Hacker News Reader

Comment by eesmith | Hacker News Reader

What the ...

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.

View on HN

You're exactly right. the metaphor is strained through repeated, unsubstantiated invocations of "ritual, ritual ritual."

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.

To your point— sport clubs were popular in the Soviet Union: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntary_Sports_Societies_of_...

Exactly. I think the author may have misplaced the supertype.

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.

Indeed, when I skimmed the article, my first thought was: "This is not wholly unlike playing in a band."

Gym has a bit more physical penitence going for it. There is a sense of real bonding that happens to people who suffer together.

Have you played a musical instrument? It is very physically demanding if you are challenging yourself.

Oh don't think for a second that people in bands aren't suffering in several ways.

> Just play the feckin' note!!!

>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.

That's not really an argument against what the article says...

The article says "As more Americans have moved away from organized religion ... they have also moved toward new forms of community building, as well as new ways to seek mental clarity and spiritual experiences."

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".

The move away from organized religion isn't recent, it's been ongoing in America for well over a century (probably since before the founding); the trend toward new forms of community building and new avenues toward spirituality and mental clarity that accompanies it is likewise not recent, but equally old.

The implication in the article was that it was a recent change:

> 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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com