The era of international comparisons and its discontent

In the nineteenth century, modern society became globally interconnected in unprecedented ways. Advances in communication, the rise of international exhibitions, and the emergence of international congresses all facilitated cross-border interactions (Greenhalgh Reference Greenhalgh1988; Rosenberg Reference Rosenberg2012; Osterhammel Reference Osterhammel2014; Ogle Reference Ogle2015). A key characteristic of this increasingly interconnected world was the growing significance of various international comparisons. Nietzsche referred to the period as the “era of comparisons,” describing a time when nothing was fixed and where art, morality, customs, and cultures constantly evolved through comparison (Nietzsche Reference Nietzsche2004 [1878]: 24).

The field of education is a clear example of how international influences proliferated during the period. International congresses, statistics, school museums, correspondence, travel writings, and translations of books served as means for international comparisons of educational systems (Fuchs and Roldán Vera Reference Fuchs and Roldán Vera2019; Lawn Reference Lawn2009). Gymnastic festivals were, due to the strong position of gymnastics as a school subject in many countries, another example of how education was compared on a global scale. International comparisons fostered mutual learning and the construction of an international community but could also lead to power struggles as different countries sought to outdo one another. World’s fairs were one of the most obvious examples where international comparisons included a competitive dimension. The educational exhibits of these fairs, showcased in national pavilions, schoolhouses (Lundahl and Lawn Reference Lundahl and Lawn2015), and palaces of education (Landahl Reference Landahl2019), served to demonstrate the strengths of education in various countries (Dittrich Reference Dittrich2010). Auerbach describes the ambiguous nature of these great international exhibitions. They could be characterized as festivals of peace, promoting international understanding, but were simultaneously highly competitive, nationalistic, and even warlike events (Auerbach Reference Auerbach1999: 189). The era of comparisons was, in other words, based on an internationalism that coexisted with nationalistic sentiments. As Calhoun (Reference Calhoun2007) emphasizes, nationalism and internationalism are not opposites; rather, nationalism can be a response to internationalism. Thus, in the history of international comparisons, we can observe a duality where harmonious coexistence, cooperation, and learning exist alongside national rivalry.

This Janus face of international comparisons has contributed to their global impact, as exemplified by the rise of sports as a global phenomenon. Keys (Reference Keys2006) discusses how sports, like an “invasive species,” managed to outcompete rival forms of physical culture such as gymnastics during the twentieth century. According to Keys, this achievement can be attributed to the peculiar potency of sports “as a means of mediating between national and international identities. The growth of nationalist rivalry and international community in sport proceeded in tandem, each reinforcing the other” (Keys Reference Keys2006, 3f). By creating an international, universal framework, with uniform rules across time and place, sports offered “a uniquely objective and quantifiable means to compare national strength” (Keys Reference Keys2006: 4). As a result, sports spread to large parts of the globe. As Dyreson (Reference Dyreson2003: 93) notes, this globalization of sporting practices has paradoxically fueled nationalism.

However, as this article illustrates, such a harmonious coexistence between nationalism and internationalism is not a universal phenomenon. There is also a long and multifaceted history of resistance to international comparisons. It can, for instance, come in principal criticism against certain forms of competition, such as sports (Bale Reference Bale2014; Peatling Reference Peatling2005) or in a refusal to participate in various kinds of comparisons. In the case of world’s fairs, sports events, or comparisons of school achievements, there are examples of countries that have decided not to participate. For example, after the 1917 revolution, the Soviet Union chose not to take part in the Olympic Games, remaining out of the competition until 1952 (Rider Reference Rider2016). Another criticism against international competitions has been directed at the hosts. Throughout the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, there has been criticism, often politically motivated, that certain countries are permitted to host international games – for instance, when the Olympics were organized in Germany in 1936 (Arnaud and Riordan Reference Arnaud and Riordan2013; Vonnard et al. Reference Vonnard, Sbetti and Quin2018).

By contrast, this article directs attention to criticism that stems from the host country. Criticism originating from the host country has been examined in recent times regarding mega-events such as the Olympics, a resistance based on the economic and social costs of organizing a major event (Giulianotti et al. Reference Giulianotti, Armstrong, Hales and Hobbs2015; Lauermann Reference Lauermann2019). The case of the Gymnastic Festival represents a different kind of resistance from the hosting country – a resistance against the very idea of making international comparisons.

