistorical serves to divorce sport-for-development from the broader intersecting histories of sport and international development.
The argument here is that current SDP efforts are a contemporary moment in the long narrative of interventions undertaken in the guise of sport-for-good. Such an argument is grounded in the contention that framing sport as universal in the context of development and peace efforts largely serves to overshadow the fact that there have been (and continue to be) multiple notions of what sport is and what sport means socially and politically. It is important to recognize that different approaches to sport advantage or benefit different groups of people in different ways. While not reducible to a binary, there have been, for example, competing notions between sport-for-good and “sport for its own sake.” For many, from English public-school masters in the mid-nineteenth century to Baron Pierre de Coubertin, who spearheaded the creation of the modern Olympic Games in the 1890s, imagining that sport participation could deliver social and moral benefits (sport-for-good) was not a belief that was married to sport, it was inherent to sport and the motivation to codify and formalize games culture in the first place. By contrast, the pursuit of “sport for its own sake” positions sport itself as the goal, where, for example, the wins and losses of national teams and athletes come to represent the success of a nation and are therefore worthy of investment from the state and/or private interests. This book is a consideration of the extent to which the institutionalization of sport-for-development represents but the latest attempt to preserve and promote the notion of sport-for-good.
In turn, this tension between sport-for-good and sport for sport’s sake is illustrative of a theoretical position that guides the arguments developed here, namely, that consent for particular forms of social activity must be built and maintained by social actors. This is articulated most
Introduction: Theorizing the History of Sport-for-Development
clearly in the work of Antonio Gramsci and the theory of hegemony. For Gramsci, hegemony is:
The “spontaneous” consent given by the great masses of the population to the general direction imposed on social life by the dominant fundamental group; this consent is “historically” caused by the prestige (and consequent confidence) which the dominant group enjoys because of its position and function in the world of production.19
A Gramscian approach to the social and political world is concerned with the interplay between dominance and consent, and the ways in which this interplay produces and constrains prevailing forms of knowing, seeing, and being in a social context. History and historical change is central to the theory of cultural hegemony that Gramsci put forth, and Gramsci’s historical insights have been used in the study of global politics and international relations.20
The view of sport-for-development and SDP adopted in this book is influenced by this Gramscian approach and seeks, in the words of Stuart Hall, to analyze “the specificity of a historical conjuncture” and understand how different forces come together in a particular historical moment to create the terrain on which a politics might be formed or renewed.21 As Hall notes, an organic ideology (i.e., one that is historically effective) for Gramsci articulates a series of different subjects, identities, projects, and aspirations into a historical configuration. It thus constructs a unity out of difference. The institutionalization of SDP emerged in just such a way. Gramsci offers a framework through which to unpack trends, moments, and actions that led to the hegemony of sport-for-development within the potential articulations of sport-for-good.
Sport-for-development as a project is firmly rooted in the political. Here, Gramsci’s approach departs from Marx in suggesting that politics does not simply reflect unified political identities.22 Rather, politics is the place and process whereby forces and relations—economic but also social and cultural—produce forms of power, and in some cases forms of domination. From this perspective, the organization of sport (and specifically sport-for-development) can be viewed as a political act, in and through which particular groups have worked to produce their preferred version of social relations.
S. C. Darnell et al.
To a large degree, such calls for a historical and sociological analysis of sport are not new. Indeed, they are not entirely new in the specific study of sport as it relates to processes of social development. In Class, Sport and Social Development, first published in 1983, Richard Gruneau argues that two tendencies in the sociology of sport led to an absence of understanding, or even an outright misrepresentation, of sports’ relationship to social development.23 The first was the substitution of narrow subdisciplinary problems of research for the broad problems of human possibility and development. The second was the use of abstract typologies and a limited “general theory” of industrial society. While Gruneau is not writing about social development with the kind of intentionality or global view that characterizes the SDP sector, his arguments remain relevant nonetheless.
With respect to the substitution of narrow problems of research for the broad problems of human possibility, the SDP literature has reflected a preoccupation with M&E, which sometimes obscures critically informed analyses of the place of sport within broader struggles for development, both local and global. SDP literature is also often overly abstract, proposing theories of change that are asserted to be generalizable across contexts, as well as regularly contending that sport is useful for international development because it constitutes a universal language. A Gramscian approach offers an opportunity to test such claims in specific moments in the histories—both discrete and intersecting—of sport and international development.
Importantly, Ben Carrington argues that Gramscian-informed approaches that view sport as a diffusion of European or European-derived class interests often privilege class analyses over issues of race (often ignoring race altogether).24 Instead, he argues, racism and White supremacy were central to the social, economic, political, and geographic forces that facilitated the diffusion of sport. Such an argument is especially critical to a history of ideologically driven international efforts to export sport from North to South. Conscious of Carrington’s call for a theorization of sport that it is more attuned to colonization, and building upon Gruneau’s argument, this book analyzes sport-for-development “in a way that acknowledges both the essential unity of critical, interpretive and empirical analysis and the centrality of certain basic questions about human possibilities and the denial of these possibilities in changing social circumstances.”25
This suggests that the historical study of SDP should be the study of the various processes through which different groups have sought to secure consent for their particular vision of the sport-for-development model. Despite SDP’s promotion of sport as an inherently universal language, modern sport was constructed through the practices and beliefs of dominant groups, and then the subsequent attempts to transform these views “into a broader shared cultural experience.”26 It is against this backdrop that the phenomenon of sport-for-development is interrogated and its history written.
