Ha Ha I was wondering if anyone was going to mention Foucault, far more apt for this type of question than Habermas. Katie puts it so well by saying that gyms are a "weird vortex of semi-private culture," and I think Foucault can shed far more light on why her evaluation fits than Habermas can.
First, one can look at the social place of privately owned commercial gyms (as opposed to an at-home gym or equivalent space) and question why they exist in the first place. It isn't just a question of "why do certain activities and not others happen inside gyms?" but rather "why do these types of gyms exist?" A gym like Virgin Active (with its high membership costs, opulent facilities, and well-trained staff) can certainly be said to cater to certain groups and not others while serving multiple purposes besides those directly related to personal health.
But I'm not sure Foucault would care so much about arbitrary Marxist distinctions of class (who does or does not gain entry) since theoretically anyone can do so, which is why, in exploring a question such as this--it's more or less the same with nightclubs--we need to abandon notions of the public/private binary and its baggage. Gyms (this type, anyway) are best thought of in terms of "space," "gaze," and "bodies."
Taking this in stride, its important to remember that gyms do far more than provide a space to do, for example, yoga or weight lifting.
Besides activities directly related to personal health, gyms function as a test, or gauge if you like, of the State's control over the individual. The more obvious answer to the above question would be "Gyms exist to ensure personal health and physical fitness." This is very true, but one surely cannot deny that a healthy population--especially one that can afford a membership to Virgin Active--ensures better economic production from which the State obviously benefits. Much of what is discussed below functions, however subtlety, to support these dual elements of gym existence and their embedded presence within our culture. Similarly, gyms are yet another space that one goes before going home, thus creating a space from which the individual can be monitored and possibly observed.
When at a gym, each body has its own space and function within that space. When you're on the rowing machine, you're rowing, isolating specific muscles and only doing so for a specific about of time. Besides space, then, time is also managed: you are allowed only a certain amount of time rowing. Why? Because you want a workout that maximizes efficiency: the least amount of time for the most amount of action, which ensures that others can do the same. These--in addition to the already mentioned "observation"--are classic techniques of discipline; these are the fundamental elements around which our modern society is constructed that date back to the early 17th century and first appeared in the barracks, hospitals, and finally, schools.
Gyms are part of discourse on personal well-being, which makes them a distinct part of the medical profession from both the applied and academic perspectives. "Working out" is a specific manifestation of bio-power, a set of actions (exercise, yoga, weight-lifting) designed to target specific parts of the body (parts the medical profession suggests must be exercised, and of course, exercised in the right way) which in turn effect individual behavior to the point of internalizing certain social norms and not others.
It doesn't matter that you have "free reign" in determining what exercises you do while working out, the important points here are that A.) you are working out in the first place and B.) any exercise you choose to do has already been selected for you by someone else.
Think of the gym as it exists in "collective conscience," in discourse. Discourse shapes the way we see others and ourselves; this is where "gaze" (in part) comes into the picture. The word “gaze” is in a sense misleading, as it implies that it belongs to a particular someone. But this gaze cannot reside with one person or institution; it is taken as both blind and omnipresent: a means of managing subjects through various institutional spaces, in addition to the subject’s own appropriation of the gaze in the evaluation of her behavior. This is one way that anything that could be called a status quo in terms of behavior is established and communicated. This is largely where ideas of image, ideas of self-worth (those relating to "the self" and to "society"), and generally, ideas of what constitutes "normal" come from. Never mind the fact that "normal" is simply a setting on a washing machine.
All these particulars of gym existence come together at an immediate level--to finally and directly address it as an activity--while actually "doing yoga." The considerations of space and time should be fairly clear here: you do not move outside of your space, and you are in each position for a given time. One aspect of this scenario not mentioned earlier was the position of your position: where in the room you are. I guarantee that wherever you are, you can see the teacher and the teacher can see you (monitoring, observation, and distribution of bodies).
