As the 2008 Olympic and Paralympic Games in Beijing quickly approach, it is appropriate to reflect upon the term “para” in the Paralympic Games. Specifically, it is fitting to further inquire as to why the Olympic and Paralympic Games are “parallel” to one another rather than two Games within one Olympic Movement.
Within this one topic, several important questions emerge: Is parallel as equally empowering as the same? Why is the Olympian label not interchangeable? Does separate but equal actually imply not equal? What are the implications for using separate terminology for these high-level athletes? These questions are intended to increase awareness surrounding disability sport language, not to critique the alliance between the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and International Paralympic Committee (IPC). The intent is to inform and discuss the term “Paralympic” in hopes of furthering constructive dialogue.
During the early years of the International Stoke Mandeville Games, “Paralympic was used to describe a “Paraplegic Olympiad,” comprised mainly of World War II veterans disabled during service abroad. The IPC has officially referenced the term “Paralympic” as follows:
[The word] derives from the Greek preposition “para” (“beside” or “alongside”) and the word “Olympics”(the Paralympics being the parallel Games to the Olympics.) The word Paralympic was originally a pun combining “paraplegic” and “Olympic,” however with the inclusion of other disability groups and the close associations with the Olympic Movement, it now represents “parallel” and “Olympic” to illustrate how the two movements exist side by side.
Today, Paralympians represent more than 160 member countries in 32 disability-specific events. They are regarded as empowering mentors in their local and international communities. Although the Olympic and Paralympic Movements are partners in international sport, the fact that they are not a singular campaign for athletic development perhaps suggests they are not inherently categorized as equal competitions.
Additional definitions of “para” in academic settings concern us because of a potential negative connotation. Upon further examination of the prefix “para,” we have found the following definitions in Miriam-Webster's Dictionary:
Para-
Etymology: Greek, from para; akin to the Greek pro before
1 : beside: alongside of : beyond : aside from
2 a: closely related to b: involving substitution at or characterized by two opposite positions in the benzene ring that are separated by two carbon atoms
3 a: faulty: abnormal b: associated in a subsidiary or accessory capacity c: closely resembling: almost
It is the third definition that is of particular concern to us as “para” can imply that the Paralympic games are “faulty,” “abnormal” and “associated in a subsidiary or accessory capacity” to the Olympic movement. Although the first definition indicates the two Movements are parallel to one another, the third definition has the potential to disempower Olympic-level athletes with disabilities. “Paralympian” is an inappropriate label to use therefore, if it can have negative connotations.
Another reading of the prefix “para” in Paralympian, in which parallel may be interpreted as disempowering, results from the insinuation that the Olympic and Paralympic Movements are not one movement. The two Games could function as one Movement, much like how the FIFA World Cup is comprised of men's and women's tournaments. Inclusion as one entity may promote a sense of equality in the athletic arena regardless of disability and appeal to the general public as a united sporting community under the same rules, regulations and principles.
Full inclusion of disability sport refers to valuing, treating and providing opportunities for athletes with disabilities on par with non-disabled athletes. Ideally, the Olympic Movement will grow to extend its “sports for all” approach to include the needs of Paralympians, the Paralympic Games and the Paralympic Movement.