The Olympics are a plentiful source of symbols that help illustrate certain “abstractions” found in social theory. Between criticisms towards its execution and questions about its legacy, several other analyses can be made - such as the one that contrasts the warm welcome from the audience towards the refugee delegation at the opening ceremony with the treatment generally given to refugees, which reveals the cynical euphoria of the society of the spectacle.
Racial tensions, although ethnic variety is expected given that the event is global, can also be articulated once the history of prohibitions for non-whites in the event is lifted. (Prohibitions imposed by white people, it is worth mentioning the obvious.) On the issue of sexual diversity, Rio 2016 boasts the highest number of openly gay athletes in the history of the games (twice as much as it was in London 2012), and this can be read as a positive sign of broader social acceptance.
Questioning the binary nature of the event´s gender division may seem too much of a, say, futuristic proposal to many people - although it is important to remember that breaking the binary code, in sports and other spheres, is already the reality of many people. Still, it is from within the binary that my analysis arises.
This is the Olympics with the highest female participation in history: 45% of the athletes competing in the event are women. This is cause for celebration, and so it should be: never have we been so close to equity, even if only in participation rates. It is significant that we are celebrating something that does not even count as full equality, for it indicates that the feminist struggle for equality is really a struggle for equality. Think about it: not even the highest historical percentage of participation of women in the Olympics reaches 50%.
Beyond numbers, and the die-hard habit of objectifying athletes (courtesy of randy journalists), it is also worth paying attention to the emphasis the media puts on the achievements of men over those of women. Only during #Rio2016, credits have already been given to the husband and coach of the Hungarian Katinka Hosszú, for an achievement that - even with his help - is primarily hers. (On that note, never ever have I seen anyone crediting Judy Murray, mother and Andy his former coach, for any of his accomplishments.). Also, a headline in the Greeley Tribune, a newspaper in Colorado, USA, chose to highlight Michael Phelps’s silver medal instead of Katie Ledecky´s four brand new gold plus a world record.
Chinese swimmer Fu Yuanhui, who attributed her poor performance to her period, also made the headlines. Her interview went viral because she talked about her period. Now, nothing other than sexism and misoyny can explain why talking about something as prosaic for womb havers as menstruation still counts as “breaking a taboo”.
In his book Masculine Domination, french sociologist Pierre Bourdieu suggests that male domination is so deeply ingrained in the collective unconscious that we hardly notice it - and even feel bad to question it. He believes - and I agree - it is essential that we destroy the evidences of this domination, by first exploring the symbolic structures of the androcentric unconscious that survive in both men and women alike, so as to find out what mechanisms and institutions help reproduce this ‘eternal male’. And he asks: is it possible to neutralize them in order to release the forces of transformation that they block?
The women at #Rio2016 are showing the world that yes, it is.
During the tense match that took our natonal women’s football team to the semifinals, Chloe Logarzo´s gesture in the field contributed to the choir that has been calling this the #OlimpíadaDasMulheres (Women´s Olympics). Logarzo did exactly what Bourdieu proposed: “explore the symbolic structures of the androcentric unconscious.” The Australian player challenged the patriarchal doxa - winning gold for “iconoclasty of phallogocentrism” - when celebrating a score. With her open hands joined the fingertips at about the height of the uterus, she was most definitely representing a vagina. Live broadcast by radio and TV commentators have called it “a heart”.
Now, a gesture that could have been described as, I don’t know, “a symbol of female empowerment” (to give one example of one possible euphemism, seeing as talking about vaginas or penises in the media is also taboo) was immediately resignified as the generic “heart”.
Whether it was due to lack of recongnition or modesty by the (male) commentators, that blatant symbolic vagina was erased from the media narrative about it only to be reconfigured as another symbol, and a less contested one at that.
A heart is no more threatening than a vagina - but it seems that just talking about one of them is.
The most spectacular reminder of feminist iconoclasty,and one that anticipated the inevitable and bizarre comparisons that the media insists making between male and female athletes, was condensed in the following statement: “I am not the next Usain Bolt or Michael Phelps. I am the first Simone Biles”.
A simple yet extremely powerful assertion, which demonstrates the truly transforming power of this phenomenal American gymnast. The #BlackGirlMagic unclogging the (white) patriarchal doxa wins ALL the gold medals.
A version of this article was originally published in portuguese at Carta Capital.