Let's explore gaze and body, though. Try wearing men's clothing while doing yoga; better yet, try being a man in a yoga class. You don't actually have to experience either of these things without immediately sensing that both are somehow "wrong." Why? Because there are standards of expectation communicated and internalized by the social gaze and exacerbated by the male and female gazes. When they are broken, or treaded upon, this is a form of resistance to the type of power exerted at the service of an institution within a managed space. That explains, in part, the feelings of awkwardness or vulnerability.
Taking it further, why do both men and women wear (semi-) sluttish clothing while at gyms yet (usually) avoid anything more than quick glances? The former, to show off: for the alphas it’s very much (and this is perhaps too much of a generalization from my own horizon of expectation, to use a Gadamerian term) about boasting, about attracting some sort of mate (sexual or not). The latter works to maintain proper external standards of decency and modesty while also working in the same way for internal self-image. Think also of the ubiquitous presence of mirrors. Mirrors in this context can act as a metaphor for the entire process as described.
This last point leads me to a fundamental observation about gyms: they are without a doubt areas of complex performativity and therefore exist as spaces where there can be no such thing as privacy. This is not just a comment about gyms, but one concerning the dubious nature of the concept, which is why we left that public/private binary behind. While at the gym, you are constantly performing, internalizing, and projecting specific standards of behavior due to the unique place "gyms" hold within the broader social strata. You are always performing/watching in a manner unique to gyms, even if you were to be completely alone within the space because the "norms" constructed through the various mechanisms discussed above are internalized through those same mechanisms. It's really quite circular. This brings us back to the wider picture and our first question, "Why do gyms exist?" Gyms are a way in which individuals are turned into subjects, docile bodies. Gyms are another means through which power/knowledge works to appropriate, mold, and construct the subject at the will of the State. Without a doubt it is one of those spaces in our society that, whether there are CCTV cameras or not, “you” are being watched and constructed.
This is by no means exhaustive; one could say a great deal about yoga as performance, behavior of betas, or about gyms as centers of sexual activity. In any case, this was such a great break from reading about Cortot.
© Michael Migliore, 2011.
First, one can look at the social place of privately owned commercial gyms (as opposed to an at-home gym or equivalent space) and question why they exist in the first place. It isn't just a question of "why do certain activities and not others happen inside gyms?" but rather "why do these types of gyms exist?" A gym like Virgin Active (with its high membership costs, opulent facilities, and well-trained staff) can certainly be said to cater to certain groups and not others while serving multiple purposes besides those directly related to personal health.
But I'm not sure Foucault would care so much about arbitrary Marxist distinctions of class (who does or does not gain entry) since theoretically anyone can do so, which is why, in exploring a question such as this--it's more or less the same with nightclubs--we need to abandon notions of the public/private binary and its baggage. Gyms (this type, anyway) are best thought of in terms of "space," "gaze," and "bodies."
Taking this in stride, its important to remember that gyms do far more than provide a space to do, for example, yoga or weight lifting.
Besides activities directly related to personal health, gyms function as a test, or gauge if you like, of the State's control over the individual. The more obvious answer to the above question would be "Gyms exist to ensure personal health and physical fitness." This is very true, but one surely cannot deny that a healthy population--especially one that can afford a membership to Virgin Active--ensures better economic production from which the State obviously benefits. Much of what is discussed below functions, however subtlety, to support these dual elements of gym existence and their embedded presence within our culture. Similarly, gyms are yet another space that one goes before going home, thus creating a space from which the individual can be monitored and possibly observed.
When at a gym, each body has its own space and function within that space. When you're on the rowing machine, you're rowing, isolating specific muscles and only doing so for a specific about of time. Besides space, then, time is also managed: you are allowed only a certain amount of time rowing. Why? Because you want a workout that maximizes efficiency: the least amount of time for the most amount of action, which ensures that others can do the same. These--in addition to the already mentioned "observation"--are classic techniques of discipline; these are the fundamental elements around which our modern society is constructed that date back to the early 17th century and first appeared in the barracks, hospitals, and finally, schools.
