Who invented CESH?
The annual meeting of the European departments of physical education took place in Bordeaux in 1995. The aim of these meetings was to have similar standards in the study of physical education and sport in all of the European Union. In these annual meetings Dr. Joachim K. Ruehl, Senior Lecturer at the Cologne Sport University, had always had a session on the history of physical education and sport, to make sure this field would not be forgotten. I was an official representative of Germany, as I had worked extensively on the education of coaches and other non-university-trained physical educators in the leading countries of the world. The German government wanted to make sure that the special German way of carrying a double major for a teaching credential was not labelled substandard. I had also worked extensively on non-university preparation of instructors and coaches in international comparison. As a full Professor of Sport Studies of Goettingen University I also had the advantage of being able to express myself in English, French, and Spanish. Angela Teja from Rome disapproved sport history meetings being run more and more in English only, thus leaving out those who could not. If you do not have the skill nor the money for good translation you are left behind. The three of us knew each other from previous sport history conferences, in which Angela had been a perfect organizer before. We were discussing the future role of sport history but without the idea of starting a separate organization. A regular and strong sport history section in the annual meetings of the European physical education organization would have been enough.
Why was CESH invented?
The European College of Sport Sciences (ECSS) was created in Bordeaux. In the foundation meeting it became obvious that the ECSS would take over many roles that had previously been taken by the network of the P.E. departments. In the foundation of the ECSS I raised the question about the role of sport history in the newly founded ECSS. In the answers of several of the organizers it became obvious that they had not thought about sport history. So their final answer was “we do it like the American College of Sports Medicine.” The North American Society of Sport History (NASSH) had been the answer to this solution in the US. So for me it was clear that we had to set up a European sport history society just like NASSH in the US.
In previous times there had been two sport history societies, ICOSH as more eastern and socialist oriented, and HISPA as more western oriented. Almost all of their conferences had been in Europe. After the fall of the Iron Curtain, they merged to become ISHPES. While before there had been two annual international congresses to choose from, there now was only one. When the newly merged ISHPES had one of their annual conferences in South Africa and the one in the following year in China, I felt that one of the points of having such an organization in the first place was missing: Making International contacts and exposure available for the young scholars at the beginning of their career. I had five doctoral students in sports history and not the money to send one to either place. I could have gone myself, other university professors could have gone, but for doctoral students it was next to impossible.
Why the double structure with members and fellows?
Jochen Ruehl and I had some experience in writing statutes, so basically I wrote, Jochen checked, we translated the result to Angela who added some points, and if the three of use agreed that was it.
If one of the aims is to have annual meetings for the benefit of the young scholars, you are bound to have a certain degree of randomness at the annual assembly. To make sure that there was a certain degree of continuity we wanted to give the more established sports histories who identify with CESH a stronger role. To call this “Senate” a “College” and the members “Fellows” is also owned to the American model, the ECSS also calls the established sports scientists Fellows. At first, we also had a presidency of two years like ECSS or NASSH. What we did not regard sufficiently at the time, was that such a system requires a strong secretariat – which we did not have. So, prolonging the office of the president from 2 to 4 years was the logical consequence.
In terms of languages, we followed to European model: One language is as good as any other. This is only logical for the study of culture. If you use just one language, English in the case of the natural sciences, chance are that you lose many of the finer points in culture. On the other hand, the purpose of presenting your research internationally is making it known to a much wider audience than that of your own language area. Therefore, the researchers must be willing and capable to discuss their findings in major Europe languages like English and/or French.
Why did you become the Founding President?
In the preparatory meeting with Jochen and Angela, we had agreed that Jochen be the founding president. He had called the meeting, he had organized all of the previous sport history sessions in this context, he was the more senior of us – and I had plenty to do as Chair of the Sport Studies Department in Goettingen. At previous sport history sessions of this organization there had usually been 5 or 6 people present, in Bordeaux there were over forty. Jochen explained what we were proposing in English. We looked, however, into the blank faces of the (mostly French) people present. Then I asked in French who had understood what Jochen had said, and only very few hands went up, I asked who would not understand French, and only one hand went up. So, then I checked with Jochen who agreed that I should present everything in French. When everybody had agreed on the constitution and it structure, I proposed Jochen as the first president. The whole of the participants protested. Were they afraid that everything would be run in English in the future? Did they want a full professor? I wanted to get things started, Jochen did not object, and so I was elected.
