Muscles, Men and Masculinity
Carrigan: Let me start by saying that I think this is a pretty great format for a discussion. It’s basically like our weird, two A.M. Facebook messenger chats about George Soros or colonialism.
Mark: But with less trash dove gifs.
Carrigan: [angry meathead noises]
Mark: Welcome to the first of two discussions about the physical and social implications of masculinity! Today we’re going to talk about some common aspects of traditional “manliness” and weightlifting, and analyze the politics and social forces behind them. We’re not experts on these topics, but we have a lot of opinions and sometimes make good jokes, so I’m sure it’ll be fine.
Carrigan: Let’s begin with the recent Jacobin article about bodybuilding. I don’t really lift for bodybuilding purposes, but I did connect with it a lot.
Mark: That article surprised me in a lot of ways — kind of a “I’ve felt similar things but didn’t realize exactly what they were”. I thought it was rather generous to the morals and values behind lifting, but everyone’s got different reasons.
Carrigan: For sure. Positioning every meathead as some sort of subversive figure seems like a stretch, but I think the article had a lot of truth to it. Jacobin’s cultural writing is really uneven so I’m happy to see a topic I‘m invested in written about so well. Repositioning lifting as a form of labor makes a lot of sense; it is, after all, simply difficult physical work. It exposes the often unfair ways in which unpaid labor is treated differently from paid labor. If you’re making money, you have a job and it’s something to be proud of. If you don’t, it’s a hobby. In my head, I think of a writer working on a novel. When their writing doesn’t generate income it’s frivolous, but as soon as they get a book deal or an advance, they become a professional. The labor hasn’t changed, but the perception of it has.
Actually, the better metaphor would be a housewife not making money for the work she does around the home. The point that work without capital isn’t taken seriously is a very serious one.
Mark: Yeah, it’s a useful viewpoint for considering how we’ve separated work from reward. The concept of “retaking the fruit of one’s labor” is interesting; I can’t decide if it’s just a flat socialist rejection of capitalism’s labor policies, or a roundabout way of coming back to Randian self-achievement — when you lift, you’re literally entitled to the sweat of your brow.
Carrigan: I think you can really have either mindset and make the same gainz. My major critique of the anticapitalist view would be the cost associated with lifting. Between gym memberships, supplements, potentially a trainer, meal plans. I know I’ve broken the bank on getting big, and costs only increase in bodybuilding, where you have to pay for tanning beds and whatever else.
Mark: There’s definitely a kind of subversive capitalism that sprung up around the lifting subculture, even for casuals like myself — chains like GNC and Vitamin Shoppe fill a specialized niche, peddling all sorts of strange pills and powders. The prices on some items can get pretty high, though a fair amount of that is just selling bullshit — optimistic multivitamins, snake oil hormone pills. But whey protein & (effective) supplements alone can turn into a sizable chunk of cash, which feels slightly counter to the reclaimed labor aspect mentioned above.
On an unrelated note, did you know that taking a special pre-workout energy drink mix can increase physical performance by up to 23%? Because I didn’t, but now I’m addicted to caffeine, and I don’t drink coffee.
Carrigan: Before I switched to non-stimulant pre-workout, I’m pretty sure I was getting almost a gram of caffeine.
Mark: I always have to explain to my friends who take it for the first time — yes, your face is itching underneath the skin. But it’s a good itch.
Carrigan: I wonder how cynical the people making these supplements are. I think there’s a difference between a member of the subculture making a supplement and some faceless corporate machine. Then again, I get most of my supps from GNC, and they’re a publicly traded company…
Mark: I mean, a lot of the heavy lifters take their own mix of coffee and a few supplemental pills instead of shelling out <$1 per serving for store-bought concoctions. But who am I to disagree with the combined recommendations of 9 out of 10 scientists?
Carrigan: I’m still interested in this question of why people lift, especially men. I’m sure there are people who started working out for reasons other than anti-capitalism.
Mark: Let’s look at advertising — it can be a good indicator of individual motivations, since ads are aimed at what we desire or fear. You don’t see “Seize the means of production” in gym advertisements — that’s more for Bernie rallies. What you do see is “Work out here and lose that beer belly!” “Get shredded for summer!” and other body image stuff. But I’ve yet to see a gym advertisement that says “Studies have shown that heavy anaerobic exercise increases bone density, cognitive performance and heart health throughout life”. That sells less than the promise of a sexy body, because we apparently love having sex more than being alive.
[Carrigan: I know I do. But yeah, those absurd Equinox ads come to mind. Most gyms, and all commercial gyms, sell an experience rather than a product. For Planet Fitness, it’s a place to avoid gym culture (we’ll come back to why this is elitist later). For Equinox, it’s paying a lot of money to be… sexy? Or something? I’m not sure, but the ads are effective.
Mark: Different kinds of gyms sell different fantasies — we’ll go more into the variations next time, but for now we can look at the basic idea of “guys come here to become more guy”.