Gyms are part of discourse on personal well-being, which makes them a distinct part of the medical profession from both the applied and academic perspectives. "Working out" is a specific manifestation of bio-power, a set of actions (exercise, yoga, weight-lifting) designed to target specific parts of the body (parts the medical profession suggests must be exercised, and of course, exercised in the right way) which in turn effect individual behavior to the point of internalizing certain social norms and not others.
It doesn't matter that you have "free reign" in determining what exercises you do while working out, the important points here are that A.) you are working out in the first place and B.) any exercise you choose to do has already been selected for you by someone else.
Think of the gym as it exists in "collective conscience," in discourse. Discourse shapes the way we see others and ourselves; this is where "gaze" (in part) comes into the picture. The word “gaze” is in a sense misleading, as it implies that it belongs to a particular someone. But this gaze cannot reside with one person or institution; it is taken as both blind and omnipresent: a means of managing subjects through various institutional spaces, in addition to the subject’s own appropriation of the gaze in the evaluation of her behavior. This is one way that anything that could be called a status quo in terms of behavior is established and communicated. This is largely where ideas of image, ideas of self-worth (those relating to "the self" and to "society"), and generally, ideas of what constitutes "normal" come from. Never mind the fact that "normal" is simply a setting on a washing machine.
All these particulars of gym existence come together at an immediate level--to finally and directly address it as an activity--while actually "doing yoga." The considerations of space and time should be fairly clear here: you do not move outside of your space, and you are in each position for a given time. One aspect of this scenario not mentioned earlier was the position of your position: where in the room you are. I guarantee that wherever you are, you can see the teacher and the teacher can see you (monitoring, observation, and distribution of bodies).
Let's explore gaze and body, though. Try wearing men's clothing while doing yoga; better yet, try being a man in a yoga class. You don't actually have to experience either of these things without immediately sensing that both are somehow "wrong." Why? Because there are standards of expectation communicated and internalized by the social gaze and exacerbated by the male and female gazes. When they are broken, or treaded upon, this is a form of resistance to the type of power exerted at the service of an institution within a managed space. That explains, in part, the feelings of awkwardness or vulnerability.
Taking it further, why do both men and women wear (semi-) sluttish clothing while at gyms yet (usually) avoid anything more than quick glances? The former, to show off: for the alphas it’s very much (and this is perhaps too much of a generalization from my own horizon of expectation, to use a Gadamerian term) about boasting, about attracting some sort of mate (sexual or not). The latter works to maintain proper external standards of decency and modesty while also working in the same way for internal self-image. Think also of the ubiquitous presence of mirrors. Mirrors in this context can act as a metaphor for the entire process as described.
This last point leads me to a fundamental observation about gyms: they are without a doubt areas of complex performativity and therefore exist as spaces where there can be no such thing as privacy. This is not just a comment about gyms, but one concerning the dubious nature of the concept, which is why we left that public/private binary behind. While at the gym, you are constantly performing, internalizing, and projecting specific standards of behavior due to the unique place "gyms" hold within the broader social strata. You are always performing/watching in a manner unique to gyms, even if you were to be completely alone within the space because the "norms" constructed through the various mechanisms discussed above are internalized through those same mechanisms. It's really quite circular. This brings us back to the wider picture and our first question, "Why do gyms exist?" Gyms are a way in which individuals are turned into subjects, docile bodies. Gyms are another means through which power/knowledge works to appropriate, mold, and construct the subject at the will of the State. Without a doubt it is one of those spaces in our society that, whether there are CCTV cameras or not, “you” are being watched and constructed.
This is by no means exhaustive; one could say a great deal about yoga as performance, behavior of betas, or about gyms as centers of sexual activity. In any case, this was such a great break from reading about Cortot.
© Michael Migliore, 2011.
