The Consumerist Church of Fitness Classes
theatlantic.com
theatlantic.com
Okay, that's crazy talk. That's the role that clubs have always had.
"Exercise classes often function just as much like a church as they do like a gym: They gather people into a community, and give them a ritual to perform..."
We can say the same thing about square dancing in the mid-20th century. Or going to your local bar. Or quilting bee. Or .. you get the idea.
"“I think I’ve figured out what [people are] really drawn to, and that’s the community aspect of it"
That's almost exactly what my salsa teacher said is the reason that people take salsa lessons.
Only, without the "better, harder, faster, and more" emphasis.
Yet only one activity is given: exercising together. The span of rituals doesn't apply to life changes such as birth, puberty, pair-bonding, death, etc. The span of shared values doesn't reach morality, communication, family life, money habits, ecological stance, etc. It's only about time and money for a fitter body.
As far as promoting capitalism? Also strained. yes, you pay to take the class, just as one pays for any activity. That is certainly consumerist, yet consumerist is not always capitalist. There are no activities promoting usury, group ownership, abdication of responsibility through legal entities, or even markets which are features of capitalist society. And these are the features of capitalism we ought to be critiquing. These are its harmful facets. Paying to take part in an activity isn't leading us to feudalism, lifetime indebtedness, massive inequality in quality of life. It's a distraction and underestimation to indict exercise classes when there are real robber barons out there.
As far as "mimics the form of religious services?" I don't see the invocation, offering, the sermon, the reading of traditional literature. Sure there is special clothing and music, but like you say, same with square dancing and, hell, almost any human social activity.
> "often subtly discourages people who are overweight [...] from attending.
Seriously? The entire marketing propganda can be summarized as "get fit!" which implies the consumer is overweight.
I think the author is struggling between making observations and reading too much into things that aren't there without spending enough time in the everyday.
A church is a community. A fitness club is a community.
All communities have hierarchy and social roles.
Not every community is a church. Not every community is a fitness club.
That's not really an argument against what the article says...
My argument is that this is not "a new form of community building" but rather one which has been around for a long time. The article instead circles a relatively recent trend, and claims it's special. But nothing in the argument couldn't have been applied, say, 130 years ago to the then-new trend of cycling enthusiasts.
In addition, I see no reason to believe it's connected to a recent "[move] away from organized religion".
> As more Americans have moved away from organized religion (a 2015 Pew Center study found that 23 percent of the adult population identified as “religiously unaffiliated,” up from 16 percent in 2007) they have also moved toward new forms of community building,
The growth in "religiously unaffiliated" is relatively recent. That is, http://www.atheismandthecity.com/2016/10/number-of-religious... shows it was around 5% from 1972 to 1992.
That's too small of a percentage to explain the large number of social clubs, including or especially clubs like Lions, Freemasons, Odd-Fellows, Elks. I say "especially" because some viewed them as pseudo-religious organizations. (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odd_Fellows .) Freemasons definitely have more rituals than the gyms the article was talking about.
Finally, the US has had neither a constant nor monotonic move away from organized religion. Compare the deism and skeptical rationalism of the late 1700s with the Second Great Awakening of the early 1800s.
Nothing new here. Consumerism has been questioned by most religions and philosophies. (for good reasons.)
> And meeting people in your community while getting healthy is also frowned upon
I remembered when I moved to the US from Europe, I was surprised to see how fitness was such a huge industry. In my country, we tended to practice sport in some types of non-profit associations. (even though US-style gyms are on the rise.)
I liked this much better than going to the hassle of dealing with membership fees and an agressive commercial structure. In particular, it was also much more friendly than your regular gym. Students stayed on average much longer than in a gym, and they were involved in running the structure.
Churches are much more communal in my experience, it's not unlikely to end up drinking coffee and chatting with people, while at a gym, people often go in, do their workout, and go out.
Too much cult like for me though
(Though I think CrossFit does a lot of things right, like no endless boring "cardio" exercises and having actual strength training)
Anecdotally, the fittest elders I meet who do office work are those who run and cycle or do other cardio activities.
I'd say Crossfit's whole liturgy is to interleave aerobics with some weights. Like a circuit of box jumps, a lap around the block, and power cleans.
Others (such as the one I use) are a lot more informal and use the WODs and such as examples and suggestions for workouts, and are very good at scaling the routines for those of us with a bit more mass to heft around. The "fittest on Earth, no room for weaklings" thing may be appealing to some people, but it also raises the bar for entry needlessly high.
I think most affiliates are like mine or yours these days. Supporting competitive athletes but overall focussed on serving the broader population.
I'm not saying you can't make friends at a gym, but churches are generally many magnitudes stronger in this department and I wouldn't say gyms replace them much at all.
Churches generally cover a much wider range of experience and you can talk about all of it. Churches allow you to get philosophical. Churches often have participation in making food and provide food over which people can converse. Gyms mostly focus on the nature of the exercise. So if it's a Crossfit gym, you get really into Crossfit. You don't get into other facets of your life that much, I imagine. You might make friends with whom you talk about those other facets, but that's not the same thing, that's just usual making friends through a shared activity.