Beyond the history of sport, Gramsci is also useful in theorizing the history of international development. Anthony Payne argues that a Gramscian approach to the study of international development encourages critical analysis of the struggle over “what can be thought legitimately and what can be done practically.”27 The history of development is replete with such struggles, and the result has been a series of shifts in the prevailing development orthodoxy, from the “development decades” of the 1950s and 1960s, which were dominated by modernization theory and development economics, to the Washington and Post Washington consensuses of the 1980s and 1990s, which ushered in an era of largely neoliberal approaches to international development. Resistance took the form of the Latin American social movements and dependency theory that emerged in the 1970s and exposed the structures of global inequality while questioning the benevolence of the international development paradigm to the radical and more recent grassroots movements, which, supported by post-development scholarship, have called for an end to the concept of development altogether. Each of these paradigms emerged from struggles to assert how—and in some cases whether—international development should be pursued and achieved.28
Integrating Gramscian interrogations of sport and development is a useful framework for approaching the history of sport-for-development. It serves as a reminder that the logic of sport as a form of progress in the service of development does not stem from sport itself, but has been produced, at various historical moments and through the interplay of dominance and consent. Social entrepreneurs, moral leaders, and political actors established, promoted, and refined the idea that sport could be productively employed in the service of development. The politics
S. C. Darnell et al.
underlying these actions are specific and neither neutral nor universal. They reflect the worldviews and interests of particular actors. In addition, international development inequalities, and responses to them, have been similarly produced and constrained historically through processes of dominance and consent. Finally, viewing sport-for-development through a Gramscian lens reveals that understandings of both sport and development are fundamentally political and therefore concerns over the nature of sport-for-development cannot be reduced solely to issues of governance and management, as the preoccupation with M&E would suggest.
If sport-for-development is historically and politically constructed, then a history of these productive processes, and of the individuals and groups active within them, is essential for understanding the operation and influence of the SDP sector. This book does not repeat Gramsci’s arguments but rather, as Hall puts it, thinks in a Gramscian way.29 It raises questions about the interconnectedness of sport and international development, both historically and today. Not all champions of sportfor-development were directly influenced by international development stakeholders, policies, or ideologies. Nor did sport necessarily feature prominently, if at all, in the history of development thinking or practice. What can be argued and articulated, however, is that various practices of sport in the service of the social good were illustrative of some of the hallmarks of development thinking during particular eras.
To make these connections, this book draws upon a variety of sources. Part I relies heavily on secondary sources, synthesizing and recasting existing scholarship in the history of sport, the history of development, and area-specific studies such as Asian Studies. Yet, due in part to SDP’s ahistorical self-presentation, not all of the examples explored here could be addressed solely by considering published sources. The examination of these topics—including the Peace Corps discussed in Chap. 4 and the International Olympic Aid Commission and the Games of the New Emerging Forces, which are both explored in Chap. 5—is based in part upon archival research undertaken at a number of sites, primarily the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) in College Park, Maryland (US), and the Olympic Studies Centre in Lausanne, Switzerland. By contrast, Part II, owing to a general lack of published work on the evolution of sport-for-development in the late twentieth and
Introduction: Theorizing the History of Sport-for-Development
early twenty-first centuries, draws upon a series of interviews with individuals who played important roles in conceptualizing and advocating for sport-for-development, as well as organizing and implementing its practice (see Table 1.1). The integration of archival research and oral histories with a synthetic reading of existing scholarship paints a picture of
Table 1.1 List of interviewees
NameInvolvement in SDP
Dates
Maria Bobenrieth Global Director, Community Investments—Nike Executive Director—Women Win 2003–2009 2010–present
Giovanni Di Cola Focal Point for Sport for Development and Peace—International Labour Organization 2003–2009
Oliver Dudfield Head—Sport for Development and Peace, Commonwealth Secretariat
Current
Bjorn EvjuHead of International Cooperation—Norwegian Olympic and Paralympic Committee and Confederation of Sports 2001–present
Diane Huffman Director of International Development— Commonwealth Games Canada (2000–2004) 2000–2004
Judy KentPresident—Commonwealth Games Canada Consultant—Sport-for-Development 1994–1998 1998–present
Johann Olav Koss Founder—Olympic Aid/Right to Play 1994–present
Claude Marshall Voluntary Consultant on Refugee Sport—United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) 1993–present
Bob MunroFounder—Mathare Youth Sports Association (MYSA) 1987–present
Ann PeelExecutive Director—Olympic Aid/Right to Play2000–2003
Lorna ReadVice President—International Programs, Right to Play 2004–2011
Nora SheffeProgram Manager, Southern Africa— Commonwealth Sport Development Program 1994–1997
Mark Tewksbury Founder—Olympic Athletes Together Honourably (OATH) 1999–2000
Carla Thachuk
Refugee Sport Coordinator—United Nations High Commission for Refugees Director of International Programs— Commonwealth Games Canada 2006–2008 2009–2014
Per ToienCommunications Manager—Norwegian Olympic and Sports Federation and volunteer coach
Current
Joe Van RynProgram Manager, Southern Africa— Commonwealth Sport Development Program 1994–1997
S. C. Darnell et al.
the history and institutionalization of SDP that has both temporal breadth and socio-historical depth.
This book is organized in two parts. Part I considers the history of development efforts delivered through sport before the period of contemporary SDP, beginning in the period of nineteenth-century colonialism. European expansion can be viewed as a development project, far from benign or non-ideological, and in many instances intent on resource extraction, but a development effort nonetheless. Chapter 2 recasts the historical origins of modern sport in this context. The public schools in Britain that took a leadership role in using sport to discipline unruly boys from well-to-do families and prepare them to be civic-minded leaders graduated men who went on to serve in both missionary institutions (including schools) and the colonial military and bureaucracy. Sport (often football/soccer), steeped in the values of sport-for-good, was transmitted to colonial outposts by many of these same individuals.
