Understanding the Special Olympics Debate From Lifeworld and System Perspectives

Abstract

Keith Storey outlined a comprehensive overview examining the pros and cons of Special Olympics and the unintended negative consequences for participants. In conclusion, he briefly summarized three options on how to respond to Special Olympics: (a) make no change, (b) reform the current structure but keep the basic conditions of Special Olympics, or (c) discontinue or replace Special Olympics with programs designed to promote more inclusive recreational leisure situations. The purpose of this article is to employ Habermas’s theory of communicative action relative to the issues and concerns outlined by Storey into this framework to increase the understanding of the Special Olympics as a movement and a system. Newly gained insights from this investigation reveal a conceptual/philosophical disconnect between (a) the Special Olympics as a meritocratic deficit-based system according to the 1960s Liberal Egalitarian lifeworld view of people with disabilities and (b) the current lifeworld view of empowerment for persons with disabilities as promoted by researchers, scholars, and educators needed to achieve socially valuable lifestyles (social justice). The Special Olympics’ antiquated deficit lifeworld view has largely resulted in outdated program practices that run counter to the current empowered lifeworld view of integrated recreational living.