Who came up with the name, motto, and the symbol?
In Bordeaux we came up with the name. There was ASH (Australia), NASSH (North America), so it ought to end on SH to fit in. ECSH is difficult to pronounce and was too similar to the ECSS, so we decided on CESH. We also hoped to get some cash from the European Union.
The symbol was drawn up in Rome by Angela with the technical help of her husband. I wanted to have the motto in Latin, proposed the banner in English, and two of my doctoral students who had studied and taught Latin put it into Latin. Shouldn’t the motto of a European learned society always be in Latin?
What helped in the development?
The survival of CESH depended on the success of the first congresses to assure that we were a vivid organization. In Bordeaux, a university faculty in Rome agreed to organize, CONI of the Scuola dello Sport offered its location as its place for the venue. When the Sport University pulled out, CONI maintained its pledge. Mario Gulinelli, in charge of the journal of CONI and culture, put us into the context of a series of national and international congress (30 days for 30 years) at the occasion of the 30th anniversary of the Scuola. Angela took over single handily the organization and Pasquale Bellotti, director of the school, liked our motto, after all that was why CONI had included culture into its programs all along. Rome was a big success. For the second conference in Katowice only ten months later, we again had to rely on connections and improvisation. But it worked because Janusz Slusarczyk, mountain historian in the department of sport tourism, dared to improvise and the Rector of the AWF Joachim Raczek who had been guest professor in Goettingen, supported us as good as he could. The 3rd congress in Copenhagen, then, was the first one which stuck out because of its organization and not improvisation. Else Trangbaek, Fellow n. 7, present at the first two congresses put in all of her experiences and the effort of her colleagues of the department to stage a congress well organized. Had we failed, CESH would not have survived. So, apart from the three original founders those who stuck out their necks to get CESH really started are highly to praise.
What are other characteristics of CESH?
We looked at other sport history organizations particularly NASSH. They have major annual key note addresses like the one commemorating Reed and Maxwell Howell. In Katowice we started with the Horst-Ueberhorst Honorary (after he had deceased Memorial) Address. Ueberhost had edited a 3,500-page world history of sport in which he brought together on an equal footing more than one hundred sports historians from all over the world on an equal footing. He was a key note speaker at the first Conference in Rome, Fellow no. 4. When you go to Katowice, Auschwitz is not far and needs to be visited. Prof. Geoge Eisen, one of the foremost scholars of sports and play in the Holocaust, delivered the first Ueberhorst address. Ueberhorst was present, and Eisen had been his student when Ueberhorst was guest professors in the US. Could we have had a better start?
One of the founding reasons for CESH was the possibility for young scholar to present their work. Again, we followed the lead of NASSH, and have competition(s) for the best junior paper. Although this is sometimes difficult as “junior” can mean different things in different countries, in the long run, this has worked well.
The international role of Conference Proceedings is declining. We tried to honour our promises in the Call for Papers. If we promised Proceedings they appeared. But journal articled with a solid peer review are becoming the standard. So, some of the proceedings of CESH congresses are worthwhile, while others are more like a book of abstracts. The final verdict as to what is best is not out yet.
Our first effort to have a CESH journal (Annual of CESH) was given up after six years. Jim Riordan and Swantje Scharenberg could not really keep up with the ever more standardized form of academic publishing with impact factors and peer reviews. Only when Daphné Bolz took charge, eventually brought in the Presses Universitaires de Rouen et du Havre, created and edited at time almost single handed European Studies in Sports History, we started to be really present at an international level.
How do you see the future of CESH?
CESH has done well over the years because it succeeded in making use of the changing possibilities of the different countries of Europe with their different cultures. Sport historiography had two roots, one in sports studies and one in the different forms of history (social, cultural, economic etc.) One of the problems of CESH from the very beginning was that it was rooted more in sports than in history. The more history departments recognize that sport (or a single sport like football) is a worthwhile field of study like in the UK and more and more in Germany the more CESH needs to get out of the dominance of sport studies and into a place where it is also of interest for historians. When we started CESH we had also hoped that it would be the basis of more European cooperation and funded by the EU. This would help to increase the viability of CESH. Important is the progress of sports historiography by no matter whom, in whatever language – and for this CESH is a good forum though not yet an actor.