By the late nineteenth century, the most prominent institution using sport for social ends was the US arm of the Young Men’s Christian Association (YMCA), which had a particularly international focus.30 As the US government advocated expansionism, the YMCA often accompanied the US military on campaigns, providing fitness for US troops, and often remained in places occupied by the US—from Cuba and Puerto Rico in the Caribbean to the Philippines in the Pacific. In such settings, fitness and modern, Western sport forms were tied to US-led modernization projects. Chapter 3 highlights attempts to spread sport-for-good internationally—through organizations such as the YMCA and the Boy Scouts, which can be understood as early precursors to non-governmental organization (NGO)-inspired development—and the ways in which organized sporting events, such as the Olympics and the Far East Championship Games, were framed as development initiatives.
Chapter 4 examines the ideological nature of Truman’s articulation of Point Four—the technical assistance program he announced during his inaugural address—and the US’ commitment to uplift the world’s underdeveloped regions, as the country’s foreign policy continued to influence international development after the Second World War. This chapter introduces the state as a significant actor in sport-for-development as sport programs and development aid became tools in the Cold War struggle between East and West. Non-state agencies remained active, but
Introduction: Theorizing the History of Sport-for-Development
interventions in the West were most often informed by a modernization theory approach to development, which promised progress and modernity to the underdeveloped regions of the world provided they adhered to the lessons already learned in the West. This culminated with the creation of a series of development agencies during John F. Kennedy’s administration, most of them guided by modernization theory. Most prominent among these was the Peace Corps, whose volunteers made frequent use of sport.
The end of Western colonial interventions—often through lengthy and violent anti-colonial struggles—and the decolonization of much of the Southern hemisphere took place during the Cold War. In a response to a superpower-dominated global order, leaders of what became known as the Third World gathered in places such as Bandung, Indonesia, and Belgrade, Yugoslavia, to discuss their priorities. Chief among these was development. But regional development, and for the purposes of this book, sport development, lacked the transnational focus and resources available to Western institutions. Nevertheless, Chap. 5 outlines a variety of the projects aimed at developing sport in the Third World. Some of these were Western attempts to influence change, others were Third World-led attempts to loosen the control of sport from its traditional First World moorings. Throughout the 1960s, anti-imperial struggles within and beyond sport in Africa and Asia also inspired AfricanAmerican athletes to examine their own connection to sport—an important precursor to contemporary athlete-led SDP.
The focus in Part II shifts to the emergence and institutionalization of the SDP sector as it occurred in the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries. While the context of international development is explored in each of Chaps. 2, 3, 4 and 5, Chap. 6 sets out the late twentieth and early twenty-first century development landscape before significant actors and stakeholders are highlighted in each of the subsequent four chapters. Chapter 7 examines the international organizations and intergovernmental bodies that began to advocate more explicitly for SDP in the late 1990s. Particular emphasis is given to the United Nations, the Commonwealth, and the International Olympic Committee. The motivations behind their new (or in some cases renewed) interest in mobilizing sport to meet development goals are highlighted, as are their struggles to build support for the notion that sport could make a positive contribution to development.
Beyond the promotion of sport-for-development among international organizations, programmatic interventions were often initiated by national governments. The Cuban state offered one example of this in the context of the issues raised in Chaps. 4 and 5. While this suggests important continuities, Chap. 8 is focused primarily on the role of nation-states from the global North in the institutionalization of SDP. Focusing on Norway and Canada, the chapter examines when, how, and why these countries shifted their focus from sport aid—the support of sport development within partner countries—to sport-for-development, in which sport was positioned as means of meeting social development goals. Individuals “on the ground” who were instrumental in advocating for and ultimately organizing and delivering sport programs designed to meet non-sport goals are profiled to highlight the political and practical realities that informed this change.
Chapters 9 and 10 shift the focus from public policy debates and state interventions to consider the civil society actors central to modern SDP. Chief among these are NGOs, in these instances often initiated or led by reform-minded elite athletes. Three former world-class athletes— Mark Tewksbury, Ann Peel, and Johann Olav Koss—are profiled in Chap. 9 to illustrate the ways in which their advocacy (and in some cases, demands) that sport be organized more ethically or make a social contribution helped to set the stage for the emergence of SDP. Athletes like Peel and Koss were important bridges between initial calls for sport reform and the eventual growth and implementation of sport programs designed to contribute to development. Out of efforts such as these, NGOs became prominent and influential actors in the SDP sector. Two high-profile exemplars of the NGO approach to sport-for-development are examined in detail: the Mathare Youth Sports Association and Right to Play.
Chapter 10, in turn, explores the influence of charities, celebrities, and corporations within the emerging SDP sector. Particular attention is given to the ways in which sport offered an opportunity for firms and brands to fulfill a corporate social responsibility (CSR) mandate—as often for achieving marketing ends as development ones. These included both sport-focused and non-sport organizations, with Nike a prominent leader in using corporate-driven SDP to meet CSR targets. Similarly, celebrity athletes and their associated charitable foundations also came to S.
Introduction: Theorizing the History of Sport-for-Development
support sport programs, a trend that helped to bring more funding into the nascent SDP sector but which also complicated the motives and impacts of SDP activities.