Carrigan: If by “more guy” you mean “more of me now exists” then yes, it worked. Society has interesting views on men’s muscles — they’re way more lax than our collective expectations for women’s bodies, but it’s important to note that a lot of guys exercise for social recognition, because they know, to some extent, they’ll get it. Look at Instagram fitness accounts. You’re probably not going to get rich through sponsors, but you’re gonna get a lot of likes for those abs.
Mark: Social validation is definitely a factor, but I suspect there’s all kinds of subtle distinctions inlaid with muscles and social status. This article from Pacific Standard highlights that.
Carrigan: I love that article and I’m really glad you showed it to me.
Mark: It made me pretty sad — the author found an activity that he enjoyed, made friends and gave him a sense of fulfilment and well-being, but was pressured into giving it up. I might just be biased — I believe that a muscular body isn’t necessarily a disqualification to be a working professional.
I do wonder exactly how the guy looked as he gained muscle, because I’m convinced that society draws a definite line between handsome, aesthetically fit men and large powerlifters — you could take Steve Rogers to a dinner party, but not the Hulk. Muscly men with low body fat are generally loved — the kind of guys on the cover of romance novels. My male-interested friends went nuts about Hemsworth’s shirtless scenes in Thor.
Carrigan: Men get a lot of mixed messages. The ideal male body has become more unattainable in recent years. The ideal female body has been unattainable for decades, of course, but the switch toward goofy action movie bodies has been harmful for men. Did you know that over half of college age men now consider themselves underweight?
Mark: If I was a med student I could talk about fat percentages and actual health indicators, but there’s certainly a divide between the average guy and the ideal he sees on television. It breeds body dysmorphia, the same affliction of the female ideal, but in the opposite direction. It’s constructive instead of reductive, but can still be destructive.
Back to the article — The whole “wife loves me less for lifting” part is initially worrisome, but it’s not uncommon for people to feel differently about spouses that undergo dramatic body changes — normally you hear it about men or women gaining fat, not muscle, but the phenomenon is still there. I’m not sure how to feel about the author’s friends, or the class-judgement argument Carl Stempel makes. The propositions make sense, especially considering our natural tendencies to divide large parts of our lives along class lines.
Carrigan: The whole read was fascinating to me. I think it really ties in with Szetela’s discussion of Taylorism. In particular, he discusses modern workers experiencing “a feeling of separation from one’s body”. Personally, I like working out in part because it helps me feel more in control of and connected with my body. This idea of “duality”, coined by Descartes but dating back to the Greeks, is really crap. What’s good for the body is good for the mind, and vice versa.
In a late capitalist society, our bodies are defined by our social standing. It’s a pretty abstract concept, the idea of a physical self conforming to social class, but Duane has some great images that make this really concrete. The “banker with soft hands”, the “skinny triathlete” with his “visor, fancy sunglasses, GPS watch.” I love the description of the triathlete because it ties status symbols with his prefered method of working out. There’s a class divide here. Lifting heavy weight is gauche.
Mark: That’s the key. Like a lot of social image things, you want to appear successful without looking like you tried too hard — this applies heavily to lifting, because it’s not an activity that has an obvious immediate benefit to non-physical work. There’s an odd assumption that a heavily trained body can’t carry a well trained mind (although statistics might redeem that notion).
Carrigan: We’re not all Gaston. We just want to look like we are. Anyway, returning to Planet Fitness — the “lunks” and other stereotypes that pervade their advertisements could conceivably be, in this analysis, elitist imaginings. These people are threatening. Which, to be honest, makes it that much better for me.
Mark: And with that, we go back to this Grecian notion that large hulking muscles and overt masculinity is vulgar, barbaric — a pastime pursued by the simple-minded plebians. I never really considered the nuances of this idea, but it does make some sense: the dominant social class is the extended 1% — not just uber-millionaires but the general top of society, corporate managers, media socialites and politicians, people with connections. They generally spend a lot of their lives doing (mentally) strenuous white-collar work, but have large amounts of disposable income to spend on leisure and health.
This is just my guess as an outsider, but I would imagine they don’t have anything to prove. People who can afford most things are going to be healthier and happier than the rest of the population — I’d guess they’re more concerned with maintaining a “smart, don’t-try-too-hard-but-still-look-great” appearance, because they already have fiscal and social power. I really can’t think of that many wealthy guys who are also completely yoked — the rich muscular people I can name are all actors, who need a certain body for their roles.
Carrigan: I guess it’s not too surprising that our increasingly divided society is even segregated by workout routines. It’s a two way street; the muscle freaks are just as contemptuous of the cardio people as the opposite. It’s how you get people who think running on a treadmill is “soft” and constantly repeat the “cardio kills gains” meme without irony.
Mark: That’s where they’re wrong; I use the treadmill regularly. For sprints. Because only aerobic cardio kills gains.
Carrigan: You’re actually a plebian.
Next time, we’ll delve deeper into gender roles, social performativity and what it really means to be a “man” in today’s world. Stay tuned for more moderately interesting analysis!