To understand the resistance to this competitive event, it is helpful to first define what competition is. One way to describe competition in modern times is to highlight the role of third parties. In the tradition of Simmel (Reference Simmel2008 [1903]), competition has been understood as a struggle between at least two parties aiming for the recognition of a third party (see Werron Reference Werron2014, Reference Werron2015). This “indirect” competition gives non-competing actors a prominent role. Third parties, such as the jury in a competition, hold significant power over the outcome of a contest between two parties. In an international competition, this power can have major consequences for how hierarchies between countries and contenders are understood. Given this influence, it is not surprising to find attempts to challenge the legitimacy of third parties. The following analysis demonstrates how the resistance against the gymnastics festival can be interpreted as an effort to undermine the credibility of these third parties.

The case of the International Gymnastics Festival in Stockholm

Swedish gymnastics was a major educational export during the nineteenth century (e.g., Bloomfield Reference Bloomfield2005; Fredriksson Reference Fredriksson2006; Ljunggren Reference Ljunggren1999; Ottosson Reference Ottosson2013; Westberg Reference Westberg2017). The method developed by Pehr Henrik Ling and his successors spread to many parts of the world and was, along with Sloyd (school handicraft), an example of how Swedish education became internationally renowned for advancements in the practical dimensions of learning. Swedish gymnastics, or elements of it, was promoted and used in schools and the army in countries such as Denmark, Norway, England, Belgium, Portugal, France, Australia, Argentina, and the United States (Bazoge et al. Reference Bazoge, Saint-Martin and Attali2013; Bolling and Yttergren Reference Bolling and Yttergren2015; Martini and Quitzau Reference Martini and Amgarten Quitzau2025; Mechbach and Lundquist Waneberg Reference Mechbach and Lundquist Waneberg2011; Scharagrodsky and Varea Reference Scharagrodsky and Varea2016). As such, Swedish gymnasts were used to seeing their methods emulated and admired across the world, although there were competing systems with different views on how gymnastics should be exercised. The German version of gymnastics, with roots in the so-called Turnkunst developed by Friedrich Ludwig Jahn, differed from the Swedish version in some crucial ways. For instance, the Swedish version did not use any apparatus, while the German version was more versatile.

The International Gymnastics Festival in Stockholm is significant as it was the first international event in Sweden to showcase various types of physical exercise in a single, comparative space. Different national systems were juxtaposed and presented to an audience. As a result, various gymnastics practices were exposed to a new kind of comparative gaze, making their respective advantages and drawbacks visible.

While the 1891 International Gymnastics Festival in Stockholm was the first of its kind in Sweden, it had been preceded by national gymnastics festivals arranged during the period 1877–1982 (Lindroth Reference Lindroth1974: 213). During the same period, Swedish gymnasts began attending international gymnastics festivals. Viktor Balck, a key figure in the modernization of Swedish gymnastics and a pioneer in the history of sports, accompanied gymnasts to festivals in Brussels (1877 and 1880), London (1880), and Paris (1889) (Balck Reference Balck1931: 28–48). In his memoirs, Balck (Reference Balck1931: 13, 23) states that these international experiences demonstrated a significant problem with the Swedish system: interest in gymnastics was greater in other countries. This raised the question of why so few Swedes voluntarily pursued gymnastics after graduating from school. The lack of interest provided the impetus for organizing the 1891 International Gymnastics Festival, for which Balck served as chairman of the organizing committee. The organizers wanted the festival to be a truly international event and sent out invitations to gymnastics associations in fifteen countries: Norway, Denmark, Finland, France, Belgium, England, Holland, Germany, Austria, Hungary, Switzerland, Italy, Portugal, Luxembourg, and the United States (Göteborgs Aftonblad 1891, February 5). In the end, it turned out that only England, Norway, Denmark, Finland, and Sweden attended the festival, making it a less international event than the original plan. Nevertheless, discussions preceding the festival were based on the initial plans and should be read as comments on a festival that aimed to have many countries compete on Swedish soil.

The festival took place before sports became a global norm for physical culture. For example, it was still some years before the first modern Olympic Games would take place in Athens in 1896. Instead, a variety of physical cultures coexisted around the world. The three dominant cultures struggling for global supremacy were English sports, Swedish gymnastics, and German Turnen (Pfister Reference Pfister2003). Tensions occasionally arose between these systems, as proponents and opponents of different methods expressed their disagreements regarding the proper approach to physical education. A notable example is the “Barrenstreit,” which occurred in the 1860s when officer Hugo Rothstein, influenced by Swedish gymnastics, unsuccessfully attempted to remove the parallel bars, a symbol of German gymnastics, from the teacher training center in Berlin (Krüger Reference Krüger1996: 414).