Civil society and public-sector actors often worked together to deliver sport-for-development in the global South and in under-resourced regions of the North. These collaborations were not always seamless and took place within the context of the varied SDP practitioners struggling to integrate into the broader development landscape in terms of both policy and practice. Chapter 11 concludes this history of sport-for-good’s evolution into sport-for-development by examining the interorganizational collaborations and contestations that have resulted in the institutionalization of the contemporary SDP sector—in as much as it is a discrete and coherent institutional entity.
With its focus on those groups that sought to gain consent for their vision of sport-for-good as a social value and SDP as a sector, this book is very much a story of the powerful actors who shaped what were most often top-down interventions. Each chapter profiles important organizations and institutions. These examples are not intended to be exhaustive—there were, and continue to be, countless actors active in SDP—but they do highlight significant contributions to the history of sport-fordevelopment and are intended to be illustrative of larger themes.
A number of important themes are revealed by a focus on the prominent interventions. Following the colonial period, from the early twentieth century through to beginnings of contemporary SDP, this story is very much one of American interventions and US interests and programs dominate the narrative. Given that sport has its origins in what Bruce Kidd has called the “making of men,” much of the history of sport-fordevelopment is dominated by programming designed for men and intended to remake (or indeed, colonize) male bodies in a Western image.31
Moreover, the focus of this book is on international interventions, with expertise, resources, and, most importantly, control flowing from North to South. The contemporary framing of sport-for-development most often focuses on programs in sub-Saharan Africa. This is not to suggest that such interventions do not take place “domestically”—as the example of Midnight Basketball illustrates. The values and motives of SDP have been applied in Indigenous contexts—in Australia and Canada, in particular.32 And this is
S. C. Darnell et al.
not a recent phenomenon. As this book argues, the values that inform the long narrative of sport-for-good predate the late twentieth-century institutionalization of SDP and reflect a colonial mind-set. That these principles informed interventions with Indigenous peoples—such as the 1951 tour by the Sioux Black Hawks bantam ice hockey team, whose purpose, Braden Paora Te Hiwi argues, was “to produce loyal First Nations citizens, while also promoting the integration of First Nations and White youth through competitive sport”—should not be surprising.33 Finally, as with analyses of many SDP initiatives themselves, the voices of the actual “recipients” of development aid and programming are largely absent from this story (efforts are made in Chap. 5 to begin to redress this imbalance). It is not that such voices are unimportant. Rather, it is hoped that sketching out the historical contours of sport-for-development and illustrating the long narrative of which SDP is the current terminus opens up spaces from which these additional actors can be heard.
Notes
1. “International Day of Sport for Development and Peace, April 6,” United Nations, http://www.un.org/en/events/sportday/background. shtml, accessed July 12, 2018.
2. “Football for Hope: Programme Support,” streetfootballworld, https:// www.streetfootballworld.org/project/football-hope-programme-support, accessed July 12, 2018.
3. Robert Pitter and David L. Andrews, “Serving America’s underserved youth: Reflections on sport and recreation in an emerging social problems industry,” Quest 49, no. 1 (1997): 85–99.
4. Douglas Hartmann, Midnight Basketball: Race, Sports, and Neoliberal Social Policy (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2016).
5. Hartmann’s central thesis concerning Midnight Basketball aligns with the central argument of this book. He observes that “midnight basketball is the product of a historic set of ideas about the relationships among sport, young people of color, and social interventions that are given new life and form in the context of the neoliberal transformations of American social policy that coalesced in the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries” (Hartmann, 2016: 12).
Introduction: Theorizing the History of Sport-for-Development
6. See Nils Gilman, Mandarins of the Future: Modernization theory in Cold War America (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2003).
7. One working definition of “global South” highlights three ways to consider this term: (1) in reference to economically disadvantaged nations, and as an alternative to the label “Third World”; (2) as the territories that are created and exist outside the benefits of capitalism, which can be spaces both within the geographic north and/or south; and (3) as the collective identity, or resistant subjectivity, of those who are marginalized by global capitalism. The use of the term in this book focuses primarily on the first and third considerations. See Anne Garland Mahler, “Global South,” Oxford Bibliographies, http://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/ view/document/obo-9780190221911/obo-9780190221911-0055.xml, accessed July 12, 2018.
8. See Homi K. Bhabha, The Location of Culture (London: Routledge, 1994); Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri, Empire (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2000); Ania Loomba, Colonialism/postcolonialism (London: Routledge, 1998).
9. See Edward Said, Orientalism (New York: Pantheon Books, 1978).
10. David R. Black, “The ambiguities of development: Implications for ‘development through sport’,” Sport in Society 13, no. 1 (2010): 122. Coalter also makes this argument; see Fred Coalter, “The politics of sport-for-development: Limited focus programmes and broad gauge problems?” International Review for the Sociology of Sport 45, no. 3 (2010): 295–314.
11. Ruth Craggs, “Development in a global-historical context,” in The Companion to Development Studies, eds. Vandana Desai and Robert B. Potter (London: Routledge, 2014, 3rd edition): 5, emphasis original.
12. For analyses of the impact of sport-for-development programs on young people’s personal development, see Fred Coalter, Sport for Development: What game are we playing? (London: Routledge, 2013); on health, see C.N. Maro, G.C. Roberts, and M. Sørensen, “Using sport to promote HIV/AIDS education for at-risk youths: An intervention using peer coaches in football.” Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports 19, no. 1 (2009): 129–141; on social mobility, see Ramon Spaaij, Sport and social mobility: Crossing boundaries (London: Routledge, 2011); and, on social integration, see Patrick K. Gasser and Anders Levinsen, “Breaking Post-War Ice: Open Fun Football Schools in Bosnia and Herzegovina,” Sport in Society 7, no. 3 (2004): 457–72.