I haven't been to Crossfit in particular, but I have been to a few club gyms and that was my experience. Not a place where I could talk about the meaning of life or about various problems. But surely a place I could talk lots about the $exerciseStyle.
In a church, you might not even necessarily make friends, it's more that you can just talk to people about open topics and it's expected.
No, but Synagogues and to be honest, I never bonded with that community to the extent as I've made lifelong, deep friendships in CF.
> I haven't been to Crossfit in particular
Then you can't really compare. CF is different from many "club gyms" and others. Maybe its the insane, shared intensity that creates a deep, primal bond (think bootcamp, going to war, etc). Maybe its the militant focus on constant improvement and mutual support. Maybe its the nature of being in a group of like-minded, type-As who all share a welcoming view towards discomfort. Not sure, but I've seen the bonds that it creates, and its nothing like the other club gyms. My source for that is members who've come from Barrys, OTF, etc.
"Today we really can preserve ourselves for a much longer time. The means of preservation are reliable and cheap. The haste to live one's mortal life diminishes. The temptation toward perpetual preservation grows. We preserve the living corpse in an optimal state, not so we may do something with it, but for its own good feelings of eternal fitness, confidence, and safety. We hoard our capital to earn interest, and subsist each day on crusts of bread. But no one will inherit our good health after we've gone. The hours of life maintenance vanish with the person."
I'd post a link, but I don't think a public one exists. You can read the whole essay in his "Against Everything" compilation.
A more nuanced critque might consider whether some forms of exercise have a higher cost than their reward (e.g. they are really boring or expensive).
Lifting for me is almost a sort of meditation. I don't listen to music and I'm extremely conscience of my breathing. This probably sounds silly, but in the thick of it it's almost like I'm having a conversation with my body. I'm exerting so much force the only thing my brain can think is "am I activating the right muscles? can I safely do another rep?" There's something magical about the last rep slow grind, it's like a drug. The gym is the best part of my day hands down. There's something to be said about a consistent progression path as well.
Running is alright too. It's not anywhere near as fun as lifting for me, and the first 5 minutes is annoying, but once I'm in the zone I enjoy it. I only log 3 or 4 3.5 mile sessions a week though. FWIW it took me a long time to be in decent enough shape to enjoy running.
I took fitness classes for awhile and taught them for 10 years. Most organized fitness classes except for cycling were so choreographed that you could never get in the zone because you had to spend so much time thinking about what to do next and keeping up with the instructor.
I found the people taking the classes to be so judgemental at the higher end clubs and corporate clubs. They would not take classes if the person teaching didn't "look" like an instructor. I didn't look like the typical instructor - I was short muscular and aggressive. But that was a benefit.
That aside, I agree with the ritual and community observation. But the music is so awful I drifted away to the weight room. Yeah, I do a 5x5 program (on an iPhone app) which is very simple to follow but the lifting itself is quite meditative. I was surprised.
A lot of the women didn't want to work hard. They just wanted to have "fun".
I got a pass from students because I was a male and they didn't expect me to be dancing and prancing across the stage. I had people said they were going to try my class because "I looked like I would give a good workout". That was when I first started and I really sucked when it came to the fundamentals.
I think the author touches on a fair point, people want to push themselves harder than they should, but it's not going to kill you and your body is going to put a stop to it whether you like it or not. Seems to me author is just generally naive about fitness.
I get what they're saying. It's dumb to restrict spirituality and even "religion" to certain institutions.
Even hearing Angels is not necessarily very religious (and of course, we may hear a lot of things with chemical help ...).
Spirituality is a personal, intellectual, possibly experiential thing.
Religion often entails cultural overhead, community, and generally a lot of work: those who have had the opportunity to 'see angels' have the responsibility of then promoting their new understanding in the world, living as examples to others yada yada, i.e. it's mostly hard work and heavy cross-bearing, i.e. 1% inspiration (seeing angels) and 99% perspiration (being a good person, which is hard).
Exactly. I've been saying this for years to anyone who asks me if I'm religious. I say "no, but I am spiritual". I reject the notion that God takes attendance every Sunday and doesn't like me eating meat on Fridays. I also find zero need for organized religion. Spirituality is something different.
But, hey, if the religious thing works for other people, then have at it. It doesn't work for me, but maybe it does for them.
Spirituality doesn't require religion, just as getting in shape doesn't require a gym membership or a group class.
Maybe you missed my point?
I'm kind of saying spirituality is easy, less practical part. :)
The 'work' of spirituality is hard. It's often done through religion.
Crazy point: those who 'religious and attend services' are least likely to commit crimes, but those who are 'spiritual but not religious' commit the most! Sorry no reference. Point being, we are creatures of habit, and action speaks louder than words.
I guess there is a lot of theological debate about whether or not it's more important to 'have faith' which is a matter of spirituality, or to 'go to church and be a good person' ...
I go to the gym to work out but it also relieves stress as I often enter my flow state and am very meditative. I find its very easy to think once you're working out very hard and entering a routine. I also find thinking about developing new features keeps me semi-distracted from all my physical tiredness and keeps me going.
In many ways, theres a spirtual dependence on the gym for me.