The tensions between different views on physical culture were also reflected in the debates about Swedish gymnastics and its relationship to foreign systems. Two opposing views emerged: traditionalists, who argued that the Ling system was superior and had nothing to learn from other systems, and modernists, who believed that while the Swedish system was good, it could benefit from incorporating elements from other systems. The confrontation between those opposite views is what characterizes the controversy over the 1891 festival.

Opposing the festival: The destructive role of third parties

The International Gymnastics Festival generated substantial media coverage. According to one contemporary commentator, it was the most discussed public issue of the year, surpassing even the deaths of famous individuals and government controversies (Gellina Reference Gellina1891: 3). Unlike other international competitive events, this coverage was not focused on the festival as an uncontroversial, festive, and popular occasion. Instead, the great interest in the festival stemmed from the resistance against it. This opposition was primarily, though not exclusively, expressed in Svenska Dagbladet [The Swedish Daily], a leading conservative newspaper.

The media debate about the festival began in February 1891, three months before the festival started, and continued even after it ended. After approximately three months of debate, a book, published under a pseudonym, was released (Gellina Reference Gellina1891). The book compiled and commented on the media criticism and was released on the first day of the festival. Apart from being announced in the press, the book was provocatively sold at the festival’s gates on the day of its inauguration, in an apparent final protest against the event.

The debate began with a grassroots reaction within the gymnastics movement. A local gymnastics association from Lund University had reportedly decided to withdraw from the festival. The Lund association objected to the invitation of foreign gymnastics associations, with their more “circus-like productions,” to compete against the Swedish system, which was “constructed on rational, physiological grounds.” Concerns were raised that this competition between different systems could lead “the uncritical mass” to misunderstand the Swedish system (Svenska Dagbladet 1891, February 4). The following day, Svenska Dagbladet praised the Lund association for not participating in the festival. The decision was said to have been received with the sincerest satisfaction by groups of people “for whom our Swedish gymnastics is an important and precious national concern, and not a sport” (Svenska Dagbladet 1891, February 5).

The newspaper hoped that the festival would attract as few participants as possible and raised two main criticisms. First, the festival was structured as a competition between different countries, which was problematic since Swedish gymnastics could not be compared to foreign systems.

Second, it was argued that the organization of the festival betrayed one of the fundamental pillars of Swedish gymnastics: that it was aimed at everyone, not just the elite. According to the newspaper, the organizers had encouraged associations to send their best gymnasts. This was described as elitist and a dramatic departure from the Swedish tradition.

The message was that Sweden should take pride in its gymnastics system, but this pride was jeopardized by comparisons with foreign systems. Although superior, Sweden was about to take part in a competitive event that it might lose. The argument was supported by a vague sense of impending doom. It was suggested that the risk of a decline in gymnastics needed to be addressed to counteract other forms of social deterioration.

This early article introduced themes that would be repeated again and again until the festival started, albeit with some variations. Three aspects of the criticism against the festival will be distinguished in the following: the role of the international jury, the role of spectators, and the role of students. They have one thing in common: all include some kind of external actor or audience – a third party – that potentially could evaluate the outcomes of the international festival, with negative results for Swedish gymnastics. Thus, the criticism against the festival turned out to be a criticism against the role of those external actors.

Defending the festival: The role of interest and audiences

Let us now turn to the other side of the debate: the proponents of the gymnastics festival. By analyzing their way of reasoning about the event, we can gain a more complete understanding of the controversy. To begin with, the proponents rejected the idea that the festival was centered on competition. Instead, they stressed that the festival provided an opportunity to learn from others and claimed that the Swedish system was not perfect.