Another random document with no related content on Scribd:
Pepys, a. 422.
Perrier, a. 348.
Peter of Apono, a 226
Peter Bungo, a 217
Peter Damien, a. 231.
Peter the Lombard, a. 231.
Peter de Vineis, a. 237.
Petit, b 149, 187
Petrarch, a 237
Philip, Dr Wilson, b 454
Phillips, William, b. 325, 343, 525.
Philolaus, a. 259.
Photius, a 208
Piazzi, a 447, 485
Picard, a 404, 464, 470; b 33
Piccolomini, a. 336.
Pictet, b. 168.
Picus of Mirandula, a 226, 238
Plana, a 372
Playfair, a 423
Pliny, a. 150, 187, 219; b. 316, 359, 364.
Plotinus, a. 207, 213.
Plunier, b 380
Plutarch, a 77, 187
Poisson, a 372, 377; b 40, 43, 182, 208, 222
Polemarchus, a. 141, 142.
Poncelet, a. 350.
Pond, a. 477.
Pontanus, Jovianus, b 458
Pontécoulant, a 372
Pope, a. 427.
Porphyry, a. 205, 207.
Posidonius, a. 169.
Potter, Mr Richard, b 126, 130
Powell, Prof , b 128, 130, 154
Prevost, Pierre, b 143
Prevost, Constant, b. 589.
Prichard, Dr., b. 500, 565. 30
Priestley, b. 271, 273, 279.
Proclus, a. 204, 207, 214, 217, 222.
Prony, a 350; b 174
Proust, b 267
Prout, Dr., b. 289, 454.
Psellus, a. 208.
Ptolemy a. 149, &c.; b. 26
Ptolemy Euergetes, a 155
Purbach, a 299
Pythagoras, a 65, 78, 127, 217
Pytheas, a. 162.
Quetelet, M , b 130
Raleigh, b 378
Ramsden, a. 471.
Ramus, a. 237, 301.
Raspe, b. 514, 516.
Ray, b 384, 422
Raymund Lully, a 226
Reaumur, b 509
Recchi, b. 379.
Redi, b. 475.
Reichenbach, a 472
Reinhold, a 269
Rennie, Mr George, a 350
Rheede, b. 379.
Rheticus, a. 266, 269.
Riccioli, a 288, 341
Richman, b 142, 199
Richter, b 286
Riffault, b. 304.
Riolan, b. 448.
Rivinus, b 386
Rivius, a 250, 326
Robert Grostête, a 198, 226
Robert of Lorraine, a. 198.
Robert Marsh, a. 199.
Roberval, b. 33.
Robins, a 342
Robinson, Dr , a 477
Robison, a. 169. 173, 206.
Roger Bacon, a. 199, 226, 244.
Rohault, a. 391, 423.
Romé de Lisle, b 318, 319, 320, 324, 328
Römer, a 464, 480; b 33
Rondelet, b 421
Roscoe, b. 409.
Ross, Sir John, b. 219.
Rothman, a 264
Rouelle, b 512, 515
Rousseau, b 401
Rudberg, b. 127.
Ruellius, b. 368.
Rufus, b 441
Rumphe, b 379
Saluces, a. 376.
Salusbury, a. 276.
Salviani, b. 421
Santbach, a 325
Santorini, b 462
Saron, a 446
Savart, b. 40, 44, 245.
Savile, a. 205.
Saussure, b 177, 513
Sauveur, b 30, 37
Scheele, b 271
Schelling, b. 63.
Schlottheim, b. 514, 519. Schmidt, b 557
Schomberg, Cardinal, a 267
Schweigger, b 251
Schwerd, b. 125.
Scilla, b. 508.
Scot, Michael, b. 367.
Scrope, Mr Poulett, b 550
Sedgwick, Professor, b 533, 538
Sedillot, M., a. 179.
Seebeck, Dr., b. 75, 81, 252.
Segner, a. 375.
Seneca, a 168, 259, 346
Sergius, a 209
Servetus, b 446
Sextus Empiricus, a. 193.
S’Gravesande, a. 361.
Sharpe, b 174
Sherard, b 379
Simon of Genoa, b 367
Simplicius, a. 204, 206.
Sloane, b. 380.
Smith, Mr Archibald, b 130
Smith, Sir James Edward, b 403
Smith, William, b 515, 521
Snell, b. 56, 57.
Socrates, b. 442.
Solomon, a 227; b 361 31
Sorge, b 38
Sosigenes, a 118, 168
Southern, b. 174.
Sowerby, b. 519.
Spallanzani, b. 454.
Spix, b 477
Sprengel, b 473
Stahl, b. 268.
Stancari, b. 29.
Steno, b. 317, 507, 512.
Stephanus, b 445
Stevinus, a 317, 336, 345, 357
Stillingfleet, b 403
Stobæus, a. 208.
Stokes, Mr. C. b. 578.
Strabo, a. 203; b. 363, 587.
Strachey, b. 511.
Stukeley, b 511
Svanberg, b 149
Surian, b. 380.
Sylvester II. (Pope), a. 198, 227.
Sylvius, b. 263, 445, 446.
Symmer, b 202
Syncellus, a 117
Synesius, a 166
Tacitus, a. 220.
