SPORT 1913 - 2013

of WSM. It consists of a proud negative inte- gration in the political systems – lasting till the 1950s – and at the same time, in a sort of isomorphic adaptation (Di Maggio and Pow- ell, 1983) in the proper international sport system. If we analyse the organizational pro- ductions of ISOS and in particular of the post-war CSIT, this kind of isomorphism can easily be found in the inside structuration of programmes and initiatives dedicated to im- prove technical competences, to develop competitive sectors reproducing the Olympic regime and the sports Federations’ networks almost perfectly, and to enforce the leading value of ‘sports solidarity’ at international range. It is necessary to specify that both of these aspects of the movement emphasize the distinction with the Communist sport or- ganizations after the ISOS Congress held in Leipzig in 1922 and the breaking with the ISR. The Socialist side of WSM did not re- nounce to criticize the political bourgeois hegemony but agreed with the reformist method and did not include the worldwide Olympic organizations in the list of its ‘ene- mies’. On the contrary, since the Congress of Seraing (1919), it would always be concerned with preserving its identity mainly in rela- tion to the bourgeois organizations for youth and later to defend sport from its instrumen- tal use on behalf of the totalitarian regimes. So, some times in the CSIT’s post-war period, Olympism seemed to be working out as a sort of “umbrella ideology”, taking no part in the political conflicts. Conversely, ISR and Com-

both to the infra-organizational level and to the inter-organizational one. Until the 2 nd World War, ISO and ISOS emphasized their dispute with the bourgeois Federations, op- posed their values to the religious and nation- alistic sports mass organizations and claimed their organizational autonomy as regards to the States. Their tendency to be recognized as parts of the broader Olympic system (until 1986) is, on the contrary, a virtual example of infra-organizational dynamics, in which the Socialist sport aims at representing a neglect- ed protagonist of the sports movement at large. Their isomorphic attitude, aiming at adapting the organizational offer to the Olym- pic model, can be viewed as an indicator of infra-organizational dynamics. It seems less coherent in the case of the relationship with the Communist side of the workers’ sport or- ganizations, at least until the late Sixties. Organization, Conflict and Competition From a sociological point of view, one can analyse this relationship as an infra-organiza- tional competition inside the workers’ move- ment at large (starting with the Congress of Seraing in 1919) and later inside the wider anti-fascist Front. At the same time, we are dealing with a classic inter-organizational con- flict, having at stake the leading role in the proletarian and popular mass organizations involved in nonprofessional competitive sports and recreational activities. Of course, this proposed analytical category is likely to be useless and too abstract if we do not focus

munist sport organizations, more and more supportive of the Soviet ideology after the 2 nd World War, will refuse to participate in the Olympic Games until 1952, giving birth to al- ternative events like the Spartakiads. This short overview suggests that the WSM can be included in the analytical frame of the political arena (Benson 1988). According to this perspective, the mass sports actors can- not be represented as passive terminals of the central political system, acting in a peripheral subsystem and expressing a sort of derived in- tentionality. Quite the opposite, this approach stresses the intentionality – that is to say the historicity – of their social action. It implies that the analysis of the sports movements at large and more specifically of their cultural and organizational changes from the early 20 th century until the late modernity needs appro- priate instruments of research. In particular, we cannot privilege a point of view inspired by the business theories and/or by the studies on micro-organizations. It seems more prom- ising to develop an institutional perspective, according to which institutions are consid- ered as independent variables, creating poli- tics – in terms of identities, power relation- ships, strategies – and at the same time as dependent variables, being shaped by political history and social change. That is to say, insti- tutions are endowed with autonomy and ‘re- sistance’, but they work within a range of con- strained choices. In such a way we can include in a peculiar political field, such as WSM, the crucial idea of conflict. This idea can refer

72