Additionally, they highlighted the importance of fostering a desire to learn among the students, arguing that gymnastics festivals could spark interest in gymnastics. To understand this argument, some background is required. Arguably, Ling gymnastics was not always a particularly stimulating activity. Pfister (Reference Pfister2003) has compared Ling gymnastics with Turnen and English sports and is intrigued that such a tedious form of physical exercise as Ling gymnastics could become so widespread:

Other contemporary sources confirm that Swedish gymnastics relied heavily on its presence in schools and the army, while voluntary gymnastics was limited. For instance, Margaret Howitt, who traveled in Sweden in the 1860s, was surprised by the discrepancy between the official status and the actual practice of gymnastics: “Considering that the Swedes pride themselves on the modern system of gymnastics having originated in their country, I am surprised to find them not more generally practised” (Howitt Reference Howitt1866: 278). This pattern was also evident abroad. With the exception of Denmark, Swedish gymnastics did not become popular in voluntary associations – its success as an export was limited to schools and the army (Eichberg Reference Eichberg1995). During the discussions about the 1891 gymnastics festival, a proponent noted that Sweden was internationally unique in its lack of widespread voluntary gymnastics associations. Switzerland, a small country, had 12,000 active gymnasts, whereas Sweden, which had a population twice that of Switzerland, had only 500. Organizing an international gymnastics festival was described as a possible remedy for this situation (Aftonbladet 1891, April 7).

The ideal of voluntary gymnastics implied a problematization of what counted as knowledge and what could be compared internationally. Connected to this was an ideal of a more advanced form of gymnastics, in contrast to the Ling system, which was considered too basic and easy. As it was primarily practiced in institutions such as schools and the army, there was little opportunity for development. Following the gymnastics festival, one of the members of the international jury, Brigadier G. M. Fox, inspector of the British army’s gymnastics schools, expressed this criticism in an interview published in Sweden. Fox acknowledged that the Swedish system provided the best foundation for gymnastics, but noted that it did not go beyond that: “You continue with your elementary movements from the first moment to the last.” The same article included comments from the Danish leader of the gymnastics team, described as “the best gymnastics teacher in Copenhagen.” He commented that the Swedish Ling system was excellent for large, well-disciplined crowds and was appropriate for military gymnastics but not for gymnastics associations. Ling gymnastics was simply too boring: to imagine young men voluntarily engaging in such monotonous movements was impossible. In fact, no other system could “kill all voluntary gymnastics” like the Ling system could (Aftonbladet 1891, May 20).

Thus, a significant divide existed between the opponents and proponents of the gymnastics festival. Proponents believed it offered a valuable learning experience that generated interest in voluntary gymnastics, while opponents thought that it would seduce the audience into appreciating foreign and inferior gymnastics systems.

Conclusion: Delegitimizing third parties

Today, the world often appears to be overflowing with enthusiasm for comparisons, particularly in the form of competition (Werron Reference Werron2015). There is indeed a certain “force” that makes competition seem attractive or inevitable (Steinmetz Reference Steinmetz2019), but as this article has demonstrated, there is also a history of criticism against international comparisons. As the case illustrates, such criticism can arise even in countries that took pride in their achievements, making the skepticism against comparisons somewhat paradoxical. On the one hand, Swedish gymnastics was described as internationally superior; on the other hand, it would likely lose in competition with other systems. A flattering or even grandiose self-image coexisted with a nervousness about what international scrutiny would entail.

This skepticism can be attributed to an unease about being subjected to the judgment of external actors, or third parties, whether in the form of a jury, an audience, or students. The jury, with its representatives of foreign gymnastics systems, the audience with its primitive attraction to spectacular movements, and the students, the traditional base for gymnastics education, were given a new, powerful position during an event where different systems were juxtaposed. Based on what they saw or heard, they could compare different gymnastics systems and make some kind of personal judgment of their relative strengths and weaknesses. In doing so, they acquired the power to subvert traditional ideas about the best system.

A general point that this case illuminates is the relationship between competition and third parties. Following Simmel (Reference Simmel2008 [1903]), the third party has been described as an actor that makes competition possible (Werron Reference Werron2014, Reference Werron2015). What such an account emphasizes is the fundamental power of the third parties, but what it plays down is the interdependent nature of the relation between the third and the first/second parties. If competition depends on (at least) two parties fighting for the favor or recognition of a third party, then that very competition is dependent on the third party being considered legitimate by both actors. If at least one of the first two parties considers the third party illegitimate, then the entire competition is jeopardized. This could lead to boycotts or media campaigns, prompting actors to either step out of the game or attempt to fundamentally change it.Footnote ¹ This raises the general question of how third parties are delegitimized and legitimized. While previous research has emphasized the crucial role of third parties as actors with the power to constitute competitions, less is known about how third parties are defined by others. Understanding the processes of legitimization and delegitimization has the potential to deepen our knowledge of how international competitive relations emerge, persist, and change over time.