Tartalea, b 315, 321, 325
Tartini, b 38
Taylor, Brook, a 359, 375; b 31
Tchong-Kang, a. 135, 162.
Telaugé, a. 217.
Tennemann, a 228
Thales, a 56, 57, 63, 130
Thebit, a 226
Thenard, b. 283.
Theodore Metochytes, a. 207.
Theodosius, a. 168.
Theophrastus, a 205; b 360, 362, 363, 370
Thomas Aquinas, a 226, 232, 237
Thomson, Dr , b 288, 289
Tiberius, a. 220.
Timocharis, a. 144.
Torricelli, a 336, 340, 347, 349
Tournefort, b 386, 458
Tostatus, a 197
Totaril, Cardinal, a. 237.
Tragus, b. 368.
Trithemius, a 228
Troughton, a 471
Turner, b 289
Tycho Brahe, a. 297, 302; b. 55, 56.
Ubaldi, a. 313.
Ulugh Beigh, a. 178.
Ungern-Sternberg, Count, b 550
Uranus, a 209
Ure, Dr., b. 174.
Usteri, b. 473.
Vaillant, Sebastian, b 459
Vallisneri, b 508
Van Helmont, b 262
Varignon, a. 344; b. 454.
Varolius, b. 463.
Varro, Michael, a 314, 319, 326, 332
Vesalius, b 444, 445, 462
Vicq d’Azyr, b 463, 476
Vieussens, b. 463.
Vincent, a. 355.
Vincent of Beauvais, b 367
Vinci, Leonardo da, a 251, 318; b 507
Virgil (bishop of Salzburg), a 197
Virgil (a necromancer), a. 227.
Vitello, b. 56.
Vitruvius, a. 249, 251; b. 25.
Viviani, a 337, 340
Voet, a 390
Voigt, b 473
Volta, b. 238, 240.
Voltaire, a. 361, 431.
Voltz, b 533
Von Kleist, b 196
Wallerius, b. 319.
Wallis, a. 276, 341, 343, 387, 395; b. 37.
Walmesley, a 440
Warburton, a 427
Ward, Seth, a 276, 396
Wargentin, a. 441.
Watson, b. 195, 196, 202.
Weber, Ernest and William, b. 43.
Weiss, Prof , b 326, 327
Wells, b 170, 177, 242
Wenzel, b. 286. 32
Werner, b. 318, 337, 341, 514, 520, 521, 528, 584.
Wheatstone, b. 44.
Wheler, b 379
Whewell, a 459; b 330
Whiston, a 424
Wilcke, b. 161, 198, 204.
Wilkins (Bishop), a. 275, 332, 395.
William of Hirsaugen, a 198
Willis, Rev Robert, a 246; b 40, 47
Willis, Thomas, b 462, 463, 465
Willoughby, b. 422, 423.
Wolf, Caspar Frederick, b. 472.
Wolff, a 361; b 165
Wollaston, b 68, 70, 71, 81, 288, 325
Woodward, b 508, 511, 584
Wren, a. 276, 343, 395; b. 421.
Wright, a. 435.
Xanthus, b 360
Yates, b 219
Young, Thomas, a. 350; b. 43, 92, &c., 111, 112.
Zabarella, a 235
Zach, a 448
Ziegler, b 174
Zimmerman, b. 557.
INDEX OF TECHNICAL TERMS.
Aberration, a. 464.
Absolute and relative, a. 69.
Accelerating force, a 326
Achromatism, b 66
Acid, b 263
Acoustics, b. 24.
Acronycal rising and setting, a. 131.
Action and reaction, a 343
Acuation, b 319
Acumination, b 319
Acute harmonics, b. 37.
Ætiology, b. 499.
Affinity (in Chemistry), b 265
Affinity (in Natural History), b 418
Agitation, Centre of, a 357
Alidad, a. 181.
Alineations, a. 158, 161.
Alkali, b 262
Almacantars, a 181
Almagest, a 170
Almanac, a. 181.
Alphonsine tables, a. 178.
Alternation (of formations), b. 538.
Amphoteric silicides, b 352
Analogy (in Natural History), b 418
Analysis (chemical), b 262
Analysis (polar, of light), b. 80.
Angle of cleavage, b. 322.
Angle of incidence, b 53
Angle of reflection, b 53
Animal electricity, b 238
Anïon, b. 298.
Annus, a. 113.
Anode, b. 298.
Anomaly, a. 139, 141.
Antarctic circle, a 131
Antichthon, a 82
Anticlinal line, b. 537.
Antipodes, a. 196.
Apogee, a. 146.
Apotelesmatic astrology, a 222
Apothecæ, b 366
Appropriate ideas, a 87
Arctic circle, a. 131.
Armed magnets, b. 220.
Armil, a 163
Art and science, a 239
Articulata, b 478
Artificial magnets, b. 220.
Ascendant, a. 222.
Astrolabe, a 164
Atmology, b 137, 163
Atom, a 78
Atomic theory, b. 285.
Axes of symmetry (of crystals), b. 327.
Axis (of a mountain chain), b 537
Azimuth, a 181
Azot, b 276
Ballistics, a. 365.
Bases (of salts), b.264.
Basset (of strata), b 512
Beats, b 29
Calippic period, a. 123.
Caloric, b. 143.
Canicular period, a 118
Canon, a 147
Capillary action, a 377
Carbonic acid gas, b. 276
Carolinian tables, a. 304.
Catasterisms, a. 158.
Categories, a 206
Cathïon, b 298
Cathode, b. 298.
Catïon, b. 298.
Causes, Material, formal, efficient, final, a. 73. 34
Centrifugal force, a 330
Cerebral system, b 463
Chemical attraction, b 264
Chyle, b. 453.
Chyme, b. 453.
Circles of the sphere, a 128
Circular polarization, b 82, 119
Circular progression (in Natural History), b 418
Civil year, a. 117.
Climate, b. 146.
Coexistent vibrations, a 376
Colures, a 131
Conditions of existence (of animals), b 483, 492
Conducibility, b. 143.
Conductibility, b. 143.
Conduction, b 139
Conductivity, b 143
Conductors, b 194
Conical refraction, b. 124.
Conservation of areas, a. 380.
Consistence (in Thermotics), b. 160.
Constellations, a 124
Constituent temperature, b 170
Contact-theory of the Voltaic pile, b. 295.
Cor (of plants), b. 374.
Cosmical rising and setting, a. 131.
Cotidal lines, a 460
Craters of elevation, b 556
Dæmon, a. 214.
D’Alembert’s principle, a. 365.
Day, a. 112.
Decussation of nerves, b 462
Deduction, a 48
Deferent, a. 175.
Definite proportions (in Chemistry), b. 285.
Delta, b. 546.
Dephlogisticated air, b 273
Depolarization, b 80
Depolarization of heat, b 155
Depolarizing axes, b. 81.
Descriptive phrase (in Botany), b. 393.
Dew, b 177
Dichotomized, a 137
Diffraction, b 79
Dimorphism, b. 336.
Dioptra, a. 165.
Dipolarization, b 80, 82
Direct motion of planets, a 138
Discontinuous functions, b 36
Dispensatoria, b. 366.
Dispersion (of light), b. 126.
Doctrine of the sphere, a 130
Dogmatic school (of medicine), b 439
Double refraction, b 69
Eccentric, a. 145.
Echineis, a. 190.
Eclipses, a 135
Effective forces, a 359
Elective attraction, b 265
Electrical current, b. 242.
Electricity, b. 192.
Electrics, b 194
Electrical tension, b 242
Electro-dynamical, b 246
Electrodes, b. 298.
Electrolytes, b. 298.
Electro-magnetism, b. 243.
Elements (chemical), b 309
Elliptical polarization, b 122, 123
Empiric school (of medicine), b. 439.
Empyrean, a. 82.
Enneads, a. 213.
Entelechy, a 74
Eocene, b 529
Epicycles, a 140, 145
Epochs, a. 46.
Equant, a. 175.
Equation of time, a 159
Equator, a 130
Equinoctial points, a 131
Escarpment, b. 537.
Evection, a. 171, 172.
Exchanges of heat, Theory of, b 143
Facts and ideas, a 43
Faults (in strata), b. 537.
Final causes, b. 442, 492.
Finite intervals (hypothesis of), b. 126.
First law of motion, a 322
Fits of easy transmission, b 77, 89
Fixed air, b 272
Fixity of the stars, a. 158. 35
Formal optics, b. 52.
Franklinism, b 202
Fresnel’s rhomb, b 105
Fringes of shadows, b 79, 125
Fuga vacui, a. 347.
Full months, a. 122.
Function (in Physiology), b 435
Galvanism, b 239
Galvanometer, b. 251.
Ganglionic system, b. 463.
Ganglions, b. 463.
Generalization, a 46
Geocentric theory, a 258
Gnomon, a. 162.
Gnomonic, a. 137.
Golden number, a. 123.
Grave harmonics, b 38
Gravitate, a 406
Habitations (of plants), b. 562.
Hæcceity, a. 233.
Hakemite tables, a 177
Halogenes, b 308
Haloide, b 352
Harmonics, Acute, b. 37.
Harmonics, Grave, b. 38.
Heat, b 139
Heat, Latent, b 160
Heccædecaëteris, a 121
Height of a homogeneous atmosphere, b. 34.
Heliacal rising and setting, a. 131.
Heliocentric theory, a. 258.
Hemisphere of Berosus, a 162
Hollow months, a 122
Homoiomeria, a 78
Horizon, a. 131.
Horoscope, a. 222.
Horror of a vacuum, a 346
Houses (in Astrology), a 222
Hydracids, b 283
Hygrometer, b. 177.
Hygrometry, b. 138.
Hypostatical principles, b 262
Iatro-chemists, b 263
Ideas of the Platonists, a. 75.
Ilchanic tables, a. 178.
Impressed forces, a. 359.
Inclined plane, a 313
Induction (electric), b 197
Induction (logical), a. 43.
Inductive, a. 42.
Inductive, charts, a. 47.
Inductive, epochs, a 46
Inflammable air, b 273
Influences, a 219
Intercalation, a. 118.
Interferences, b. 86, 93.
Ionic school, a 56
Isomorphism, b 334
Isothermal lines, b 146, 538
Italic school, a. 56.
Joints (in rocks), b 537
Judicial astrology, a 222
Julian calendar, a 118
Lacteals, b. 453.
Latent heat, b. 160.
Laws of motion, first, a 322
Laws of motion, second, a 330
Laws of motion, third, a 334
Leap year, a. 118.
Leyden phial, b. 196.
Librations (of planets), a 297
Libration of Jupiter’s Satellites, a 441
Limb of an instrument, a 162
Longitudinal vibrations, b. 44.
Lunisolar year, a. 120.
Lymphatics, b 453
Magnetic elements, b 222
Magnetic equator, b. 219.
Magnetism, b. 217.
Magneto-electric induction, b 256
Matter and form, a 73
Mean temperature, b. 146.
Mechanical mixture of gases, b. 172.
Mechanico-chemical sciences, b. 191.
Meiocene, b 529
Meridian line, a 164
Metals, b 306, 307
Meteorology, b. 138.
Meteors, a. 86.
Methodic school (of medicine), b 439 36
Metonic cycle, a 122
Mineral alkali, b 264
Mineralogical axis, b. 537.
Minutes, a. 163.
Miocene, b 529
Mollusca, b 478
Moment of inertia, a 356
Momentum, a. 337, 338.
Moon’s libration, a. 375.
Morphology, b 469, 474
Movable polarization, b 105
Multiple proportions (in Chemistry), b 285
Music of the spheres, a. 82.
Mysticism, a. 209, 211.
Nadir, a 181
Nebular hypothesis, b 501
Neoplatonists, a 207
Neutral axes, b. 81.
Neutralization (in Chemistry), b. 263.
Newton’s rings, b 77, 124
Newton’s scale of color, b 77
Nitrous air, b 273
Nomenclature, b. 389.
Nominalists, a. 238.
Non-electrics, b. 194.
Numbers of the Pythagoreans, a 82, 216
Nutation, a 465
Nycthemer, a. 159.
Octaëteris, a. 121.
Octants, a 180
Oolite, b 529
Optics, b 51, &c
Organical sciences, b. 435.
Organic molecules, b. 460.
Organization, b 435
Oscillation, Centre of, a 356
Outcrop (of strata), b 512
Oxide, b. 282.
Oxyd, b. 282.
Oxygen, b 276
Palæontology, b 519
Palætiological sciences, b 499
Parallactic instrument, a. 165.
Parallax, a. 159.
Percussion, Centre of, a 357
Perfectihabia, a 75
Perigee, a 146
Perijove, a. 446.
Periodical colors, b. 93.
Phases of the moon, a 134
Philolaic tables, a 304
Phlogisticated air, b 273
Phlogiston, b. 268.
Phthongometer, b. 47.
Physical optics, b 52
Piston, a 346
Plagihedral faces, b 82
Plane of maximum areas, b. 380.
Pleiocene, b. 529.
Plesiomorphous, b. 335.
Plumb line, a 164
Pneumatic trough, b 273
Poikilite, b. 530.
Polar decompositions, b. 293.
Polarization, b. 72, 74.
Polarization, Circular, b 82, 119
Polarization, Elliptical, b 122, 124
Polarization, Movable, b 105
Polarization, Plane, b. 120.
Polarization of heat, b. 153.
Poles (voltaic), b 298
Poles of maximum cold, b 146
Potential levers, a 318
Power and act, a. 74.
Precession of the equinoxes, a. 155.
Predicables, a 205
Predicaments, a 206
Preludes of epochs, a 46
Primary rocks, b. 513.
Primitive rocks, b. 513.
Primum calidum, a 77
Principal plane (of a rhomb), b 73
Principle of least action, a 380
Prosthapheresis, a. 146.
Provinces (of plants and animals), b. 562.
Prutenic tables, a. 270.
Pulses, b 33
Pyrites, b 352
Quadrant, a. 164
Quadrivium, a. 199.
Quiddity, a 234 37
Quinary division (in Natural History), b 418
Quintessence, a 73
Radiata, b. 478.
Radiation, b. 139.
Rays, b 58
Realists, a 238
Refraction, b. 54.
Refraction of heat, b. 155.
Remora, a. 190.
Resinous electricity, b 195
Rete mirabile, b 463
Retrograde motion of planets, a 139
Roman calendar, a. 123.
Rotatory vibrations, b. 44.
Rudolphine tables, a 270, 302
Saros, a 136
Scholastic philosophy, a. 230.
School philosophy, a. 50.
Science, a 42
Secondary rocks, b 513
Secondary mechanical sciences, b 23
Second law of motion, a. 330.
Seconds, a. 163.
Secular inequalities, a. 370.
Segregation, b 558
Seminal contagion, b 459
Seminal proportions, a 79
Sequels of epochs, a. 47.
Silicides, b. 352.
Silurian rocks, b 530
Simples, b 367
Sine, a 181
Solar heat, b. 145.
Solstitial points, a. 131.
Solution of water in air, b 166
Sothic period, a 118
Spagiric art, b 262
Specific heat, b. 159.
Sphere, a. 130.
Spontaneous generation, b. 457.
Statical electricity, b 208
Stationary periods, a 48
Stationary planets, a. 139.
Stations (of plants), b. 562.
Sympathetic sounds, b. 37.
Systematic Botany, b 357
Systematic Zoology, b 412
Systems of crystallization, b 328
Tables, Solar, (of Ptolemy), a. 146.
Tables, Hakemite, a 177
Tables, Toletan, a 177
Tables, Ilchanic, a 178
Tables, Alphonsine, a. 178.
Tables, Prutenic, a. 270.
Tables, Rudolphine, a 302
Tables, Perpetual (of Lansberg), a 302
Tables, Philolaic, a 304
Tables, Carolinian, a. 304.
Tangential vibrations, b. 45.
Tautochronous curves, a. 372.
Technical terms, b 389
Temperament, b 47
Temperature, b 139
Terminology, b. 389.
Tertiary rocks, b. 513.
Tetractys, a 77
Theory of analogues, b 483
Thermomultiplier, b 154
Thermotics, b. 137.
Thick plates. Colors of, b. 79.
Thin plates Colors of, b 77
Third law of motion, a 334
Three principles (in Chemistry), b 261
Toletan tables, a. 177.
